revue internationale de droit pénal / international review of penal

Transcripción

REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE DROIT PÉNAL / INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PENAL LAW
REVISTA INTERNACIONAL DE DERECHO PENAL
80e année - nouvelle série
1er et 2ème trimestres 2009 (CD ROM Annexe)
SOMMAIRE / CONTENTS / ÍNDICE
XVIIIème Congrès International de Droit Pénal
XVIIIth International Congress of Penal Law
XVIII Congreso Internacional de Derecho Penal
Colloque Préparatoire. Pula (Croatie), 6-9 novembre 2008
Section III – Mesures de procédure spéciales et respect des droits de l'homme
Preparatory Colloquium. Pula (Croatia), 6-9 November 2008
Section III – Special procedural measures and respect of human rights
Coloquio Preparatorio. Pula (Croacia), 6-9 noviembre 2008
Sección III – Medidas procesales especiales y respeto de los derechos humanos
Rapports nationaux / National Reports / Informes nacionales
Argentina, Javier Augusto De Luca__________________________________________________________ 3
Austria, Michael Leitner__________________________________________________________________ 17
Belgique, Paul De Hert et Ann Jacobs ______________________________________________________ 29
Brazil, Fábio Ramazzini Bechara & Fauzi Hassan Choukr _______________________________________ 67
Colombia, Fernando Velásquez Velásquez y Christian Wolffhügel Gutiérrez ________________________ 89
Croatia, Zlata Đurđević ________________________________________________________________ 113
España, Juan Luis Gómez Colomer _______________________________________________________ 129
Finland, Johanna Niemi ________________________________________________________________ 153
Germany, Tonio Walter_________________________________________________________________ 161
Hungary, Erika Róth & Herke Csongor _____________________________________________________ 179
Italy, Renzo Orlandi & Roberto Kostoris ____________________________________________________ 207
Netherlands, Peter Bal, Martin Kuijer & Karin Veegens ________________________________________ 223
Poland, Paweł Wiliński _________________________________________________________________ 257
Romania, Gheorghiţă Mateut, Ion Neagu & Mircea Damaschin __________________________________ 271
Turquie, Gülşah Kurt Yücekul et Güçlü Akyürek _____________________________________________ 303
United Kingdom: England and Wales, Marianne L. Wade ______________________________________ 323
United States of America, Steven W. Becker ________________________________________________ 341
RIDP/IRPL, vol.80, 2009 / 1-2 (CD-ROM Annexe)
-1-
Coloquio Preparatorio del XVIII Congreso Internacional de Derecho Penal
Sección III
Pula (Croacia), 6-9 noviembre 2008
ARGENTINA*
Javier Augusto DE LUCA**
I. Reforma del marco jurídico: medidas especiales con respecto a la prevención, a la investigación y al
enjuiciamiento
1. ¿En qué medida se aplican en su sistema jurídico nacional los tratados sobre Derechos humanos y los tratados sobre Derecho internacional humanitario (convenciones de Ginebra)?
¿Existen limitaciones en su país al uso de estos estándares internacionales?
¿Los ciudadanos (sospechosos, acusados, víctimas, testigos...) pueden alegar en su ordenamiento jurídico
nacional directamente los derechos contenidos en estos tratados?
Los tratados internacionales tienen plena vigencia en el ordenamiento interno a partir de su aprobación por el
Congreso de la Nación, y los habitantes pueden invocar sus disposiciones y demandar el cumplimiento de los
derechos y garantías en ellos reconocidos directamente ante los tribunales nacionales.
Así, los tratados internacionales en el ordenamiento interno, por mandato constitucional, poseen diversas jerarquías, siendo que los tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos, conforme la enumeración del artículo
75, inciso 22 de la Constitución Nacional, son ley suprema de la Nación.
Al respecto, la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, se expidió por primera vez en relación a la aplicación de
los tratados al sistema penal, al fallar en el caso Giroldi, en el que sostuvo que por el mandato constitucional
citado precedentemente, a partir del año 1994, dichos tratados internacionales poseen en el país jerarquía constitucional, y que, por mandato del constituyente, los mismos se aplican en las condiciones de su vigencia, lo que
significa su aplicación en el ordenamiento interno tal como efectivamente rigen en el ámbito internacional y
considerando su efectiva aplicación jurisprudencial por los tribunales internacionales competentes para su interpretación y aplicación, y cuya solución contraria podría implicar la responsabilidad de la Nación frente a la comunidad internacional.1
Tal postura es complementada con la doctrina en relación al principio de progresividad e irreversibilidad de los
derechos humanos, exaltando que, en relación a garantizar un ámbito de mayor libertad y pleno goce de los
derechos, aquellos principios fundamentales que se encuentren reflejados con mayor amplitud, o, de otra manera, aquellas normas que resulten menos restrictivas de las libertades, aun cuando se encuentren plasmadas en
el ordenamiento nacional o provincial, prevalecerán sobre cualquier cláusula que afecte derechos ya reconocidos con mayor amplitud.2
2. ¿Qué reformas legislativas importantes han sido realizadas en su país en las décadas pasadas en interés de
la seguridad nacional/global y de la seguridad pública? ¿Hay actualmente algún plan de reforma? (breve descripción)
Nota importante: El texto publicado es la última versión original del Informe nacional enviado por el autor, sin que se haya
podido someter a revisión editorial por parte de la Revue.
** Doctor en derecho penal. Profesor de Derecho Penal y Procesal Penal de la Facultad de Derecho de la Univ. de Buenos
Aires. Fiscal General ante los Tribunales Orales en lo Criminal de la Capital Federal. Argentina
1 “Giroldi, Horacio David y otro s/ recurso de casación – causa nro. 32/93”, G.342.XXVI, considerandos 11º y 12º, del 7-4-95.
2 Conforme doctrina de Fallos.
*
-3-
Coloquio Preparatorio Pula (Croacia), noviembre 2008
Argentina
- ¿Modificaron tales reformas el marco jurídico común existente de la aplicación del Derecho penal, o crearon
una vía alternativa de procedimientos especiales (justicia militar, justicia policial, justicia administrativa, comisiones militares, etc.) fuera del sistema penal regular?
- ¿Estas reformas legislativas están inspiradas por las disposiciones constitucionales sobre la emergencia (incluida la guerra)?
- ¿La práctica judicial penal ha desempeñado un papel en la definición y realización de las reformas? ¿Han
revocado los Tribunales superiores (tribunal supremo o constitucional) algún elemento de estas reformas?
- ¿Han sido las reformas sometidas a debate político o público?
En las últimas décadas hubo, en Argentina, una serie de reformas en el ordenamiento jurídico que, en pos de la
seguridad y la efectividad en las investigaciones, al menos así proclamadas, introdujeron figuras delictivas,
modificaron las existentes, crearon institutos procesales, aumentaron las escalas penales y alteraron en forma
gravosa las condiciones de privación de libertad, ya sea como medida cautelar o como sanción.
Tales reformas, si bien provenientes de diversos tiempos, pueden enmarcarse en el discurso y la demanda,
tanto nacional como internacional, de reforzamiento de la seguridad.
Así, en cuanto al panorama contractual internacional, se incorporaron al ordenamiento jurídico diversas convenciones y sus protocolos, nacidos tanto en la órbita internacional como en la organización americana de estados.
A través de las leyes 25.449 y 26.023, fueron aprobadas la “Convención interamericana contra el terrorismo”3 y
la “Convención Interamericana contra la fabricación y el tráfico ilícitos de armas de fuego, municiones, explosivos y otras materias relacionadas”4 –respectivamente-, gestadas en la Organización de estados Americanos.
En el ámbito de las Organización de las Naciones Unidas, fueron aprobadas las leyes 25.762, 26.024 y 26.138,
que aprobaron el “Convenio internacional para la represión de los atentados terroristas cometidos con bombas”5,
el “Convenio internacional para la represión de la financiación del terrorismo”6, la “Convención de las Naciones
Unidas contra la Delincuencia Organizada Transnacional” y sus protocolos para prevenir, reprimir y sancionar la
trata de personas, especialmente mujeres y niños, contra el tráfico ilícito de migrantes por tierra, mar y aire, y
por último, contra la fabricación y el tráfico ilícitos de armas de fuego, sus piezas y componentes y municiones7.
Ello, sin dejar de considerar la suscripción de numerosos acuerdos bilaterales o multilaterales para la cooperación en materia penal con diversos países.
En el ámbito nacional operaron diversas reformas, que fueron desde el agravamiento de las escalas penales o la
tipificación de agravantes para determinadas figuras, como las implementadas por las leyes, 25.2978 25.6019,
25.76710 y 25.81611, que agravan las escalas penales para los delitos contra las personas cometidos con armas
de fuego, los delitos cometidos valiéndose de menores de edad y la tipificación del homicidio agravado –que en
nuestro país tiene prevista la pena de prisión perpetua- cuando lo sea de un miembro de las fuerzas de seguridad o cometido por ellos.
Una de las reformas que, como tal, quizá debiera ocupar un lugar estelar, es la relacionada con los delitos en
que se cometiera una privación de la libertad. Y tal lugar estelar lo lleva, cuanto menos, no solo por el abrupto
aumento de las escalas penales, sino por las transformaciones de carácter procesal y el agravamiento en el
cumplimiento de las penas. Así, la ley 25.74212 endureció sensiblemente las escalas penales previstas para los
Adoptada el 13-11-97 y aprobada por ley del 8-8-01 (B.O. 14-8-01)
Abierta a la firma de los estados parte el 3-6-05 y aprobada por ley del 15-4-05 (B.O. 18-4-05).
5 Abierto a la firma el 12-1-98 y aprobado por ley del 8-8-03 (B.O. 11-8-03).
6 Adoptado por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas el 9-12-99 y aprobado por ley del 15-4-05 (B.O. 19-4-05).
7 La convención y sus primeros dos protocolos aprobados por ley el 29-8-02 (B.O. 30-8-02) y el último protocolo aprobado
por ley del 4-9-06 (B.O. 5-9-06).
8 Promulgada el 20-9-00 (B.O. 22-9-00).
9 Promulgada el 10-6-02 (B.O. 11-6-02).
10 Promulgada el 29-8-03 (B.O. 1-9-03).
11 Promulgada el 5-12-03 (B.O. 9-12-03).
12 Promulgada el 19-6-03 (B.O. 20-6-03).
3
4
-4-
Argentina
delitos de privación de la libertad y secuestro extorsivo, y se complementó con la ley 25.76013, que introdujo en
el plano formal reformas sustanciales en el sistema procesal vigente en el ordenamiento jurídico, dotando al
agente fiscal interviniente en la investigación de facultades que, hasta entonces y sin excepción, eran privativas
del juez de instrucción.14 Y finalmente, ligado a esta reforma, la sanción de la ley 25.94815 que excluye a los
condenados por tales delitos, del régimen de progresividad de la ejecución penal16. Tal reforma, que también
alcanza a determinados homicidios y delitos contra la integridad sexual, crea un nuevo capítulo en la ley que, ya
desde su título: “Excepciones a las modalidades básicas de la ejecución”, no resiste análisis alguno a favor de
su validez, a la luz de los principios constitucionales e internacionales de igualdad y resocialización del condenado.
