Velkomin á upplýsingasíðu ritgerðar um þátt sönnunarreglna í réttlátri málsmeðferð
- síðan er í vinnslu -
Dómar o.fl.
European Commission of Human Rights:
- Decision in App. 6172/73 v. UK (pdf).
- Decision in App. 7987/79 v. Austria (myndir - jpg).
- Dissenting opinion in Schenk v. UK 1988 (html).
- Opinion in Barberà v. Spain 1988 (myndir - jpg)
European Court of Human Rights
- Jalloh v. Germany 2006 (html).
US Supreme Court
- Rochin v California 1952 (html)
- Mapp v. Ohio 1961 (html) - stutt lýsing á atvikum málsins (html)
- Gideon v. Wainwright 1963 (html)
- Escobedo v. Illinois 1964 (html)
- Powell v. Alabama 1932 (html)
- Barron v. Baltimore 1833 (html)
- Brown v. Mississippi 1936 (html)
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
- The Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdjanin (Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence) 2003
Supreme Court of Canada
R. v. Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 1987 SCC 11
R. v. Stillman [1997] 1 S.C.R. 60, 1997 SCC 32
R. v. Buhay [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631, 2003 SCC 30
Högsta domstolen i Sverige
(Nytt juridiskt arkiv)
NJA 2003 s. 323 – ”Överskottsinformationsfallet”
Tilvitnanir
"Pendeln svänger; den fria bevisprövningen som länge varit grundstenen i svensk bevisrätt är efter inflytande från främst europeisk rätt inte längre helt självklar."
- Thomas Ahlstrand: „Till frågan om fri bevisprövning och bevisförbud“ í Svensk Juristtidning 2002, bls. 545.
"If a constitution is of ultimate legal importance to a nation, then surely the violation of a constitutional right should result in a remedy of equal dimension"
-Donald V. Macdougall: "The Exclusionary Rule and Its Alternatives. Remedies for Constitutional Violations in Canada and the United States" í í The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, bls. 618.
Útfærsla HS: "If a human right is of ultimate importance to a nation, then the violation of that right should result in a remedy of equal dimension."
"[I]t is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy: for want of a right and want of remedy are reciprocal"
- Lord Holt CJ, í Ashby -v- White [1703] 92 ER 126.
"A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." - Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).
"Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. . . . What is fair in one set of circumstances may be an act of tyranny in others." - Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 116 ,
"as applied to a criminal trial, denial of due process is the failure to observe that fundamental fairness essential to the very concept of justice. In order to declare a denial of it . . . [the Court] must find that the absence of that fairness fatally infected the trial; the acts complained of must be of such quality as necessarily prevents a fair trial." - Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 236 (1941)