Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  inhuman treatment
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The article provides an analysis of the legal aspects of expulsion of an alien suffering from a serious physical or mental illness to a country where treatment options for this illness are less accessible than those available in the country of residence (particularly in the case of HIV/AIDS, HCV, various forms of cancer, etc.). The article indicates the legal basis under European law (especially Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the prohibition of inhuman treatment), and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights relating to this issue. The author emphasizes that the ECHR has adopted a very restrictive approach concerning the expulsion of seriously ill non-nationals, and the national courts of States parties to the ECHR must ensure protection against expulsion to foreigners.
EN
Despite the universal condemnation of torture, the prevention of appalling practices of ill-treatment has not been achieved in the 21st century. The repugnant practice persists and even increases because of the disingenuous interpretations of the definition of torture and the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms. Notwithstanding the cogency of the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture, particularly regarding the treatment of detainees, nowadays corporal punishment as a punitive measure is arguably a recurring phenomenon in several former British colonies and in States where the legal system is based on Islamic Sharia. While several legally binding universal and regional instruments prohibit torture in general terms, with no specific definition, the scope of the Convention against Torture’s definition was narrowed down by the lawful sanctions clause. The universality of the definition has been undermined by the inclusion of this clause, since different States have different practices when it comes to lawful and unlawful sanctions. The intractable problem of the interpretation of the definition by the State-Parties and the lack of effective control mechanisms has perennially posed the greatest challenge with respect to compliance with International Human Rights Law. In light of the above, this article seeks to critically dissect the lawful sanctions clause within the context of corporal punishment.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

GÄFGEN V. GERMANY. CASE STUDY

75%
EN
The article focuses on the case of Gäfgen v. Germany, which con-cerns the restrictions imposed on police offi cers who work on cases involving terror and violence posing a risk to human life, and on the ones who have to make decisions protecting victims’ lives. The choice of measures serving the protection of the highest value, i.e. human life, is not easy. At the same time, police offi cers are assessed in terms of criminal law as regards the protection of the basic human rights enjoyed by perpetrators who pose a risk to other people’s lives. The case of Gäfgen v. Germany regards the choice of values, and the criminal liability of police offi cers, connected with thereof, as well as the problem of the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the law in criminal proceedings, and the limitations of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.