Otras reformas de relevancia se dieron en relación al aumento de las escalas penales y la creación de nuevos
tipos de delitos comunes, tales como el robo con armas17, la tenencia y portación de armas de fuego y explosivos18, el abigeato19, y relacionados a las convenciones suscriptas en el ámbito internacional que se señalaran al
comienzo, lo relativo al delito de encubrimiento y lavado de activos de origen delictivo20.
En materia de drogas, regía en el país la ley 20.771 de 1974 que, al ser derogada por la ley 23.73721, se convirtió en un catálogo de delitos en el que, en algunos de sus tipos, resulta dificultoso apreciar la afectación a algún
bien jurídico por tipificar acciones lejanas o futurísticas, y en otros por no trascender de la esfera de lo individual
y privado. Además, la ley 24.42422 introdujo las figuras del arrepentido y el agente encubierto, a los fines procesales.
En materia de medidas cautelares, la ley 24.390 regía entre otras cosas, el plazo máximo de duración de la
prisión preventiva, modificado en su cómputo por la ley 25.430.23 La primera establecía que, superado el tiempo
máximo de duración de la prisión preventiva sin una resolución del proceso, los días de privación de libertad se
computarían, a los efectos del cumplimiento de la pena, doble.
Tales reformas no fueron dictadas con carácter excepcional, sino más bien inmersas en el proceso de banalización del derecho penal, adoptadas en el afán de dar una respuesta rápida, impresionante y aplacadora, pero no
efectiva, a la demanda de determinados sectores sociales de mayor seguridad. Por este mismo motivo y por
haberse utilizado en muchos casos como una herramienta de batalla de los políticos y el gobierno, no planificadas como política criminal del país, fueron precedidas por debates publicitarios más que públicos, en los que en
ningún caso, prácticamente, se tuvieron en cuenta los factores determinantes de la supuesta emergencia ni sus
consecuencias en el tiempo.
Resultado de dicha inconsecuencia fue, además, el descalabro de las escalas penales que, vedan actualmente,
la posibilidad de interpretar armónicamente la legislación penal, conforme a los bienes jurídicos afectados y la
conminación penal que resultará de dicha afectación.
Promulgada el 7-8-03 (B.O. 11-8-03).
Así, la facultad de allanar y recibir declaración indagatoria, dejadas a un contralor posterior del juez.
15 Promulgada el 11-11-04 (B.O. 12-11-04).
16 Ello, conforme a la ley 24.660 de ejecución de las penas privativas de la libertad que establece un programa de tratamiento
progresivo del condenado, integrado por distintas etapas, de las cuales los alcanzados por la presente reforma, no podrán
acceder al período de prueba ni a otras formas alternativas de cumplir la sanción privativa de libertad. Significa, en pocas
palabras, que el condenado deberá cumplir la totalidad de la pena en prisión, sin gozar de libertad condicional ni libertad
asistida, por ejemplo.
17 Ley 25.882, del 22-4-04 (B.O. 26-4-04).
18 Ley 25.886, del 4-5-04 (B.O. 5-5-04).
19 Ley 25.890, del 20-5-04 (B.O. 21-5-04).
20 Leyes 25.246, 5-5-00 (B.O. 11-5-00), 25.815, del 28-1-03 (B.O. 1-12-03) y 26.087, del 21-4-06 (B.O. 24-4-06).
21 Promulgada el 10-10-89 (B.O. 11-10-89).
22 Promulgada el 9-1-95 (B.O. 12-1-95).
23 Leyes del 21-11-94 (B.O. 22-11-94) y del 30-5-01 (B.O. 1-6-01).
13
14
-5-
Argentina
II. Preguntas generales sobre los procedimientos penales y medidas especiales
3. ¿Cuáles son los principios generales de su proceso penal (por ejemplo, principio de la legalidad, de justicia
justa, de igualdad de armas) y cuál es su fuente legal (por ejemplo, la constitución, la ley)?
Los principios generales del proceso penal argentino son: el principio de legalidad procesal, que abarca la garantía de juicio previo, el de inocencia del que derivan el principio de la carga de la prueba y el “in dubio pro reo”;
la garantía de defensa que abarca el derecho a ser oído, ofrecer prueba, congruencia y sentencia fundada en
hechos y derecho; la igualdad; la inadmisibilidad de la “reformatio in pejus”, la inadmisibilidad del juicio contra
ausentes y la in-coercibilidad del imputado como órgano de prueba; la inadmisibilidad de la persecución penal
múltiple o de “ne bis in idem”; el principio de publicidad y oralidad del juicio penal; la garantía de la doble instancia; la garantía de imparcialidad de los jueces y de juez natural; el derecho a interrogar a los testigos de cargo y
controlar la prueba.
Todos ellos se encuentran contenidos en la Constitución Nacional, en los Pactos Internacionales con jerarquía
constitucional y en las leyes procesales dictadas por el gobierno federal y por cada una de las provincias que
componen la República Argentina.
4. ¿En qué etapa del proceso penal dispone su sistema legislativo:
- la presunción de la inocencia?
- el derecho del sospechoso/acusado a permanecer en silencio y el derecho a no declarar contra sí mismo y a
no declararse culpable?
Tanto la presunción de inocencia como el derecho del sospechoso/acusado a permanecer en silencio y el derecho a no declarar contra sí mismo y a no declararse culpable, rigen durante todo el proceso. Tales prerrogativas
se encuentran plasmadas en el artículo 18 de la Constitución Nacional, en los Pactos Internacionales de derechos humanos con jerarquía constitucional y en las leyes procesales.
5. ¿Se realiza en su procedimiento penal común o en los procedimientos especiales una distinción entre los
ciudadanos y los no ciudadanos, los nacionales o los no nacionales, o categorías específicas de sujetos (extranjeros, enemigos, no personas)?
En la legislación penal y procesal argentinas por disposición constitucional, no hay diferencias entre argentinos y
extranjeros en materia procesal. Tratándose de extranjeros, debe darse intervención al consulado del país para
que lo asista. En cualquier caso pueden contar con la defensa pública oficial y gratuita. Existen procedimientos
especiales en relación a los jueces, presidente y vice-presidente, senadores, diputados, diplomáticos y sus
familiares, fiscales y defensores oficiales, pero no hay distinción alguna en cuanto a la aplicación de la ley, sobre
ciudadanos y no ciudadanos , conforme lo prescribe el artículo 16 de la Constitución Nacional en cuanto reza:
“… Todos sus habitantes son iguales ante la ley…”.
6. ¿Permite su sistema legislativo la suspensión de los Derechos humanos en situaciones de emergencia (incluida la guerra)?
- ¿Quién es competente para adoptar esta decisión y qué mecanismos de control se aplican?
- ¿Qué garantías pueden ser suspendidas? ¿Su sistema legislativo distingue entre derechos humanos derogables y no derogables?
- ¿Puede servir la emergencia como fundamento para cambiar de procedimientos penales comunes a procedimientos especiales (foro militar, procedimiento policial, procedimiento administrativo, comisiones militares)?
No, nuestro sistema legislativo no permite la suspensión de derechos humanos sino de garantías en situaciones
de emergencia, conforme el art. 23 de la Constitución Nacional de la Argentina. Allí se prevé que “En caso de
conmoción interior o de ataque exterior que pongan en peligro el ejercicio de esta Constitución y de las autoridades creadas por ella, se declarará en estado de sitio la provincia o territorio en donde exista la perturbación del
orden, quedando suspensas allí las garantías constitucionales. Pero durante esta suspensión no podrá el presidente de la República condenar por sí ni aplicar penas. Su poder se limitará en tal caso respecto de las personas, a arrestarlas o trasladarlas de un punto a otro de la Nación, si ellas no prefiriesen salir fuera del territorio
argentino.”
-6-
Argentina
Atento el sistema representativo federal de la Nación Argentina, corresponde al Congreso de la Nación declarar
el estado de sitio en caso de conmoción interior y aprobar o suspender el decreto por el Poder Ejecutivo durante
su receso. Así lo dispone el art. 75, inciso 29 de la Constitución Nacional, que reza “Corresponde al Congreso:
declarar en estado de sitio uno o varios puntos de la Nación en caso de conmoción interior, y aprobar o suspender el estado de sitio declarado, durante su receso, por el Poder Ejecutivo”.
El presidente de la Nación podrá declarar el estado de sitio cuando el Congreso se encuentre en receso, necesitando luego la aprobación de éste último. Y, a su vez, podrá igualmente hacerlo, por determinado tiempo y con
acuerdo del Congreso en caso de ataque exterior. Ello está previsto en el art. 99, inc. 16 de la Constitución
Nacional que dispone que “El presidente de la Nación tiene las siguientes atribuciones: declara en estado de
sitio uno o varios puntos de la Nación, en caso de ataque exterior y por término limitado, con acuerdo del Senado. En caso de conmoción interior sólo tiene esta facultad cuando el Congreso está en receso, porque es atribución que corresponde a este cuerpo. El presidente la ejerce con las limitaciones prescriptas en el art. 23.”
En concordancia con lo mencionado, vale decir que el art. 61 establece que “Corresponde también al Senado
autorizar al presidente de la Nación para que declare en estado de sitio, uno o varios puntos de la República en
caso de ataque exterior”.
Con respecto a los mecanismos de control, podemos referirnos al art. 43 de la Constitución Nacional que establece el judicial de la detención de personas durante el estado de excepción, exigiendo la resolución inmediata
del eventual hábeas corpus. El que no se suspende durante la vigencia del estado de sitio. En efecto la ley
23.098 establece en el art. 4° que cuando sea limitada la libertad de una persona en virtud de la declaración
prevista en el artículo 23 de la Constitución Nacional, el procedimiento de hábeas corpus podrá tender a comprobar en el caso concreto: 1) La legitimidad de la declaración del estado de sitio. 2) La correlación entre la
orden de privación de la libertad y la situación que dio origen a la declaración del estado de sitio. 3) la agravación ilegítima de la forma y condiciones en que se cumple la privación de la libertad que en ningún caso podrá
hacerse efectiva en establecimientos destinados a la ejecución de penas. 4) El efectivo ejercicio del derecho de
opción previsto en la última parte del artículo 23 de la Constitución Nacional.
Nuestra Constitución Nacional no diferencia entre derechos derogables y no derogables. Para establecer qué
garantías pueden ser suspendidas y cuáles no, debemos remitirnos al art. 75, inc. 22 de la Constitución Nacional
que otorga jerarquía constitucional a varios tratados sobre derechos humanos. En efecto, la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, contempla la suspensión de las obligaciones del Estado Parte, establecidas en
la Convención por causa de guerra, de peligro público o de otra emergencia que amenace la independencia o la
seguridad del Estado Parte (art. 27, inc. 1 de la convención). Al mismo tiempo dispone la no suspensión de
derechos considerados esenciales: derecho al reconocimiento de la personalidad jurídica; derecho a la vida;
derecho a la integridad personal; de la prohibición de la esclavitud y servidumbre; del principio de legalidad y de
retroactividad; de la libertad de conciencia y de religión; de la protección de la familia; del derecho al nombre; de
los derechos del niño; de los derechos a la nacionalidad; de los derechos políticos; ni de las garantías judiciales
indispensables para proteger a tales derechos (art. 27, inc. 2 de la convención).
