The Characteristics of the Institution of Crime Victims According to International Legal Acts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.2.2024.8328Keywords:
International Legal Regulation of Participation of Victims in Criminal Proceedings, International Conventions, International Regional Sources (Council of Europe, EU), Regulation of Victim Rights in European Court Practice.Abstract
Criminal action against the victim is the basis for the universally recognized protection of human rights, strengthened by international instruments, and the neglect of all other rights and freedoms.
Criminal action against the victim (crime victim) leads to a violation of the honor and dignity of a citizen, damage to physical and mental health, and breach of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
To ensure the restoration of his/her violated rights, a legal mechanism shall be established to actively participate in justice and better protect his/her legitimate interests.
Protection of the interests and rights of natural and legal persons affected by crime is declared as one of the main objectives of the state legal system of Georgia.
The purpose of the study is to review and analyze international acts and the basic principles and recommendations, the consideration and implementation of which in the national legislation will contribute to the realization of the rights of the victim (victim of crime) and the full protection of his/her legal interests. The legal basis for prioritizing the interests of victims, rights, and freedoms is the acts of international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), the International Pact of Civil and Political Rights (1966), Declaration of the Fundamental Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Authority (1985), EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000), Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the status of victims in criminal proceedings adopted by the Council of the European Union (other legal acts of the European Union and the Council of Europe), Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
References
Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia. 9/10/2009.
G. Khatiashvili (2016), Rights of the victim in criminal proceedings. Georgian Young Lawyers Association. Tb., p. 113. 26.
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 47/133, 23 December 2010, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-protection-all-persons-enforced.
UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 55/25, https://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/a_res_55/res5525e.pdf
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, General Assembly resolution 55/25, 15 November 2000.
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (87) 21 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Assistance to Victims and the Prevention of Victimization, 17 September 1987.
General recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Ganeral Recommendation No. General Recommendation No. 19, 1992, https://www.refworld.org/docid/52d920c54.html
Bitiyeva and x. v. Russia (App. Nos 57953/00 and 37392/03), Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), 21 June 2007, § 156, with references included therein. IACtHR: Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Judgment (Merits), 16 August 2000, § 129; El Caracazo v. Venezuela, Judgment (Reparations and Costs), 29 August 2002, § 118; Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 11 May 2007, § 195.
General Recommendation No. XXXI on the Prevention of Racial Discrimination in the Administration and Functioning of the Criminal Justice System, adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (‘CERD Committee’) in 2005, https://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd56dd.html
Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations, supra note no. 14, § 27; Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation R. (2000) 19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, 6 October 2000, § 34.
The Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly in 2000, https://www.ohchr.org/en/ instruments-mechanisms/instruments/principles- effective- investigation-and-documentation-torture-and
S. Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), at 37.
Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 40/34.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 29 November 1985, http://www.un-documents.net/a40r34.htm
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 60/147. 21 March 2006, https://fanack.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/archive/user_upload/Documenten/Links/UN/Basic_Principles_and_Guidelines_Remedy_and_Reparation.pdf
F. Haldemann, T. Unger, eds. (2018), The United Nations Principles to Combat Impunity: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, pp. 47-59
Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), 15 September 2005, § 304; Almonicid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs), 26 September 2006, § 105; La Cantuta v. Peru, Judgment (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), 29 November 2006, § 168
Goiburú et al v. Paraguay, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs), 22 September 2006 §§ 84, 131; La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note no. 69, § 157.
AfrComHPR, Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Inter-African Union for Human Rights and RADDHO, Collective of Widows and Beneficiaries, Mauritanian Association for Human Rights v. Mauritania (Comm. Nos. 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97-196/97-210/98), 11 May 2000, § 83. 72 AfrComHPR, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance, 2001, Principle C (d)
EComHR, Dujardin et al. v. France (App. No. 16734/90), Decision, 2 September 1991.
M. Frulli, ‘Amnesty,’ in A. Cassese (ed.), The Oxford Companion to International Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 243-244.
SCSL, Decision on Challenge to Jurisdiction: Lomé Accord Amnesty, Kallon, Norman and Kamara (SCSL2004-15-16-17), Appeals Chamber (‘AC’), 13 March 2004, § 71
See: also Decision on Ieng Sary’s Rule 89 Preliminary Objection (Ne bis in idem and Amnesty and Pardon), Ieng Sary, Trial Chamber, 3 November 2011
Council of the European Union, Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings (2001/220/JHA), 15 March 2001
Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001, supra note no. 80, Art. 2(1).
European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and the Council Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime, 25 October 2012, § 9.
European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Strengthening Victims’ Rights in the EU, COM (2011) 274, 18 May 2011, § 3.4.
Directive 2012/29/EU, supra note no. 87, § 70.
See, e.g., Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, 9 June 2009, at paras. 141-146 and 173-174.
See R R v. Hungary, no. 19400/11, 4 December 2012, at paras. 26-32.
See Gani v. Spain, no. 61800/08, 19 February 2013.
See Crook and National Union of Journalists v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 11552/85, 15 July 1988
See B and P v. United Kingdom, no. 36337/97, 24 April 2001, at para. 37.
See Doorson v. Netherlands, no. 20524/92, 26 March 1996.
See Oyston v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42011/98, 22 January 2002 and Y v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, 28 May 2015.
See Accardi v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, 20 January 2005
See Y v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, 28 May 2015.
See, e.g., Z v. Finland, no. 22009/93, 25 February 1997
See Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.
Atanasova v. Bulgaria, no. 72001/01, 2 October 2008 and L E v. Greece, no. 71545/12, 21 January 2016.
August v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003.
Ringvold v. Norway, no. 34964/97, 11 February 2003.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
