Magala na 6 na Yarjejeniyar Turai kan 'Yancin Dan Adam

Mataki na 6 na Yarjejeniyar Turai game da Haƙƙin Dan Adam tanadi ne na Yarjejeniyar Turai wanda ke ba da kariya ga yancin yin shari'a ta gaskiya a cikin shari'o'in laifuka da shari'o'in tantance yancin ɗan adam. Yana kare hakkin sauraron jama'a a gaban kotu mai zaman kanta da rashin son kai cikin lokaci mai ma'ana, da zaton rashin laifi, 'yancin yin shiru da sauran mafi ƙarancin haƙƙoƙin waɗanda ake tuhuma a cikin wani laifi (isasshen lokaci da wuraren da za a shirya kariyarsu, samun wakilcin shari'a, 'yancin bincikar shaidu a kansu ko a bincika su, dama ga taimakon kyauta na mai fassara).

Rubutun

Mataki na 6 ya karanta kamar haka. A wajen tantance hakkinsa da hakkokinsa ko kuma duk wani laifin da ake tuhumarsa da shi/ta, kowa na da hakkin ya sami damar sauraren shari'ar gaskiya da adalci cikin lokaci da ya dace ta wata kotu mai zaman kanta da mai zaman kanta da doka ta kafa. Za a iya bayyana hukunci a bainar jama'a amma ana iya cire 'yan jarida da sauran jama'a daga dukkan ko wani bangare na shari'ar saboda maslahar dabi'u, zaman lafiyar jama'a ko tsaron kasa a cikin al'ummar dimokuradiyya, inda muradun kananan yara ko kare rayuwar jama'a ke bukata, ko kuma gwargwadon abin da ya wajaba a ra'ayin kotu a cikin yanayi na musamman inda tallata za ta yi watsi da muradun adalci. Duk wanda aka tuhume shi da laifin aikata laifi za a yi zaton ba shi da laifi har sai an tabbatar da shi da laifi kamar yadda doka ta tanada.

Duk wanda ake tuhuma da laifin aikata laifi yana da mafi ƙarancin haƙƙin masu zuwa:

(a) a sanar da shi cikin gaggawa, cikin harshen da ya fahimta dalla-dalla, yanayi da kuma dalilin tuhumar da ake masa;

(b) samun isasshen lokaci da kayan aiki don shirye-shiryen kariyarsa; (c) don kare kansa da kansa ko ta hanyar taimakon shari'a da ya zaɓa ko, idan ba shi da isasshiyar hanyar biyan kuɗin taimakon shari'a, a ba shi kyauta lokacin da bukatun shari'a ya buƙaci; |(d) bincika ko bincika shaidun da ake yi masa da kuma samun halarta da kuma bincikar shaidu a madadinsa a ƙarƙashin sharuɗɗan shaidun da ake yi masa;

|(e) samun taimako kyauta na mai fassara idan ba zai iya fahimta ko magana da yaren da ake amfani da shi a kotu ba.

Aikace-aikacen

Ma'anar "yancin jama'a da wajibai" a farkon Mataki na 6 ya shafi waɗanda aka ba su a matakin Majalisar Turai, kuma ba a matakin ƙasa ba. Don haka, zartar da doka ta 6 ya dogara ne akan kasancewar keta irin wannan "haƙƙin ɗan adam da wajibai" ba tare da la'akari da rabe-rabe na ƙasa ba, "haƙƙin" mai dacewa wanda aka keta, da kuma hukuncin da ya ba da sakamako mai mahimmanci daga jayayya. Da fari dai, don sanin wanzuwar ɓarna, takaddamar dole ne ta sami takamaiman al'amari tare da cikakkun bayanai masu rikitarwa (misali, a cikin Omdahl v. Norway (2021), kotu ta yi magana game da batun lokacin da mai nema zai sami damar mallakar kakansa). Don haka, keta doka da ta dace ta fito ne daga jinkiri mai yawa, saboda "lokaci mai kyau" da ake buƙata a cikin shari'o'in farar hula da na laifi a gaban kotunan ƙasa.

Abu na biyu, kodayake CoE tana riƙe da ikon cin gashin kanta a ƙarƙashin haƙƙin ECHR, har yanzu tana buƙatar tushen jayayya a ƙarƙashin dokar ƙasa ta kwangila. Don haka, dole ne a tantance "dama" mai dacewa, musamman ma ko gardamar mai nema "ya isa". Banda dogaro da haƙƙin haƙƙin ƙasa shine lokacin da dokar ƙasa ta ba da haƙƙin da ECtHR ba ta amince da shi ba. Saboda ikon cin gashin kai na ECtHR, wanda "tribunal mai zaman kansa" ya jaddada, Kotun ta soke hukuncin Turkiyya a Assanidze v. Georgia (2004) kuma ta sanya hukuncin kotun soja ta Turkiyya bai dace da Mataki na 6 ba.