Es por ello que, teniendo en cuenta que el art. 23 de la Constitución Nacional nada dice acerca de hasta dónde
pueden restringirse las garantías y los derechos, se puede decir que el art. 27, inc. 2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos proporciona una regla de interpretación de cuáles son las garantías que pueden
suspenderse o no durante el estado de sitio.
Con respecto a la suspensión de garantías de las que venimos hablando, no puede soslayarse el criterio sentado por las Opiniones Consultivas nros. 8/87 y 9/87 de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. En efecto,
la Corte Interamericana sostuvo, en la Opinión Consultiva 8/87, que el derecho a un recurso judicial rápido y
sencillo para proteger derechos fundamentales, lo que en la República Argentina se conoce como acción de
amparo y el hábeas corpus, no se suspenden en los casos previstos en el art. 27, inc. 1 (que se refiere a casos
de guerra, peligro público u otra emergencia que amenace la independencia o seguridad del Estado), porque
constituyen garantías judiciales indispensables, que se hacen tanto más necesarias en situaciones de emergencia.
-7-
Argentina
De la interpretación de ambas Opiniones Consultivas surge que, pese a la ambigüedad del art. 27 de la Convención, los derechos que pueden ser suspendidos durante los estados de excepción son algunos derechos y no
las garantías procesales, en tanto que los requisitos de eficacia de éstas, establecidas en el art. 8 de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, sólo pueden restringirse en la medida extrema de su requerimiento para
hacer frente a la emergencia y, todo ello, con suficiente control judicial, sustantivo y adjetivo.
Por último, respecto a esta cuestión, no puede soslayarse que el art. 27 de la Convención tiene un estándar más
bajo que la Constitución Nacional, pues esta norma prevé el derecho de opción para salir del país en caso de
detención a disposición del Poder Ejecutivo, hipótesis no contemplada en el Pacto Internacional.
Ahora bien, con relación a la última de las preguntas, en cuanto a si se podría amparándose en el estado de sitio
modificar los procedimientos penales comunes o especiales, cabe mencionar que la respuesta será negativa. El
texto del art. 23 de la Constitución Nacional sólo menciona “Suspensión de garantías” y “arrestar o trasladar a
las personas a otro lado de la nación, si ellas prefiriesen salir fuera del territorio argentino”; pero en ningún caso
otorga la posibilidad de modificar los procedimientos penales, ya sean comunes o especiales.
7. ¿Se prevén en su sistema legislativo medidas especiales por las cuales se pueden clasificar partes de la
legislación y/o partes del proceso penal (legislación clasificada, procedimientos secretos, agentes secretos de
justicia, secreto en la administración de la justicia penal)?
Sí. Entre ellas se encuentran: el secreto de sumario, tareas de inteligencia, agente encubierto, testigo protegido.
Ver la siguiente respuesta.
8. ¿Permite su sistema jurídico el uso de información de inteligencia (por ejemplo, inteligencia policial general,
información de los servicios de inteligencia nacionales o extranjeros) en procedimientos penales, por ejemplo
- como información preliminar para abrir una investigación penal?
- como prueba de la existencia de indicios racionales para el empleo de medidas coactivas sobre bienes y sobre
personas (por ejemplo, embargo y comiso, detención, prisión preventiva)?
- como prueba de la responsabilidad/culpabilidad en procedimientos penales?
En la legislación argentina la figura del agente encubierto sólo se encuentra prevista para los casos de tenencia
y tráfico de estupefacientes (conforme lo dispone la ley 23.737 y modificaciones introducidas por la ley 24.424).
Dicha norma faculta a los jueces a designar tales agentes encubiertos durante el curso de una investigación
relativa a infracciones a esa misma ley, o en el caso de contrabando de estupefacientes, siempre y cuando
exista un estado real de sospecha. Ello tiene por finalidad comprobar la comisión de algún delito, impedir su
consumación, lograr la individualización o detención de los autores, partícipes o encubridores, o para obtener o
asegurar los medios de prueba necesarios.
Respecto de los testigos de identidad reservada, previsto también sólo para el caso de la ley 23.737. En ella, se
dispone que “cuando las circunstancias del caso hicieran presumir fundadamente un peligro cierto para la vida o
la integridad física de un testigo o de un imputado que hubiese colaborado con la investigación, el tribunal podrá
disponer las medidas necesarias especiales de protección que resulten adecuadas. Éstas podrán consistir en la
sustitución de la identidad del testigo o imputado…”
Del fin de la ley puede afirmarse que la reserva de identidad de testigos se refiere al caso de quienes han prestado ya una colaboración, y no al de quienes vayan a prestarla.
El resto de nuestro ordenamiento legal no prevé la posibilidad de que un testigo mantenga oculta su identidad
durante un proceso penal. Si ello fuera así presentaría obstáculos constitucionales insalvables pues se vería
menoscabado el derecho de defensa.
Con respecto al tema de secreto en la administración de justicia, la ley de procedimiento federal de la República
Argentina determina que el sumario será público para las partes y sus defensores y, a su vez, faculta al juez a
ordenar el secreto del sumario por resolución fundada, siempre que la publicidad ponga en peligro el descubrimiento de la verdad, exceptuándose los actos definitivos e irreproducibles, que nunca serán secretos para aquellos.
-8-
Argentina
Por otra parte, en nuestro país rige la Ley de Inteligencia Nacional (25520) mediante la cual se autoriza a sus
órganos (ya sea del estado o militar) el uso de tareas de inteligencia tendientes a captar o interceptar comunicaciones privadas de cualquier tipo, previa autorización judicial que se concede por un plazo perentorio de sesenta
días prorrogable con un nuevo pedido por igual término. Luego, ello dará lugar a que el Juez inicie la investigación penal salvo que dispusiera la destrucción del material obtenido.
III. Aplicación pro-activa (procedimientos policiales comunes o procedimientos penales comunes, procedimientos especiales)
9. En su país los servicios de inteligencia, las fuerzas regulares de la policía, o las agencias administrativas de la
aplicación de la ley (tales como las agencias de aduanas o tributarias) ¿son competentes para utilizar medidas
coactivas de manera proactiva? En caso afirmativo,
- ¿en qué condiciones?
- ¿debe existir una sospecha basada en indicios racionales de criminalidad para utilizar estos poderes coactivos,
o son suficientes indicaciones sobre la peligrosidad para la seguridad nacional o el interés público? ¿La definición de la sospecha se ha cambiado para los delitos graves?
Como regla general la policía, y otras fuerzas de seguridad, tienen el deber de intervención una vez iniciada la
investigación, bajo la supervisión del juez y fiscal.
Solo para casos de urgencia poseen las mismas facultades que el juez y el fiscal, teniendo permitido la constatación por sí del estado de las personas, de las cosas y de los lugares, mediante inspecciones, planos, fotografías, exámenes técnicos. Puede ordenar la clausura de un local en el que se suponga con indicios vehementes
que se ha cometido un delito grave, dando luego de ello inmediato aviso a la autoridad judicial. Puede también
interrogar testigos, aprehender a los presuntos culpables y usar la fuerza pública en caso de que medie necesidad. Ello está regulado en el art. 184 del Código Procesal Penal de la Nación que, a su vez, está limitado por el
art. 186 que determina que de todo lo que haga o disponga la policía o fuerza de seguridad se deberá comunicar
inmediatamente al juez competente y al fiscal que deban intervenir.
Por otra parte, podrán también actuar sin orden judicial con la finalidad de hallar la existencia de cosas presumiblemente provenientes o constitutivas de un delito: -requisando personas, -inspeccionando los efectos personales que lleven consigo. En todos los casos deberá ser realizado siempre: - en circunstancias previas o concomitantes de un delito que permitan justificar la medida; y -en la vía pública o en lugares de acceso público.
- ¿Estos poderes coactivos se pueden utilizar para personas distintas de los sospechosos/acusados de delitos
(por ejemplo, combatientes enemigos, extranjeros enemigos, personas que no tienen ningún derecho a la protección del procedimiento penal regular, etc.)?
No.
- ¿cómo se regula la división del trabajo en las autoridades encargadas de la investigación?
- ¿se puede compartir la información obtenida mediante la aplicación proactiva por medio del uso de medidas
coactivas entre los servicios de inteligencia, la policía, las agencias administrativas de la aplicación de la ley y
las autoridades judiciales?
10. ¿Permite su sistema legislativo el uso de medios violentos en las técnicas de investigación (tortura o tratos
crueles, inhumanos o degradantes) durante la aplicación proactiva, y, en caso afirmativo, en qué condiciones?
¿Cuál es la práctica de su país en este campo?
No., en ningún caso. La Constitución de la Nación Argentina establece en su artículo 18 que “… Nadie puede
ser obligado a declarar contra sí mismo, ni arrestado sino en virtud de orden escrita de autoridad competente…
Quedan abolidos para siempre la pena de muerte por causas políticas, toda especie de tormento y los azotes…”
Además, de acuerdo al art. 75, inc. 22 de la constitución se han incorporado tratados internacionales con igual
jerarquía. Entre los cuales se encuentran la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, que prohíbe el
sometimiento de las personas a torturas, penas o tratos crueles, inhumanos o degradantes (art. 5). También la
Convención Americana Sobre Derechos Humanos (art. 5, inc. 2). De igual modo el Pacto Internacional de Dere-
-9-
Argentina
chos Civiles y Políticos (art. 7) y la Convención contra la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles Inhumanos o
Degradantes, ratificado por nuestro país el 02-9-1986.
En la práctica se han detectado innumerables casos de torturas a detenidos y tratos crueles poro parte del personal policial, que no siempre son detectados y procesados por el sistema judicial por distintas razones.
11. En caso de delitos graves, ¿permite su sistema legislativo limitar
- el derecho al habeas data (protección de los datos, de la vida privada)?
- el derecho al habeas corpus (detención, prisión preventiva, deportación, entrega extraordinaria, etc.)?
No. existen diferencias por la gravedad de delitos. Las limitaciones existentes se aplican a todos los delitos. Se
encuentran reconocidos por la Constitución de la Nación Argentina.
IV. Fase de instrucción (procedimientos penales comunes, procedimientos especiales)
12. ¿Ha experimentado su sistema legislativo un aumento de los poderes de investigación y coactivos de las
autoridades encargadas de la investigación (embargo y comiso, intervenciones y grabaciones, órdenes de congelación, órdenes de producción de prueba, detenciones y prisión preventiva, infiltración, etc.)? En caso afirmativo, ¿de qué manera?
- los deberes de cooperación de las personas investigadas? En caso afirmativo, ¿de qué manera? ¿Se prevén
nuevos deberes de cooperación en procesos transnacionales (por ejemplo, órdenes de producción transnacional
de información)?
No. El sistema legislativo argentino no ha tenido modificaciones que aumenten tales prerrogativas o deberes de
cooperación para personas investigadas. Al contrario, la tendencia apunta a restringir tales supuestos.
