بررسی قاعده ی رد ادله در دادگاه های کیفری بین المللی یوگسلاوی سابق و روآندا

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق جزا و جرم شناسی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت

3 استادیار گروه حقوق بین الملل، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت

چکیده

اهمیت حفظ عدالت دادرسی، نظام­های مختلف عدالت کیفری را واداشته است تا مقررات ویژه­ای برای تضمین حقوق متهم تعبیه کنند. قاعده­ی ردّ ادله یکی از شدیدترین ضمانت اجراهای این مقررات است که باعث عدم امکان استناد به ادله­ حاصل از طرق غیرمجاز می­شود. دادگاه­های کیفری بین­المللی یوگسلاوی و روآندا وظیفه­ تعقیب مرتکبین شنیع­ترین جرائم را به عهده دارند و سؤال این است که با وجود این مطلب قاعده­ ردّ ادله چه جایگاهی می­تواند در مقررات دادرسی دادگاه­های مذکور داشته باشد. در واقع، هدف اصلی این مقاله تبیین مفهوم و قلمرو قاعده­ ردّ ادله در مقررات دادرسی دادگاه­های مذکور و راهکار آن‌ها در ایجاد توازن بین حقوق متهم و بزه دیده در مواجه با ادله­ فاسد است. مطالعه­ مقررات دادرسی و رویه قضایی دادگاه‌های مذکور بیانگر این است که قاعده ردّ ادله­ تحصیل شده از طرق غیرمجاز همواره به بی­اعتباری نمی­انجامد، بلکه چنین نتیجه­ای مستلزم تحقق یکی از شروط اطمینان ناپذیری یا به مخاطره افتادن درستی دادرسی است. شروط مذکور که احراز آن‌ها نیز به عهده­ قضات است، به قاعده­ ردّ ادله­ خاصیت اختیاری اعطا و قلمرو آن را تا حدود زیادی محدود کرده است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Examining theExclusionary Rule of Evidence in International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda

نویسندگان [English]

  • simindokht daryabeygy 1
  • Mojtaba Janipour 2
  • Mahin sobhani 3
1 MA. in Criminal Law and criminology, Humanity Faculty, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2 Asociate Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
3 Assistant Professor of international Law, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
چکیده [English]

The importance of maintaining the fairness of proceedings and protecting the rights of the accused have led various criminal justice systems to provide for special rules to the effect of ensuring fair trial . The exclusionary rule of evidence is one of the most important  safeguards-provisions of these regulations, which makes it impossible to cite evidence obtained in an unauthorized manner in the court. Despite the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, bear the task of prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes, they have not  overlooked the rights of the accused. According to Art 95 of rules of procedure and evidence of ICTR and ICTY, the exclusion of evidence obtained through unauthorized methods does not necessarily lead to exclusion of evidence, except when the methods used to obtain evidence cast substantial doubt on reliability of evidence or damage the integrity of the proceedings. The conditions set forth in this article, which their authenication have been granted to the discretion of judges, gives the rule an optional nature and restricts its scope to some extent. This solution is the result of international criminal tribunals' efforts in striking a balance between the rights of the accused and victim which with all its ambiguity in drawing the scope of the rule has been adopted by the ICC.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Exclusionary Rule of Evidence
  • Criminal proceedings
  • Confession
  • Torture
  • Search
الف. فارسی

تدین، عباس، (1387)، «نظریه­ی بطلان دلیل در فرایند دادرسی کیفری (با تأکید بر حقوق فرانسه»، تحقیقات حقوقی آزاد، دوره 2، شماره 3، 94-76

زراعت، عباس، (1390)، بطلان در آیین دادرسی کیفری، تهران، نشر میزان

صبوری پور، مهدی، (1394)، «قاعده­ی رد ادله در حقوق ایالات متحده و مقایسه­ی آن با ضمانت اجراهای مشابه در حقوق ایران»، آموزه­های حقوق کیفری، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی، شماره 9، 129-154

فرجیها، محمد و محمدباقر مقدسی، (1387)، «رویکرد تطبیقی به قاعده­ی معتبر ناشناختن ادله در نظام عدالت کیفری کامن­لا و ایران»، فصلنامه­ی مدرس علوم انسانی، دوره 12، شماره 3، 113-144

مؤذن زادگان، حسنعلی و سهیل مقدم، سحر (1395)، «قاعده­ی بطلان دلیل در دادرسی کیفری (با تأکید بر حقوق آمریکا)»، مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم شناسی دانشگاه تهران، دوره 3، شماره 2، 51-81

 

ب. انگلیسی

Alamuddin, Amal, (2010), Collection of Evidence, In Khan K, Buisman C, Gosnell C (eds.) “Principles of Evidence in International Criminal Justice”. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 231–305

Ambos, Kai, (2003), International Criminal Procedure: Adversarial, Inquisitorial or mixed?, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 1-37

Beller, Brian, (2003), A Comparative Study of Exclusion of Evidence on the Grounds of the Means by which it was Obtained, Case Western Reserve University Scholl of Law International War Crimes Project, Iss. 14

Boas, Gideon, et al, (2011), “International Criminal Procedure, New York, Cambridge University Press.

