Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle Abstract The thesis deals with the nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle, which represents one of the fundamental procedural rights in criminal proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights considers it an inseparable part of the right to a just trial. Especially considering the problems arising in connection to interpretation and application of he said principle, the thesis tries to _ the most problematic areas of the principle's application and the different opinions as to what it entails. The first chapter contains the history of the principle's application, both on the European continent in civil law and in common law in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The second chapter summarizes the evolution of rulings of the European Court for Human Rights. Attention is paid to the relation between the nemo tenetur principle and the right to a fair trial contained in the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also to the relation o other right contained in the same treaty, especially focusing on freedom from torture in order to obtain an evidence of a criminal act. The third chapter summarizes the Czech legislation on the topic, both on Constitutional level - especially focusing on those articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and...

In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions which profess to be based on an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, the right against compelled self-incrimination is a guaranteed Constitutional right. This study is prompted by the realization that the right against self-incrimination is being undermined and eroded by an aspect of South Africa’s bail laws. The current study addresses the constitutional validity of section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 in so far as it allows for the admission of incriminating evidence at trial, in contravention of the accused’s right against self-incrimination, which incriminatory evidence was tendered by the applicant during a bail application in circumstances where the applicant was compelled to prove that he would be acquitted at trial where reliance is placed on a weak State’s case in proving exceptional circumstances in compliance with section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Whilst section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is undoubtedly aimed at combatting crime, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to undermine individual liberty and poses a threat to our Constitutional project of building a human rights culture. I advance an argument which supports the view that section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is unconstitutional, in the above context, in that it infringes upon the accused’s right against compelled self-incrimination at trial and does not amount to a justifiable limitation on the rights of an accused in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. I also advance an alternative legal remedy aimed at fulfilling the initial mischief which Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 was designed to prevent in order to bring the section in line with the Constitution and a rights-based society. / Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Procedural Law / LLM / Unrestricted

O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória. / The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.

O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória. / The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.

O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória. / The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.

This Doctoral thesis entitled the Constitutionality of Employers' Investigative Procedures and Disciplinary Hearing Processes with Specific Reference to Dismissal of Employees on the Basis of Criminal Misconducts in South Africa, focusses on individual labour law principles of fair labour practices entrenched in section 23(1) of the Constitution. The thesis deals with fairness in situation where an employee who is suspected of committing a criminal act is investigated and subsequently goes through a disciplinary hearing for dismissal. It determines the extent to which an employee’s criminal guilt is decided before dismissal. As such, the thesis is based upon South African judicial interpretation of the right to fair dismissal. In the process the thesis examines the application of principles informing the employer’s duty to provide fair reason concerning the dismissal of employees criminal suspects. In examining if employers observe constitutional transformative objective when conducting criminal investigations and disciplinary hearings - the thesis reviews the extent to which the employer respects constitutional rationales of equity based on the principles of natural justice. These natural justice principles are the basis upon which section 23(1) fairness is founded. Section 23 (1) is implemented through the LRA provisions. The thesis then concludes that, only one principle of natural justice - audi alteram partem is respected within employer flexibility-based fairness while the other principle - nemo judex in propria sua causa is ignored. It is this denial that causes serious procedural challenges in the quest for equity intended in section 23(1) fair labour practices. It is upon these foundational equity concerns that this thesis opposes the flexibility in employer’s criminal investigations and disciplinary hearing processes entrenched in item 4 (1) of Schedule 8 of the LRA fair procedure for dismissal of employees suspected of criminal acts. The thesis interlinks labour law and criminal law to advocate for the missing constitutionally justiciable fairness for employees who have committed criminal misconducts. It argues that the current judicial interpretation of labour law fairness is based upon the principle of flexibility underlying dismissals, asserting that fairness based on flexibility breeds informal procedural processes which exempt employers from observing crucial constitutional fairness principles expressed through proportionality-based prescripts. The thesis concludes that the practice of including the right against self-incrimination in employment law, done in other common law countries be introduced into the South African labour law through section 39 of the Constitution so that the identified procedural challenges are regulated. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