13. ¿Se ha producido una transferencia de poderes en su país
- del poder judicial (jueces de instrucción, etc.) al ejecutivo en relación con la investigación (policía, fiscales,
servicios de inteligencia, agencias administrativas de aplicación, ejército)? En caso afirmativo, ¿cómo y hasta
qué punto?
- de los fiscales a la policía, etc.? En caso afirmativo, ¿cómo y en qué medida?
No. Ha ocurrido a favor del Ministerio Público Fiscal, que es un poder independiente del Ejecutivo, del Legislativo y del Judicial.
14. ¿Se producido en su país una especialización y/o una centralización de las autoridades judiciales de investigación?
El sistema federal de nuestro país tiene previsto que dentro del ámbito federal la intervención de una Policía
Federal y para el ámbito provincial tantas policías como provincias existen.
Desde este punto de vista, hay unidades especializadas de la Policía Federal Argentina en la investigación de
aéreas concretas, como puede ser: drogas, secuestro extorsivo, delitos ambientales, etc.
Las atribuciones de esta policía están reguladas en los diversos códigos de procedimiento penal, ya sea que se
trate del Código Procesal Penal de la Nación para el ámbito federal o de los códigos de procedimiento que cada
provincia establezca de acuerdo a lo que manda la Constitución Nacional.
15. En su sistema jurídico ¿se han modificado las reglas sobre
- las condiciones para aprobar medidas coactivas (autorizaciones) por parte de la autoridad judicial? En caso
afirmativo ¿cómo y en qué medida? ¿Se ha producido una redefinición de los indicios racionales de criminalidad
para las autorizaciones?
No se han modificado sustancialmente.
Dentro del ordenamiento procesal penal nacional, el actual Código Procesal Penal de la Nación que rige en el
ámbito federal, se han modificado las atribuciones de la Policía judicial y de las fuerzas de seguridad en lo que
hace al uso de la fuerza pública, a las diligencias de allanamiento y requisas; a la detención de personas, prohibiendo la posibilidad de recibirle declaración al imputado. También respecto a las órdenes de allanamiento y sus
- 10 -
Argentina
formalidades, limitando su procedencia a los supuestos en que se hayan acreditado debidamente los motivos
que avalen tal orden que deberán ser plasmados por escrito por parte del juez competente.
En lo referente a la requisa de persona o los efectos personales que lleven consigo sólo está permitido con la
finalidad de hallar la existencia de cosas probablemente provenientes o constitutivas de un delito, pero con la
salvedad de que siempre y cuando sean realizadas en circunstancias previas o concomitantes que la justifiquen,
incluyéndose los operativos públicos de prevención, y en la vía pública o lugares de acceso público. 24
En lo que hace al secuestro de cosas relacionadas con el delito, se introdujo una modificación por la cual el juez
de instrucción podrá disponerlo cuando sea resultado de un allanamiento o de una requisa personal o inspección.
Por último, es de mencionarse que, de acuerdo a la Constitución Nacional (art. 75, inc. 22), nuestro país tiene
suscriptos distintos acuerdos internacionales de asistencia judicial en materia penal, mediante los cuales se
establecen los requisitos a cumplir para recibir declaración a un detenido, las solicitudes de decomiso, etc.
- la formación del sumario o el acceso a la prueba, para mantenerla ex parte, de manera que no esté disponible
para la defensa?
El Código Procesal Penal de la Nación, ha sufrido modificaciones en lo atinente a los recaudos que debe cumplir
la prevención para que continúe la validez del proceso. Por ejemplo en lo que se refiere a las atribuciones de las
fuerzas de seguridad enunciadas supra. Pero, concretamente, en orden a la iniciación del proceso la ley 25.434
determinó la modificación del art. 186 de nuestro Código de procedimientos obligando a los encargados de la
prevención la comunicación inmediata tanto al juez como al fiscal de la iniciación de una actuación.
También puede considerarse dentro del inicio del proceso la facultad del juez de delegar la investigación en el
agente fiscal, debiendo agregarse que, para aquellos delitos que no tengan individualizado a su autor la dirección de la investigación quedará siempre a cargo del Ministerio Público Fiscal, con noticia del juez en turno,
salvo en los supuestos en los que se investiguen delitos de secuestro y secuestro extorsivo, respectivamente, en
los cuales la investigación siempre quedará a cargo del fiscal desde su inicio hasta la finalización del sumario.
- la prueba, con el fin de incluir al acusado como una fuente de prueba?
En el marco del Código Procesal Penal de la Nación solo ha habido modificaciones en lo atinente a la requisa
personal comentada anteriormente.
- las condiciones para la detención y la prisión preventiva? ¿Prevé su sistema legislativo posibilidades de detención y de prisión preventiva secretas, deportación, y entrega extraordinaria sin habeas corpus?
En nuestro sistema federal no existe la detención ni prisión preventiva secreta. En lo que hace a la deportación o
entrega extraordinaria por Habeas Corpus, tampoco se prevén modificaciones, manteniéndose vigente el régimen de extradición y exhortos.
El Código Procesal Penal de la Nación argentina modificó las obligaciones que se deben cumplir para los procedimientos de detención de personas y también en las atribuciones conferidas a las fuerzas de seguridad que ya
fue comentado.
En materia internacional y, puntalmente sobre deportación o entrega extraordinaria resultan vigentes los acuerdos y tratados suscriptos por la Nación Argentina con distintos países que por haber sido ratificados tienen
categoría de ley de acuerdo a lo que manda el art. 75, inc. 22.
16. ¿Se han introducido en su país órdenes específicas (judiciales o no) para el almacenamiento de información
a disposición de los proveedores de servicios (proveedores de Internet, agencias de viajes, compañías aéreas,
compañías de tarjetas de crédito)?
No.
17. En su país la prueba previa al juicio obtenida por la policía y las autoridades judiciales ¿está sometida al
control judicial (admisibilidad de la prueba previa al juicio)? ¿Existen medidas especiales respecto de los delitos
graves?
24
Art. 230 bis C.P.P.N., incorporado por ley 25.434 mencionada supra.
- 11 -
Argentina
El Código Procesal Penal de la Nación establece que luego de que se decrete la clausura de la instrucción las
partes deberán comparecer a juicio para examinar las actuaciones, documentos y cosas secuestradas con la
finalidad de ofrecer la prueba que querrán reproducir en el debate oral.
Para el supuesto de que las partes se conformen con la incorporación por lectura de algún elemento probatorio
el tribunal deberá aceptarlo previa evaluación acerca de su procedencia. De igual modo podrá rechazar la prueba ofrecida por las partes que considere evidentemente impertinente o superabundante.
También para el caso en que ninguna de las partes ofrezca prueba, el presidente del Tribunal ordenará la recepción de la que considere oportuna, útil y pertinente dentro de la que se hubiere producido en la instrucción.
Por otra parte, la ley 25.760 introdujo como artículo 359 bis el agregado para el caso en que se investigue el
delito de secuestro o secuestro extorsivo, ampliando los términos para la designación de audiencia de juicio.
La ley 25.434 permite la lectura durante el debate de documentos, actas y declaraciones y eximir de ello si las
partes lo consienten.
El Código de Justicia Militar establece que ciertas diligencias probatorias pueden practicarse a instancia del
fiscal o a pedido de la defensa. Ellas son: ampliación indagatoria, testigos que no hayan declarado en el sumario
o que lo hayan hecho sobre puntos distintos a los que los convoca, careos, identificaciones, confrontaciones,
peritajes, examen de documentos. Ello será evaluado a instancia de un Consejo que las concederá si las considera pertinentes. No existen medidas especiales respecto de delitos graves.
18. ¿Su país permite el uso de la prueba obtenida en el extranjero (uso extraterritorial de la prueba)? En caso
afirmativo ¿en qué condiciones?
En la República Argentina se permite el uso de la prueba obtenida en el extranjero. El Código Procesal Penal de
la Nación Argentina regula en su artículo 134 “Los exhortos a tribunales extranjeros se diligenciarán por vía
diplomática en la forma establecida por los tratados o costumbres internacionales. Los de tribunales extranjeros
serán diligenciados en los casos y modos establecidos por los tratados o costumbres internacionales y por las
leyes del país o en la forma que se establezca en los convenios firmados con los distintos países, con sujeción
al principio de reciprocidad”.
Cabe agregar que entre el exhorto que se envía al extranjero y el que proviene del extranjero, hay una diferencia. En ambos se procede a la rogatoria internacional y hay que atenerse a los tratados; a falta de ellos, a las
costumbres internacionales. Pero en el segundo, conforme al aforismo “locus regit actum”, el exhorto se debe
tramitar en el país según sus propias leyes.
Las rogatorias y su problemática se basan en la colaboración entre la jurisdicción nacional y las extranjeras, que
se rige por los principios del derecho internacional. Las fuentes, en materia de rogatoria internacional penal, son
las normas de derecho internacional y las internas de un Estado en el cual se desarrolla un proceso, así como
las del Estado en cuyo territorio deben ser llevados los actos procesales.
Para las dos formas de rogatoria (activa y pasiva) es necesario un trámite previo, consistente en la llamada
comisión o carta rogatoria tramitada por el Estado requirente al requerido por medio de la vía diplomática, o bien
por el denominado trámite diplomático consular, consistente en la requisitoria directa de la comisión rogatoria
por parte de la autoridad judicial del Estado del proceso a la representación diplomática nacional ante el Estado
extranjero requerido, o cónsul autorizado para ejercer tales funciones en el lugar en que ha de llevarse a cabo el
acto procesal.
19. ¿Se han introducido medidas coactivas de forma que dejen en papel mojado las reglas sobre el juicio justo?
No.
20. ¿Se han introducido en su país medidas especiales para la protección del secreto de testigos, víctimas,
jueces, etc.?
En la actual legislación procesal penal de la Nación Argentina, en su capítulo IV atinente a las partes del proceso
y derechos de los testigos y víctimas “solo” se establece que “desde el inicio de un proceso penal y hasta su
finalización, el Estado nacional garantizará a las víctimas de un delito y a los testigos convocados a la causa por
- 12 -
Argentina
un órgano judicial el pleno respeto de los siguientes derechos: … c) a la protección de la integridad física y moral
inclusive de su familia” (art. 79).
En materia de narcotráfico, por Ley Nacional 24.424 modificatoria de la Ley Nacional de Estupefacientes,
23.737, se busca penetrar en determinadas organizaciones delictivas dedicadas a delitos de drogas, a efectos
de establecer cómo funcionan.
En consecuencia, en dicha normativa sí se establecieron medidas especiales para facilitar el quebrantamiento
de estas organizaciones, como por ejemplo la modificación del art. 33 bis de la referida Ley 23.737 introduciéndose la figura del testigo de identidad reservada (cuya constitucionalidad fue reiteradamente cuestionada en
nuestro país) donde se prescribe: “Cuando las circunstancias del caso hicieren presumir fundadamente un peligro cierto para la vida o integridad física de un testigo o de un imputado que hubiese colaborado con la investigación, el tribunal deberá disponer las medidas especiales de protección que resulten adecuadas. Estas podrán
incluso consistir en la sustitución de la identidad del testigo o imputado y en la provisión de recursos económicos
indispensables para el cambio de domicilio y de ocupación si fuesen necesarias. La gestión que corresponda
quedará a cargo del Ministerio de Justicia de la Nación.”
