Standards of Evidence in the European Human Rights Court: Myth or Reality

Abstract

The article explores the activities of the European Court of Human Rights. In recent years, many papers have been published on the issue of defining the "standard of proof" and its implementation in national law. The content of the concept of "standard of proof" is explained in the article. Its nature is revealed. Its features are identified and constituent parts of this concept are provided. Its interdependence with the concept of "inner conviction" is substantiated. Criteria for establishing an 'standard of proof' are provided, such as: - the existence of a body that sets these 'standards'; - fixing certain requirements for the content of a certain "standard" in legislative acts; - compliance with these "standards" by other bodies, etc.; - punishment for failing to comply with the requirements of "standards". The activities of the European Court of Human Rights are analyzed. The basic principles of its activity are noted, which include: General principles: -the principle of the rule of law; - the principle of legality; - the principle of justice; - the principle of proportionality of intervention. Special principles include the following: - the principle of "least common denominator"; - the principle that there are no barriers to the inadmissibility of evidence or a pre-determined formula for evaluating it "; - the principle of proportionality; - the principle of discretion; - the principle of additionality; - the principle of effectiveness of the Convention; - the principle of autonomous understanding. It argues that it is impossible to speak of "standards of proof" in the European Court of Human Rights. Such concepts as "beyond reasonable doubt", "equality of arms", "weighing of opposing interests", "evaluation of the fairness of the process as a whole" the author reveals through the case law of the ECtHR, namely " Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania"," Gäfgen v. Germany "," Imbrioscia v. Germany Switzerland "," Magee v. Switzerland the United Kingdom ». In addition, the content of these decisions is disclosed in ...