A ƙarshe, lokacin da ake tantance cancantar Mataki na 6 don tantance haƙƙin haƙƙin haƙƙin shari'a, Kotu tana bincika ko "haƙƙin" da ke hannun farar hula ne a ƙarƙashin yanayin gida don tabbatar da sakamako mai mahimmanci. Kamar sharuɗɗan da aka kafa a cikin wasu haƙƙoƙin da aka lamunce a cikin ECtHR, kamar waɗanda ba bis a cikin idem ba, Kotun tana yanke hukunci bisa ga abubuwan da ke cikin su na zahiri da kuma hukumcin hukumci, savanin keɓanta na tanadin doka na ƙasa kawai. A cikin jihohin da ko dai ba su kula da tabbatar da haƙƙoƙin da suka dace da shari'ar adalci ba ko kuma da gangan su hukunta mai wasan kwaikwayo game da haƙƙin da aka tabbatar a Mataki na 6, Kotun Turai ta ɗauki irin waɗannan batutuwa don samar da sakamako mai mahimmanci.

Shari'o'i

• Colozza v Italy (1985) – Held that when a person is tried <i id="mwRQ">in absentia</i> without being aware of the proceedings, the defendant is entitled to a fresh trial when they are made aware.
• Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland (2000) – Case involving two Irish citizens imprisoned for choosing to remain silent and to use their rights not to incriminate themselves when suspected of an IRA-related terrorist act. "The Court ... finds that the security and public order concerns relied on by the Government cannot justify a provision which extinguishes the very essence of the applicants' rights to silence and against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention."
• García Ruiz v Spain (1999) – The Court applied the fourth-instance doctrine, stating that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the convention.
• Van Kück v Germany (2003) – the court took the approach of considering the merits of the case and in finding a breach based on the fact that the German courts had failed to follow the Strasbourg court's approach to medical necessity on hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery. This was in line with and an expansion of the earlier ruling in Camilleri v Malta (2000) in which the courts were more willing to consider the merits of the court's decision which compromised fairness, stating that the decision had been "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable".
• Perez v France (2004) – "the right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively".
• Khamidov v Russia (2007) – the court considered "abundant evidence" contradicting the finding of the national court, with the result that "the unreasonableness of this conclusion is so striking and palpable on the face of it" that the decision was "grossly arbitrary". This once again showed the court's changing stance in considering the actual merits of a case. This therefore illustrates the court is developing an appellate function as opposed to a review function.
• Khlyustov v. Russia (2013) – A person may not claim a violation of the right to a fair trial when he has been acquitted or when proceedings have been discontinued.
• Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (2020) – irregular appointment of judges breached the right to tribunal established by law.
• Xero Flor v. Poland (2021) – irregular appointment of judges breached the right to tribunal established by law.

Yarjejeniyar ta shafi bangarorin masu kwangila ne kawai; duk da haka, a cikin shari’o’in da kotun jam’iyyar da ke yin kwangila za ta tabbatar da hukuncin wata ƙasa da ba ta da kwangila, suna riƙe da hakkin yin aiki a cikin iyakokin labarin na 6. Irin haka ya kasance a cikin Pellegrini v Italiya (2001), shari’ar da ta shafi aikace-aikacen da kotun majami’ar Vatican ta yanke game da shari’ar kisan aure.

A cikin ƙayyadaddun tuhumar aikata laifuka, Engel v Netherlands sun ɓullo da sharuɗɗa guda uku don tantance ma'anar "laifi": a) rarraba laifin a cikin dokar jihar da aka kara, b) yanayin laifin, c) hukuncin da zai yiwu. Funke v Faransa ta bayyana cewa idan kasar da ke yin kwangila ta rarraba aikin a matsayin mai laifi, to hakan zai kasance kai tsaye don dalilai na labarin 6.

• John Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
• Benthem da Netherlands (ECtHR 23 Oktoba 1985)
• Assanidze v. Georgia, App. No. 71503/01 (ECtHR 8 Afrilu 2004)

Dubi kuma

• Yarjejeniyar Turai kan 'Yancin Dan Adam
• Dokar 'Yancin Dan Adam ta 1998
• Adalci na halitta
• Shari'a mai sauri