Lo que nuestro país se cuestiona es si dicha normativa es aplicable a cualquier delito o sólo los relacionados
con la Ley mencionada. En mi opinión parecería que sólo es aplicable a dicha legislación y más no en forma
general para la investigación de cualquier delito.
V. Fase de enjuiciamiento (procedimientos penales, procedimientos especiales)
21. Cuando se trata de delitos graves, ¿prevé su sistema legislativo reglas especiales relativas a
- la competencia jurisdiccional? En caso afirmativo, ¿cuál es la competencia jurisdiccional rationae materiae?
Sí, pero no por el hecho de ser “delitos graves en sí” sino más bien por el “tipo de delito” o bien por la afectación
a determinados bienes jurídicos. Se prevé para casos de delitos especiales en razón de la materia, como por
ejemplo el narcotráfico o delitos que son de relevante trascendencia pública por su periódica e insistente comisión como por ejemplo el caso de los secuestros extorsivos, o asimismo delitos cometidos contra el Estado
Nacional (art. 210 bis del Código Penal argentino – “asociación ilícita que ponga en peligro la vigencia de la
Constitución Nacional”). A estos delitos se les otorga competencia federal, aunque los mismos sean cometidos
en territorio provincial. La justicia federal es la justicia de excepción por imperio del art. 116 de la Constitución
Nacional Argentina y arts. 32 y 33 del Código Procesal Penal de la Nación, y se fundamenta en la particularidad
que el Estado Argentino entendió que requerían trato más preferente y en virtud de tratarse de cuestiones con
relevante “interés de la Nación”.
- la organización del juicio, incluida la creación de tribunales especiales?
No, en realidad no crean Tribunales especiales pero en ciertos casos, como el secuestro extorsivo, se otorgan a
las partes plazos más acotados para los actos del proceso que los concebidos en otra clase de delitos.
- la protección del secreto de los testigos, víctimas, jueces, etc.?
Me remito a las respuestas aportadas en la pregunta 20. Asimismo a modo de ejemplo pueden mencionarse
algunas otras figuras que si bien distan en lo sustancial pueden relacionarse con los testigos de identidad reservada, a saber:
El agente provocador: Antecedente histórico del agente encubierto donde el agente induce a otro a cometer un
delito para lograr que el provocado pueda ser sancionado por su conducta.
El informante: es aquel cuyos datos son reservados y confidencialmente brinda material informático acerca de
ciertas conductas delictuales prestando así ayuda a los funcionarios policiales en la investigación del delito.
Puede ser cualquier persona que no sea un agente oficial que suministra información sobre ilícitos.
El arrepentido: es atinente al imputado en causa penal (conocido “derecho penal premial” – concepción moderna
mediante la cual la pena que sigue a la comisión de un delito no se aplica o simplemente se atenúa, lo que
resulta ser una forma sui generis de despenalización-).
Fue incorporada por el art. 5 de la ley 24.424 como art. 29 ter de la ley 23.737. Allí se establece: “A la persona
incursa en cualquiera de los delitos previstos en la presente ley y en el art. 866 del Código Aduanero, el Tribunal
- 13 -
Argentina
podrá reducirle las penas hasta la mitad del mínimo y del máximo o eximirla de ellas, cuando durante la sustanciación del proceso o con anterioridad a su iniciación: a) revelare la identidad de coautores, partícipes o encubridores de los hechos investigados o de otros conexos, proporcionando datos suficientes que permitan el procesamiento de los sindicados o un significativo progreso en la investigación. b) Aportare información que permita
secuestrar sustancias, materias primas, precursores químicos, medios de transporte, valores, bienes, dinero o
cualquier otro activo de importancia, provenientes de los delitos previstos en esta ley”.
- la evidencia y la prueba en el juicio? ¿Se puede utilizar la prueba blindada o secreta en procedimientos ex
parte? ¿Existe una excepción relativa al interés público para acceder a la prueba y al interrogatorio cruzado?
¿Se puede suprimir la prueba favorable al sospechoso en circunstancias especiales?
En líneas generales las partes pueden solicitar la prueba que consideren adecuada para probar lo que pretenden, durante la etapa de instrucción es más restrictiva la posibilidad de producir prueba e incluso la denegatoria
de las pruebas solicitadas por parte del organismo jurisdiccional no es apelable (art. 199 del Código Procesal
Penal de la Nación). Ahora bien, durante el plenario la posibilidad de proponer diligencias de prueba es más
amplia.
En cuanto a la prueba secreta, entiendo que no puede ser utilizada atento que el imputado tiene derecho constitucional para acceder al control de la prueba de la causa y que la prueba favorable a éste no puede ser suprimida sino que deberá ser valorada en su conjunto con el resto de las constancias del expediente.
- la valoración de la prueba?
El método utilizado para la valoración de la prueba es la íntima convicción basada en la sana crítica racional, no
se establecen a nivel nacional criterios de prueba tasada previamente si no se valoran los elementos de prueba
en su conjunto (prueba de cargo y de descargo) siempre con criterios de racionalidad.
22. Cuando se trata de delitos graves, ¿prevé su sistema legislativo de forma completa
- el derecho de la persona sospechosa/acusada/detenida a un tribunal independiente e imparcial?
Sí.
- la presunción de inocencia en el juicio o se prevén reglas especiales (presunción de culpabilidad o de responsabilidad, inversión de la carga de la prueba)?
Sí.
- el derecho a ser juzgado sin dilaciones indebidas y el derecho a que se determine la legalidad de la detención
lo antes posible (habeas corpus)?
Sí.
- la máxima in dubio pro reo?
Sí.
- los derechos procesales de las partes (igualdad de armas, juicio justo)?
Sí.
- el derecho a un juicio público con una audiencia;
Sí. Nuestra Constitución Nacional prevé el juicio por jurados pero ello no se encuentra en aplicación en todo el
territorio federal aún. Actualmente a nivel federal rige el juicio oral y público.
- el derecho a un procedimiento oral, en audiencia equitativa y adversarial;
Sí.
- el derecho a estar presente en el juicio;
Sí.
- el derecho de la defensa a tener acceso a todos los informes del caso;
Sí.
- 14 -
Argentina
- el derecho a ser informado sin retraso del delito imputado;
Sí.
- el derecho al total acceso al estado del caso y a un tiempo adecuado para preparar la defensa;
Sí.
- el derecho a la publicidad interna (entre las partes implicadas) y externa de los procedimientos;
Sí.
- el derecho a examinar los testigos contrarios al acusado y a obtener la presencia y el examen de testigos en su
favor en las mismas condiciones que los testigos en su contra; medidas especiales para las nuevas tecnologías
(videoconferencia, etc.); medidas especiales relativas a los testigos blindados o protegidos (agentes encubiertos,
agentes de los servicios de inteligencia)?
Sí.
- el derecho a un intérprete;
Sí.
- el derecho a no ser testigo en procedimientos contra uno mismo;
Sí.
- el derecho a un abogado (obligatorio o no?), ¿cambios en este privilegio legal? ¿Libre elección o protección o
designación de oficio por el Estado?
Sí.
- el derecho a guardar silencio (existe alguna limitación a la obligación de informar al acusado de este derecho;
existen límites al derecho a guardar silencio)?
Sí, toda persona acusada de un delito tiene derecho a guardar silencio sin que ello implique una presunción en
su contra. Tampoco está limitado el derecho a hacerlo. No existe limitación en la obligación de informar al acusado de este derecho.
¿Se permite obtener conclusiones perjudiciales del hecho de que el acusado se niegue a declarar?
No.
VI. Fase posterior al juicio (procedimiento penal, especial)
23. En relación con los delitos de terrorismo y los delitos graves ¿modifica su sistema legislativo
- el derecho a que la sentencia pueda ser objeto de recurso ante un tribunal superior (recurso de súplica, de
casación, constitucional)?
No.
- la prohibición del doble proceso (ne bis in idem), cuando se produzca una absolución o se declare la culpabilidad y se imponga una pena?
No.
- 15 -
Preparatory Colloquium of the XVIII International Congress of Penal Law.
Section III
Pula (Croatia), 6-9 November 2008
AUSTRIA*
Michael LEITNER**
I) 1) By virtue of art. 9 par. 1 B-VG (Austrian Federal Constitutional Law), the generally recognized provisions of
international law are regarded as integral parts of the Austrian Federal Law. International treaties derive domestic
validity as a result of general or specific transformation into the Austrian legal system.
General transformation means, that international treaties can directly attain binding character only by being published in the Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt - BGBl). Their status in terms of Austrian legal order (constitutional law, ordinary statutory law and statutory order) depends on their domestic treatment upon conclusion
of the agreement. If the treaty is approved by the National Council (Nationalrat) by virtue of art. 50 par. 1 B-VG, it
aquires the status of ordinary statutory law. If it is approved by a qualified majority (art. 44 B-VG: the presence of
half of the delegates, two-third-majority among the voting members, denomination as constitutional legislation), it
aquires the status of constitutional law. In all the other cases it aquires the status of statutory order.
On the occassion of the approval of a treaty, the National Council can also rule that the agreement shall be implemented into the Austrian legal system only by specific legislation (special transformation); up to this point the
treaty thus does not produce any legal effects on national level whatsoever. This applies especially for non-selfexecuting treaties.
After Austria ratified the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) in 1958, the ECHR
retroactively aquired the status of constitutional law by virtue of a law issued in 1964 (BGBl 59/1964). As a result
the human rights and fundamental freedoms established in the ECHR have to be recognized internally as directly
applicable, their applicability being guaranteed by virtue of constitutional law. There are also other human rights
originating in international law which have become after WW2 part of Austrian legislation, but as a rule they do
not have the status of constitutional law. Given the fact that these treaties are commonly not directly applicable,
one - in their relation to national authorities - cannot directly invoke the rights which they stipulate, but need to
appeal to specific legislation issued on the basis of these treaties. Parts of these rights are also guaranteed by
already existing national fundamental rights with the status of constitutional law.
As national fundamental freedoms shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of international law,
international human rights treaties can be used for their interpretation.
So the question concerning whether individuals can derive rights out of international treaties which have undergone general or special transformation depends on the subject matter of the respective treaties. Hence the form
of their enforcement depends on the general rules of the Austrian law which provide for different ways according
to the entities which shall execute these provisions, that is judicial or administrative authorities.
Relating to decisions released by administrative authorities an individual can appeal - after having gone through
all levels of administrative courts - to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof – VfGH), if he feels his
constitutional (fundamental) rights have been violated under this decision or if he alleges an infringement of his
personal rights by the enforcement of unconstitutional legislation or unlawful staturory orders (art 144 B-VG).
Important notice: this text is the last original version of the national report sent by the author. The Review has not assured
any editorial revision of it.
** Public Prosecutor, Advisor at the Austrian Ministry of Justice
*
- 17 -
Preparatory Colloquium Pula (Croatia), November 2008
Austria
Individuals, who consider their subjective public rights (that is not a fundamental right) have been violated under
a decision, can appeal to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof - VwGH).