Brooke, David Anthony, (1999), “Confessions, Illegally-Improperly Obtained Evidence and Entrapment under The Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984: Changing Judicial and Public Attitudes to The Police and Criminal Investigations”, PHD. Thesis, University of London

Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945.

Choo, Andrew and Susan Nash, (2007), Improperly Obtained Evidence in the Commonwealth, The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, Vol. 11, pp. 75-105

Choo, Andrew, (2013), England and Wales: Fair Trial Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence, In Thaman, C. Stephen, Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, iusgentium, Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Vol. 20, pp. 331-354

Cryer, Robert, et al, (2010), “An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure”, Second edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Einarsdottir, KatrinOlof, (2010), Comparing the Rules of Evidence Applicable Before the ICTY, ICTR and the ICC, Meistararitgerðtil Mag. Jur. prófs í lögfræði

Hsieh, Kuo-Hsing, (2014), “The Exclusionary Rule of Evidence: A Comparative Analysis and Proposals for Reform”, AshgatePublishing, International and Comparative Criminal Justice Series, England, available at www.ashgate.com

International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 1946

Keane, Adrian, McKeown, Paul, (2011), “The modern law of evidence”, 9th edition, Oxford University press, London

Madden, Micael, (2014), “The Exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court”, Master of Law Thesis, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada

Mellifont, Kerri Anne, (2007), Australian Exclusionary Rule, DSc. Thesis on Juridical Science, Queensland University of Technology

Rajamae, Heidi, (2011), “Legality of a Contractual Waiver of Human Rights in the European context”, Master Thesis in International Human Right Law, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Roach, Kent, (1999), Four Models of Criminal Process, Journal of Criminal Law and criminology, Vol. 89, Iss. 2, pp. 671-716

Schabas, William A., (1997). Sentencing by International Tribunals: A Human Rights Approach, Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, Vol. 7, pp. 461-517

Sharma, S.N, (2016), Toward Crime Control Model, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 49, pp. 543-550

Slobogin, Christopher. (2013), A Comparative Perspective on the Exclusionary Rule in Search and Seizure Cases, Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper, No. 13-21

Thaman, C. Stephen, (2013), Balancing Truth Against Human Rights: A Theory of Modern Exclusionary Rules, In Thaman C. Stephen, “Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law”, iusgentium, Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Vol. 20, pp. 403-444

The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, Report, Cm 2263, (1993), London: HMSO

Tyler, R. Tom, (1990), Why People Obey the Law, Yale University press, New Haven and London

Viebig, Petra, (2016), Illicitly Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court, Asser Publishing, International Criminal Justice Series, Vol. 4, available at www.springer.com

      

Cases

Map v. Ohio, Case No. 367, U.S. 643, 19 June 1961

Olmstead v. United States, Case No. 277 U.S. 438, 485, 4 June 1928

Prosecutor v. AugustinNdindiliyimana et al, Case No. ICTR-00-56-T, 22 September 2008

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic´ and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14-2-T, 25 June 1999

Prosecutor v. DraganNikolić, Case No. IT-94-2-PT, 9 October 2002

Prosecutor v. EdouardKarmera et al, Case No. ICTR-98-44-T, 2 November 2007

Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No, ICC-01/04-01/07-2635 -PT, 17 December 2010

Prosecutor v. Jean-BoscoBarayagwiza, Case No. ICTR-97-19-A, 3 November 1999

Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-1981-T, 24 June 2009

Prosecutor v. MicoStanisic and Zupljanin, Case No. ICTR-08-91-T, 16 December 2009

Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, Case No IT-95-11-T, 19 January 2006

Prosecutor v. RadoslavBrdjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 1 September 2004.

Prosecutor v. RadoslavBrdjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 3 October 2003

Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadzic, Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, 30 September 2010

Prosecutor v. ZdravkoMucic, Case No. IT-96-21-PT, 9 February 1998

Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No, IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1997

Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No. IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001

Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 2 September 1999

Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 25 September 1997

Prosecutor v. ZejnilDelalic et al, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 8 September 1997

Prosecutor v.ZoranKupreškic´ et al, Case No. IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000

R v. Grant, Case No. 2 S.C.R. 353, 17 July 2009

Scoppola v. Italy, Case No. ECtHR. (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, 17 September 2009

Weeks v. United States, Case No. 232, U.S. 383, 24 February 1914