La première partie de l’étude est consacrée à l’invocation, intra et extra muros, du droit à un procès équitable. Sont analysés ainsi, dans un premier temps, l’applicabilité directe de l’article 6 et la subsidiarité de la Convention par rapport au droit national et de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme par rapport aux juridictions nationales. Le droit à un procès équitable étant un droit jurisprudentiel, l’étude se focalise, dans un second temps, sur l’invocabilité des arrêts de la Cour Européenne et plus précisément sur l’invocabilité directe de l’arrêt qui constate une violation du droit à un procès équitable dans une affaire mettant en cause l’Etat et l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme à l’arrêt qui interprète l’article 6 dans une affaire mettant en cause un Etat tiers. L’introduction dans l’ordre juridique français et hellénique de la possibilité de réexamen de la décision pénale définitive rendue en violation de la Convention a fait naitre un nouveau droit d’accès à la Cour de cassation lequel trouve son terrain de prédilection aux violations de l’article 6 et constitue peut-être le pas le plus important pour le respect du droit à un procès équitable après l’acceptation (par la France et la Grèce) du droit de recours individuel. Quant au faible fondement de l’autorité de la chose interprétée par la Cour Européenne, qui est d’ailleurs un concept d’origine communautaire, cela explique pourquoi un dialogue indirect entre la Cour Européenne et la Cour de cassation est possible sans pour autant changer en rien l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme et le fait que l’existence d’un précédent oblige la Cour de cassation à motiver l’interprétation divergente qu’elle a adoptée.La seconde partie de l’étude, qui est plus volumineuse, est consacrée aux garanties de bonne administration de la justice (article 6§1), à la présomption d’innocence (article 6§2), aux droits qui trouvent leur fondement conventionnel dans l’article 6§1 mais leur fondement logique dans la présomption d’innocence et aux droits de la défense (article 6§3). Sont ainsi analysés le droit à un tribunal indépendant, impartial et établi par la loi, le délai raisonnable, le principe de l’égalité des armes, le droit à une procédure contradictoire, le droit de la défense d’avoir la parole en dernier, la publicité de l’audience et du prononcé des jugements et arrêts, l’obligation de motivation des décisions, la présomption d’innocence, dans sa dimension procédurale et personnelle, le « droit au mensonge », le droit de l’accusé de se taire et de ne pas contribuer à son auto-incrimination, son droit d’être informé de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation et de la requalification envisagée des faits, son droit au temps et aux facilités nécessaires à la préparation de la défense, y compris notamment la confidentialité de ses communications avec son avocat et le droit d’accès au dossier, son droit de comparaître en personne au procès, le droit de la défense avec ou sans l’assistance d’un avocat, le droit de l’accusé d’être représenté en son absence par son avocat, le droit à l’assistance gratuite d’un avocat lorsque la situation économique de l’accusé ne permet pas le recours à l’assistance d’un avocat mais les intérêts de la justice l’exigent, le droit d’interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et d’obtenir la convocation et l’interrogation des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge et le droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction des pièces essentielles du dossier. L’analyse est basée sur la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise et centrée sur la position qu’adoptent la Cour de cassation française et l’Aréopage. / The first party of the study is dedicated to the invocation of the right to a fair trial intra and extra muros and, on this basis, it focuses on the direct applicability of Article 6 and the subsidiarity of the Convention and of the European Court of Human Rights. Because of the fact that the right to a fair trial is a ‘‘judge-made law’’, the study also focuses on the invocability of the judgments of the European Court and more precisely on the direct invocability of the European Court’s judgment finding that there has been a violation of the Convention and on the request for an interpretation in accordance with the European Court’s decisions. The possibility of reviewing the criminal judgment made in violation of the Convention has generated a new right of access to the Court of cassation which particularly concerns the violations of the right to a fair trial and is probably the most important step for the respect of the right to a fair trial after enabling the right of individual petition. As for the weak conventional basis of the authority of res interpretata (“autorité de la chose interprétée”), this fact explains why an indirect dialogue between the ECHR and the Court of cassation is possible but doesn’t affect the applicant’s right to request an interpretation in accordance with the Court’s decisions and the duty of the Court of cassation to explain why it has decided to depart from the (non-binding) precedent.The second party of the study is bigger than the first one and is dedicated to the guarantees of the proper administration of justice (Article 6§1), the presumption of innocence (Article 6§2), the rights which find their conventional basis on the Article 6§1 but their logical explanation to the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence (Article 6§3). More precisely, the second party of the study is analyzing the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the principle of equality of arms, the right to adversarial proceedings, the right of the defence to the last word, the right to a public hearing and a public pronouncement of the judgement, the judge’s duty to state the reasons for his decision, the presumption of innocence, in both its procedural and personal dimensions, the accused’s right to lie, his right to remain silent, his right against self-incrimination, his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation and the potential re-characterisation of the facts, his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence, including in particular the access to the case-file and the free and confidential communication with his lawyer, his right to appear in person at the trial, his right to defend either in person or through legal assistance, his right to be represented by his counsel, his right to free legal aid if he hasn’t sufficient means to pay for legal assistance but the interests of justice so require, his right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him and his right to the free assistance of an interpreter and to the translation of the key documents. The analysis is based on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and focuses on the position taken by the French and the Greek Court of Cassation (Areopagus) on each one of the above mentioned rights.