At the level of ordinary jurisdiction the protection of fundamental rights shall be guaranteed exclusively by means
of ordinary courts and by using the legal remedies provided by criminal and civil procedure. A constitutional
complaint which leads to the Constitutional Court (VfGH) and which is directed against decisions by criminal and
civil courts is not provided for. Given that legal remedies provide for an universal evaluation of the lawfulness of
judicial decisions one can say, that also the protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms is monitored within an adequate procedure.
In cases of violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty by decisions of penal courts there is the possibility of submitting a special complaint to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof – OGH), which can annul the
disputed decision.
If the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decides that provisions of the ECHR or one of its additional
protocols have been violated by a decision or disposition of a criminal court, the Supreme Court decides the
criminal procedure shall be repeated, if it cannot exclude, that the violation of the ECHR can have an unfavourable impact on the content of the decision issued by the criminal court (art. 363a StPO). Moreover with a view to
guarantee the protection of fundamental freedoms and to comply with the provisions of the Constitution and of
international law in the field of criminal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has introduced recently a new jurisprudence line according to which the reopening of the criminal procedure is also permitted without prior decision of
the ECtHR (OGH in 13 Os 135/06m).
I) 2)
With respect to the Austrian criminal procedure it has to be said that the Austrian law – even in cases of emergency - does not provide for special procedures like military justice, police justice or military commissions running
parallel or alternative to the criminal procedures carried out by orderly courts. This means that all cases of felony
among which organized crime and terrorism can only be dealt within the framework of the orderly criminal procedure.
In recent years, the Austrian code of criminal procedure (Strafprozessordnung - StPO) has been amended continuously. With respect to the fight against organized crime the Federal Law on special investigation procedures
(Bundesgesetz über die besonderen Ermittlungsmaßnahmen, BGBl. Nr. 105/1997) has to be pointed out. On the
occasion of this amendment, the optical and acoustic surveillance of persons using technical means (bugging
operations) and the computer-aided data merging was introduced. Still, these investigation measures can only be
used, if specific, very strict material and formal conditions (like a judge’s permission) are given.
At present they are working on a new amendment in the field of domestic security and fight of terrorism focused
on the introduction of an online-criminal search. They are contemplating investigation methods which could allow
- beyond the methods already available like telephone surveillance or bugging operations – the monitoring of
data flow, data processing and content of data saved on computers without the user’s knowledge – if need be
with the help of special programs (Trojans). This enlargement of investigation methods is currently still food for
political debates. A draft law has been aimed at until 2008, but as it has not yet been developed no concrete
measures can be described so far.
All reforms and developments refer to the orderly criminal procedure of orderly courts because, as it has already
been mentioned, no special procedures are provided for.
In the context of the introduction of special technical investigation methods there has been a vivid political and
public debate. The fears generated by the possibility of these new methods to lead to an exacerbated restriction
of individual rights have been mitigated to some extent in the meantime by imposing severe conditions on their
usage, by having their usage monitored by an independent legal protection delegate and because of the small
number of cases, where these methods are used.
II) 3)
The following fundamental principles of criminal procedure derive from the Austrian Federal Constitution:
The rule of law (art. 18 B-VG, art. 5 StPO);
- 18 -
Austria
The right to a lawful judge (art 83 par. 2 B-VG);
The independency of judges (art. 87 par. 1 B-VG);
The principle of the fixed allocation of files (art 87 par. 3 B-VG);
The principle of oral and public court proceeding (art 90 par. 1 B-VG, Art 6 par. 1 ECHR, art. 12 par. 1 StPO);
The principle of lay jurisdiction and people’s participation in jurisdiction (art 91 par. 1 B-VG) and
The Principle of indictment which states that a legally valid indictment from the part of a legitimate prosecutor is
the condition for the initiation and performance of a criminal procedure (art 90 par. 2 B-VG, art. 4 StPO).
There are some other principles which derive from the ECHR, which has the status of constitutional law, and
from the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in the Convention:
The right to a public hearing (art 6 par. 1 ECHR, art. 6 StPO);
The right of defence and of access to legal representation (art 6 par. 1 and 3 ECHR, art. 7 par.1 StPO);
Presumption of innocence (art 6 par. 2 ECHR, art. 8 StPO)
The acceleration imperative (art 6 par. 1 ECHR, art. 9 StPO);
Interdiction of the compulsion to self incrimination (art 6 ECHR, art. 7 par. 2 StPO);
Impartiality of judges (art 6 par. 1 ECHR, art. 3 par. 2 StPO);
Prohibition of double jeopardy (art 4 of Additional Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, art. 17 StPO) and
The right of appeal in criminal matters (art 2 of Additional Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR).
The following principles derive from the Criminal Procedure Code:
The principle of the impartiality of public prosecutors and criminal police (art. 3 par. 2 StPO);
The ex-officio principle (Offizialprinzip) which rules that the prosecutor’s office and the police are bound to start
an investigation at their own initiative as soon as they have reasons to suspect criminal offences (art. 2 StPO);
The principle of independent investigation (Grundsatz der materiellen Wahrheit) which rules that the judge, the
public prosecutor and the police are bound to uncover the truth and to investigate all relevant circumstances (art.
3 StPO);
The principle of immediacy (Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit), which binds the court to admit only primary evidence
during the trial (art. 13 StPO);
The principle of the free evaluation of evidence (Grundsatz der freien Beweiswürdigung) which rules that the
judge shall decide, if a circumstance can be considered proven not on grounds of specific established rules but
on his own free grasp after having thoroughly examined all evidence (art. 14 StPO);
The principle of proportionality (Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit) which rules that the legal limitation of a person’s right is permitted only if this is necessary for courts, public prosecution and police in order to fulfill their duty
and if the limitation is proportional with the heaviness of the criminal offence, the degree of suspicion and the
envisaged success (art. 5 StPO);
The principle of the victim’s participation in the procedure (Grundsatz der Beteiligung der Opfer) (art. 10 StPO)
and
The interdiction of the pejoration of the sentence (Verbot der Verschlechterung) which rules, that a court of appeal cannot issue a more severe sentence than the first court, if the accused (or the public prosecutor) appealed
only in favour of the accused (art. 16 StPO).
II) 4)
By virtue of art. 8 StPO any person is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court. This
holds true for the entire criminal procedure that is to say from the moment the police or public prosecution begins
to investigate or uses coercive power against a specific person up to the point, where the criminal procedure is
suspended by the prosecution or a legally valid decision is issued by the court (art. 1 par. 2 StPO).
- 19 -
Austria
By virtue of art. 7 par. 2 StPO the accused cannot be forced to incriminate himself. He always has the choice
whether to testify or to refuse to do so (also art. 49 Z 4 StPO). The authorities cannot force him, threaten him or
make him promises or pretenses in order to get a statement of the accused. This is a right he has at every stage
of the procedure.
II) 5)
The Austrian code of criminal procedure does not make any difference between state citizens, aliens or other
groups and no special procedure is provided for.
II) 6)
The abrogation of fundamental rights with the status of constitutional law in cases of emergency (including war)
by promulgation of an ordinary statutory law or a specific governmental act is not possible. The provisions of art.
20 StGG (Staatsgrundgesetz), which provided for a temporary suspension of fundamental freedoms in such
cases, was already abrogated in 1920 (art. 149 par. 2 B-VG). For extraordinary cases there is only the possibility
of an emergency decree issued by the federal president (art 18 par. 3 to 5 B-VG) which still does not provide for
an amendment of the constitutional provisions. This means that a curtailment of fundamental freedoms is not
possible in this case as well. For this reason the derogation-clause for time of emergency of art. 15 ECHR is not
applicable in Austria by virtue of the principle of favourability ruled in art. 53 ECHR.
A change from ordinary criminal procedure to a special procedure is not provided for.
II) 7)
There are no provisions that would allow in specific cases the enforcement of a secret legislation or secret criminal procedures. But during the preliminary procedure and up to a specific point in time there is the possibility to
handle certain cases as „hidden files“(Verschlussakten). In such cases the suspect will not be informed from the
very beginning about him being a suspect. The files, that is to say those parts of the files, which should be kept
secret, will be stored in a secure place and only a limited number of persons will have access to them. This can
be done in cases in which the prospect of the success of the investigation is conditioned by the suspect not being
aware of the investigation in progress, like for example with optical or acoustic surveillance.
Given the right of the accused to take position to the accusations, the accused has to be heard and informed on
the result of the hidden investigation prior to his indictment. From this moment on there is no further legal possibility for a secret procedure.
II) 8)
By virtue of art. 2 StPO criminal police and the public prosecution are bound ex-officio to sort out every suspicion
of a criminal offence they get to know about. Where the suspicion comes from is immaterial. Thus an investigation can also be started on grounds of information provided by the National Security Services.
As a rule, all information can also serve to justify the use of coercive measures or to prove the accused guilty
within the criminal procedure. But - like for any other evidence - the principle of the free evaluation of evidence
has to be respected.
The Austrian code of criminal procedure provides for the non-admission of evidence or the invalidity of the procedure in case of utilisation of specific evidence only in rather exceptional cases. More on this see IV)16).
From the practical point of view concerning the use of information provided by the National Security Services one
has always to take into consideration, that by virtue of the principle of the immediacy the evidence has to be used
if possible directly in the trial. As a result only in exceptional cases it is possible to read out protocols in the court
instead of a witness´s testimony.
III) 9a)
Given that the investigation is meant to sort out criminal offences, preventive coercive measures can only be
made use of within a criminal procedure, if a criminal offence has already taken place and the occurrence of
further criminal offences has to be prevented (e.g. pre-trial detention for reasons in connection with the probability for the suspect to commit a new criminal offence or to carry out a threat).
- 20 -
Austria
If there is no suspicion in connection with a criminal offence, the decision relating to defense against general
danger or against dangerous attacks, as well as to guard legally protected interests, pertains solely to security
authorities (art. 20ff SPG). These authorities can dispose to a certain extent preventive coercive measures like
room and body search or the seizure of goods, if these measures are meant to contribute to the fulfillment of the
first obligation of providing help or defense against a dangerous attack.
The personal data thus collected can be made available to other national authorities in order for these to fulfill
their legal duty.
III) 9b)
In Austria the ECHR has the status of constitutional law, hence the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. As a result no one shall be forced or persuaded by means of coercion or threat to make a statement (art. 7 par. 2 StPO). There are no legal exceptions from these provisions.
III) 10)
The fundament right relating to the protection of personal data is provided for in Austria in art. 1 DSG (Datenschutzgesetz - Federal Act concerning the protection of personal data) which reads as follows:
Article 1(Constitutional Provision) Fundamental Right to Data Protection
(1) Everybody shall have the right to secrecy for the personal data concerning him, especially with regard to his
private and family life, insofar as he has an interest deserving such protection. Such an interest is precluded
when data cannot be subject to the right to secrecy due to their general availability or because they cannot be
traced back to the data subject [Betroffener].
(2) Insofar personal data is not used in the vital interest of the data subject or with his consent, restrictions to the
right to secrecy are only permitted to safeguard overriding legitimate interests of another, namely in case of an
intervention by a public authority the restriction shall only be permitted based on laws necessary for the reasons
stated in Art. 8, para. 2 of the ECHR (BGBl No. 210/1958). Such laws may provide for the use of data that deserve special protection only in order to safeguard substantial public interests and shall provide suitable safeguards for the protection of the data subjects’ interest in secrecy. Even in the case of permitted restrictions the
intervention with the fundamental right shall be carried out using only the least intrusive of all effective methods.
(3) Everybody shall have, insofar as personal data concerning him are destined for automated processing or
manual processing, i.e. in filing systems [Dateien] without automated processing, as provided for by law,
1. the right to obtain information as to who processes what data concerning him, where the data originated, for
which purpose they are used, as well as to whom the data are transmitted;
2. the right to rectification of incorrect data and the right to erasure of illegally processed data.
(4) Restrictions of the rights according to para. 3 are only permitted under the conditions laid out in para. 2.
(5) The fundamental right to data protection, except the right to information, shall be asserted before the civil
courts against organisations that are established according to private law, as long as they do not act in execution
of laws. In all other cases the Data Protection Commission [Datenschutzkommission] shall be competent to
render the decision, unless an act of Parliament or a judicial decision is concerned.
The fundamental right to the protection of private life is guaranteed in Art 8 ECHR and in the Federal Constitutional Law on the protection of privacy (Gesetz zum Schutz des Hausrechtes), according to which house
searches are to be carried out in compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure [art. 5 leg.
cit.].
With a view to uncover criminal offences, the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a series of investigation methods (house search, telephone surveillance, bugging operations, computer-aided data merging,
opening of letters) which can be used – in the limits of the principle of proportionality – to curtail the fundamental
rights mentioned. This curtailment may not exceed though the limits imposed by the constitutional provisions
cited.
- 21 -
Austria
The fundamental right to liberty of person is enshrined in art. 5 ECHR and in the constitutional law on the protection of personal liberty which reads as follows:
Article 1
(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security (personal liberty).
(2) No one may be arrested or detained on grounds other than those named in this Federal constitutional law or
in a manner other than in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
(3) The deprivation of personal liberty may be legally prescribed only if this is requisite for the purpose of the
measure; deprivation of personal liberty may in any instance only occur if and inasmuch as this is not disproportionate to the purpose of the measure.
(4) Whoever is arrested or detained shall be treated with respect for human dignity and with all feasible personal
consideration and may be subjected only to such restrictions as are commensurate with the purpose of the detention or necessary for the maintenance of security and order in the place of his detention.
Article 2
(1) A person may in the following cases be deprived of his personal liberty in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law:
1. if judgment has been pronounced by reason of an offence to which a threat of penalty applies;
2. if he is suspected of a particular offence to which a threat of penalty by a legal or fiscal authority applies;
a) so as to end to aggression or to establish at once the actual circumstances in so far as the suspicion arises
from the close link in time to the occurrence or is due to his possession of a specific item,
b) to prevent him from evasion of the trial or from interference with evidence, or
c) to impede him in the case of an offence to which a threat of substantial penalty applies from the commitment
of a similar offence or the effectuation of such;
3. for the purpose of bringing him before the competent authority on suspicion of being surprised in the commitment of an offence of administrative transgression if the arrest is necessary to ensure prosecution or for the
prevention of further similar affence/s;
4. to enforce compliance with a valid judicial ruling or the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
5. if there is reason to presume that he is a source of danger for the spread of infectious diseases or due to
psychic disorder endangers himself or others;
6. for the purpose of necessary educational measures in the case of a minor;
7. when necessary, to secure a proposed deportation or extradition.
(2) No one may be arrested or detained simply because he is not in a position to fulfil a contractual obligation.
Article 3
(1) Only a court may pronounce upon a deprivation of liberty for an offence to which a penalty applies.
(2) Provision may however be made for the imposition of a term of imprisonment or the establishment of alternative penalties by administrative authorities if the extent of the deprivation of liberty does not exceed six weeks or
in so far as the decision rests with an independent authority three month.
(3) If a term of imprisonment is not imposed by an independent authority or an alternative penalty established by
it, there must be a guarantee for comprehensive appeal with suspensive effect being able to be lodget with such
an authority.
Article 4
(1) An arrest under Art. (2), para. 1, sub-paras. 2b and c above is admissible only in execution of a substantiated
judicial order which must be served on the person concerned on arrest or at the latest within 24 hours thereafter.
(2) If delay entails danger as well as in the case of Art. (2), para. 1, sub-para. 2a above, a person may be arrested also without judicial order. He shall be set free as soon as it is established that no reason for his/her furRIDP/IRPL, vol.80, 2009 / 1-2 (CD-ROM Annexe)
- 22 -
Austria
ther detention is on hand, otherwise he shall be brought without needless deferment, at the latest however prior
to the expiration of 48 hours, before the competent court.
(3) A judge shall without delay interrogate a person brought before a court and inquire into the grounds for the
detention.
(4) An arrest unter Art. (2), para. 1, sub-paras. 2b and c above on suspicion of an offence to which a threat of
penalty by fiscal authority applies is admissible only in execution of a substantiated order by an officer authorized
by law to exercise judicial power. If however delay entails danger as well as in the case of Art. 2, para. 1, subpara. 2a above, a person may be arrested also without such an order. Furthermore paras. 1 to 3 above hold
good analogously with the proviso that the person arrested shall be brought promptly before the competent fiscal
penal authority.
(5) A person arrested under Art. (2), para. 1, sub-para. 3 above shall, if the reason for the arrest has not already
been obviated, be promptly delivered to the competent authority. He may on no account be detained for longer
than 24 hours.
(6) Everyone arrested shall at the earliest opportunity, if possible at the time of his arrest, be informed in a language which he unterstands of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him. The rights accorded by
constitutional law to the lingual minorities remain unaffected.
(7) Everyone arrested is entitled to have at his request a relative and a legal adviser of his/her own choosing
notified without unnecessary delay of the arrest.
Article 5
(1) Whoever is detained on suspicion of an offence to which a threat of penalty by a legal or fiscal authority
applies is entitled within a reasonable time to termination of the proceedings initiated on account of the charge
against him/her or to release pending trial.
(2) If slighter means suffice, deprivation of liberty shall be waived. Whoever is detained to prevent him from
evasion of the trial for an offence to which no severe penalty applies shall in any event be released if he furnishes
the security established by the court or by the officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power taking into
account the gravity of the penal offence with which he is charged, his personal circumstances, and the means of
the person standing as security; additional slighter means to ensure the trial are admissible.
Article 6
(1) Everyone arrested or detained is entitled to take proceedings in which a court or other independent authority
decides on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and if the detention is not lawful orders his release. The
decision must be issued within a week unless the detention should have already ended.
(2) In the case of detention for an indefinite period the need for such must be reviewed at appropriate intervals by
a court or other independent authority.
Article 7
Everyone unlawfully arrested or detained shall have an enforceable right to full satisfaction including compensation for injury to other than material assets.
Article 8
(1) This Federal constitutional law enters into force on 1 January 1991.
(2) Art. 8 of the Basic Law of 21 December 1867, RGBl. No. 142, on the General Rights of Nationals in the
Kingdoms and Laender represented in the Council of the Realm as well as the Law of 27 October 1862, RGBl.
No. 87, on the Protection of Personal Liberty, including their mention in Art. 149 (1) of the Federal Constitution,
are repealed.
(3) The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, BGBl. No. 210/1958, remains unaffected.
(4) Proceedings pending in respect of matters regulated by this Federal constitutional law shall at the time of
entry into force of this Federal constitutional law be brought to a close in accordance with the hitherto prevailing
- 23 -
Austria
legal position; this holds good likewise for proceedings pending at the Administrative Court and the Constitutional
Court.
(5) The Federal Government is entrusted with the execution of this Federal constitutional law.
The possible curtailment of this right in form of arrest, detention, deportation or extradition against the background of cases of felony belongs to the derogations legally admitted by the provisions cited above.
According to these provisions one person can be arrested without a judge’s order only in exceptional cases. The
criminal police may detain a suspect on its own if caught red-handed, if the suspect is fugitive, or if an order from
the prosecutor cannot be issued on accounts of subsequent danger and the suspect is likely to influence other
persons (witnesses or accomplices), destroy evidence or (in case he is likely to get a punishment of more than 6
months imprisonment) to commit further criminal offences. In such cases the suspect will be handed over to a
court within 48 hours at the latest. The court will decide within another 48 hours upon pre-trial detention (art. 171
par. 2, 172 par. 3 and 174 par. 1 StPO). Until begin of the trial the pre-trial detention cannot exceed certain
maximum terms. With cases of criminal offences which are possibly punished with more than 5 years imprisonment this term may not exceed 2 years. A pre-trial detention which lasts longer than 6 months is only admissible
if the investigation is extremely difficult or extremely complex (art. 178 StPO). The maximum term in connection
with an extradition is one year (art. 29 par. 6 ARHG).
IV) 11)
We can speak of an enlargement of the range of investigation methods and utilisation of coercive measures in
the context of the Federal Law on special investigation methods BGBl 105/1997 already mentioned. This law
made the optical and acoustic surveillance of persons with the use of technical means (bugging operations) and
the computer-aided data merging (the computer-aided comparison of data from different data banks) possible.
However these measures are subject to strict material and formal conditions (a judge’s permission). The bugging
of a house is only permitted if the criminal offence is connected to cases of organized criminality or terrorism and
the suspect being under surveillance is likely to be sent to prison for more than 10 years.
As a result of the reform of the StPO valid as from 01.01.2008 certain investigation methods like the observation,
the undercover investigation or the fictitious transaction were regulated more precisely. In this context one cannot
speak of an enlargement of the investigation methods given that these methods had already been legally admissible. They were merely defined in a more concrete manner.
By virtue of Art 7 par. 2 StPO the accused may not be forced to incriminate himself, that is, he has the choice
whether to testify or to refuse to do so. The authorities cannot force him, threaten him or make him promises or
pretenses in order to get a statement of the accused. Thus there is no obligation for the accused to cooperate.
However the accused may be compelled with a judge’s permission to give blood samples or to be subject to
small similar interventions if this is considered to be necessary for the elucidation of a criminal offence which is
likely to be punished with more than 5 years in prison or of a sexual offence which is likely to be punished with
more than 3 years in prison (art. 123 StPO).
IV) 12)
As a result of the reform of the StPO which took place in 2008 the existing allocation of competencies between
judges, public prosecutors and police within the preliminary criminal procedure was modified. In the system up to
that point the coroner (Untersuchungsrichter) used to carry out a preliminary criminal procedure on his own or to
collect information on virtue of a public prosecutor’s request; however, the coroner could also have the police
carry out the investigation. The public prosecutor himself was not allowed to carry out investigation on his own.
Since January 2008 the public prosecutor leads the investigation on his own. He can now carry out an investigation on his own or he can have the police carry out the investigation. Certain investigation procedures which
prejudice somebody’s fundamental freedoms can be executed only after a judge’s permission. The decision in
connection with pre-trial detention has to be made by the judge upon request from the public prosecutor. However, we cannot speak of a transfer of power from judicial authorities to investigative authorities, in particular to
the public prosecution (the public prosecution is considered to be according to art. 90a B-VG part of jurisdiction
- 24 -
Austria
and is invested with investigation and prosecution functions) because the investigation procedures which prejudice fundamental freedoms still need to be approved by a judge.
As a result of the last reform of the StPO the position of the public prosecutor in the context of the preliminary
criminal procedure was strengthened. Leading the preliminary procedure also means that no investigation can be
started or continued against the will of the public prosecutor (art. 101 par. 1 StPO). Hence we cannot speak of a
transfer of power from the public prosecution to the police.
IV) 13)
In one certain geographical area in Austria (Sprengel) there is just one public prosecution authority which is
competent for all procedures in connection with criminal offences – except administrative offences. Up until a
couple of years ago there had been one exception to this principle in Vienna, Graz and Linz, where there had
been an own juvenile court with its own prosecution authority which specialized in juvenile criminal procedures.
Apart from this we cannot yet speak of a specialisation of entire prosecution authorities. However, there is the
possibility for a larger public prosecution office to create task forces to deal with certain types of offences, like
e.g. economic criminality, organized criminality, juvenile criminality, drug criminality, environment offences, extradition or political offences. Except for this optional specialization the compulsory creation of task forces for crimes
related to „domestic violence“ was introduced in 2008 for public prosecution offices with more than 10 public
prosecutors.
With a view to complying with international requirements related to the fight against corruption a new, separate
public prosecution authority will be established as from January 2009.
IV) 14)
As a result of the revision of the preliminary criminal procedure valid as from January 2008, the course of disposing the execution of coercive measures was modified in the sense that in the former system the judge disposed
them upon request of the prosecution. Now the disposition is issued by the public prosecutor. However, this still
means that a judge’s permission is needed so that there are no qualitative changes.
Also according to the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable until 31.12.2007 it was possible to not allow to the
defence or accused to view and copy certain documents until the indictment was issued, if there were specific
conditions which sustained the idea that revealing the content of the documents would endanger the purpose of
the investigation (art. 45 StPO old version). This possibility is still given according to the new legislation before
end of the investigation procedure (art. 51 par. 2 StPO). Furthermore now there are also other documents or
circumstances which can be excluded from the right to be accessed like pieces which allow for disclosing the
identity or the personal environment of persons in danger.
In the last decades there have been no changes in connection to the participation of the accused as a source of
evidence. The testimony of the accused has been subject to the judge’s free evaluation and could be used for his
defense as well as evidence against him.
There has been in recent years no substantial change in connection to arrest and custody. Within the procedure
of the court the arrest has always to be decided upon by the judge. The Austrian law does not provide for any
possibilities for a secret arrest or custody.
IV) 15)
There are no special rules for the treatment of evidence related to stored data from providers (internet providers,
travel agencies, airlines, credit card companies). For all these companies the general rules related to the legal
securing and confiscation are to be applied. According to these rules anyone who has the authority to dispose of
objects or assets that shall be secured is obliged to give them over to the police – upon the police’s request – or
to facilitate their confiscation in other way (art. 111 par. 1 StPO). There are restrictions only connected to information related to bank accounts and bank transactions, that is it can be used only for the investigation of a crime
for which a regional court is competent (as a rule for crimes for which the law entails a possible punishment of
more than 1 year) (art. 116 StPO). Regarding to information on data transmission from a telecommunication
company or information company and on the surveillance of data transmitted via communication networks or
services of an information company there are some specific regulations namely that they are not permitted in all
- 25 -
Austria
criminal investigations. Information or surveillance without the approval of the owner of the technical device (for
example of a telephone or computer) is permitted only if this is meant to investigate or prevent a criminal offence
for which the law entails a possible punishment of more than 1 year (art. 135 StPO).
IV) 16)
If a piece of evidence is not gained legally (e.g. on the basis of a judge’s approval or prosecutor’s disposition) or
(if possible) later approved this does not necessarily mean that that piece of evidence cannot be used in the court
or that their usage leads to the annulment of the procedure. This holds true only if explicitly provided by law.
Results of a body search (search of body holes, prelevation of blood samples and any other intervention on a
person’s body, art. 117 Z 4 StPO) can only be used if they have been gained legally (art. 123/6 StPO).
Testimonies of the accused or witnesses are null if gained upon use of torture, cruel treatment or other illegal
forms of action on the liberty of manifesting his will or upon utilisation of different illegal methods of investigation
which violate fundamental investigation principles (art. 166 StPO).
Likely to be declared null are also:
The appointment of prejudiced experts (art. 126 par. 4 StPO);
The use of information gained as a result of illegally opening of correspondence, enquiry for data transmission,
data surveillance and optical and acoustic surveillance of persons (art. 140 par. 1 StPO);
Hearing of clergy in connection to confessions made to them, of public servants in connection to circumstances
which are subject to official secrecy and of persons, who on grounds of a (mental) disease cannot make plausible
declarations (art. 155 par. 1 StPO);
Eluding the secrecy of clerics (concerning confessionary entrusted information) by disposing other investigation
measures (art. 144 par. 1 StPO);
Eluding the provisions on the hearing of the accused or of witnesses by informal collection of information or
reception of the person’s written messages (enquiries; art. 152 par. 1 StPO);
Eluding rights to refuse to testify (art. 157 par. 2 StPO);
Hearing of persons who have not explicitly refused to make use of their right to denounce the testimony (art. 159
par. 3 StPO).
Within the legal remedy procedure such circumstances can be taken into consideration by the court of appeal
only if the petitioner of the legal remedy claims for it explicitly (art. 290 par. 1 StPO).
These regulations apply for all criminal offences equally. There are no special legal provisions related to severe
crimes.
IV) 17)
In Austria you can use any type of evidence including evidence provided from abroad if the evidence is not likely
to be declared null out of the above mentioned reasons. One thing which however has to be taken into consideration is that by virtue of the principle of the immediacy the evidence has to be used if possible directly in the
trial. If this is not possible – say on grounds of distance – you have the possibility to have protocols related to a
witness’s testimony read out in the court (art. 252 par. 1 StPO). In all cases such evidence is subject to the principle of the judge’s free evaluation of evidence.
IV) 18)
The coercive measures provided for by the Austrian code of criminal procedure (StPO) are in accordance with
the principles of a fair trial.
IV) 19)
In case of serious danger for the live, health or liberty of witnesses and victims, personal data or circumstances
which would allow to reveal their identity or personal environment can be excluded from being seen (art. 51 par.
2 StPO). For such reasons witnesses and victims can refuse to give their name or to provide other information
related to their own person or to answer questions which could have as a result the uncovering of such personal
- 26 -
Austria
information. In such cases witnesses can change their appearance so that they cannot be recognized (art. 162
StPO). They can also be interrogated in a separate room so that the participants to the trial can follow their testimony only via audio and video transmission and can make use of their right to ask questions (art. 165 par. 3
StPO). There is also the possibility to interrogate the witnesses in the absence of the accused; still the defence
lawyer can attend the hearing (art. 250 par. 1 StPO). In order to protect the identity of the witness there is also
the possibility to have the trial behind closed doors [see also V)21)].
Except for these possibilities which apply for the criminal procedure, the police can also dispose certain measures to protect the witnesses (but also judges and public prosecutors) (art. 22 par. 4 SPG). Police authorities can
also issue “fake” documents for witnesses which are considered to be in danger (art. 54a SPG).
V) 20)
The court jurisdiction in criminal matters generally depends on the punishment and the type of the crime. For
small offences (punishment up to one year) the local courts (Bezirksgerichte) act as courts of the first instance.
For all other cases (including severe violation of law) the so called Landesgerichte (regional courts) are the competent courts of the first instance. With regional courts procedures, which envisage a punishment of up to 5
years, are dealt with by a single judge. If a punishment of more than 5 years is possible, the court has to decide
as a court of lay assesors, that is two professional judges and two lay judges (Schöffengericht). Criminal offences
for which the law entails a life punishment or a punishment of at least five years (as well as other explicitly mentioned crimes, like violation of the Law on the interdiction of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, high
treason, attack on the supreme state organs, etc) will be dealt with within regional courts by a jury. The jury is
made up of three professional judges and eight jurymen; the jurymen decide on their own in connection to the
guilt of the accused and together with the professional judges only with a view to the punishment.
The jurisdiction of the courts of appeal (supreme court - OGH, higher regional court - OLG and regional court LG) depends on the jurisdiction of the court in first instance and of the type of the legal remedy.
The regional court decides as court of appeal within a senate of three judges related to remedies against sentences issued by local courts.
The higher regional court decides as court of appeal within a senate of three judges related to remedies against
sentences issued by a single judge of a regional courts and (if only the punishment is concerned) against sentences issued by regional courts as courts of lay assessors or by a jury.
Related to sentences issued by regional courts as courts of lay assessors and juries and their contestation on
grounds of nullity the jurisdiction belongs to the supreme court which decides in senates of five judges.
Special tribunals are not provided for in Austrian code of criminal procedure.
The use of secret evidence (no matter the criminal procedure) is not permitted. The court is only allowed to take
into consideration the evidence provided in the trial. File documents can serve as evidence only if read out in the
trial or presented in short by the president (art. 258 par. 1 StPO).
In the trial the accuser and the accused can renounce the presentation of certain pieces of evidence if the opponent agrees (art. 246 par. 1 StPO). However this may not lead to the situation that important circumstances
remain uncovered as the court has to clarify the crime which led to the accusations and to assess the guilt of the
accused ex officio; as a consequence the court can make use of evidence without request from the part of the
accuser or accused (ex officio principle; art. 2, 254 StPO). The deletion of evidence for reasons of public interest
or in favour of the accused is not provided for.
The principle of the free evaluation of evidence is applicable in procedures connected to severe criminal offences, as well.
V) 21)
All rights presented under V) 21) of the questionnaire 3rd section are to be enforced no matter how severe the
criminal offence. In so far the curtailment of such fundamental freedoms is provided for by the Austrian code of
criminal procedure, this applies for all criminal procedures equally.
- 27 -
Austria
Thus a trial can be held behind closed doors on grounds of danger to the public order or national security, of
disclosure of personal life or secrets of the accused, victim, witness or third party or on grounds of protecting the
identity of a witness or third party ex officio or upon request of one of the participants or victims (art. 229 par. 1
StPO). However this decision has to be made public. The pronouncement of the judgement has to necessarily
occur in public (art. 229 par. 4, art. 268 StPO). The right to be present at the trial can be limited in so far as the
accused who disturbs the trial proceedings by his disruptive behaviour and who does not cease to behave like
that after having been warned can be taken out from the session (art. 234 StPO). The accused can also be taken
out temporarily from the trial during the hearing of a witness (art. 250 par. 1 StPO). In this case the accused has
to be later informed on the content of the testimony.
The right of the accused to see the files can only be limited until the end of the preliminary procedure or investigation procedure if seeing the file could put the purpose of the investigation at a risk (art. 51 StPO).
Every accused has within every procedure the right to consult a lawyer of his own choice (art. 58 StPO). A compulsory defense (the obligation to be represented by a lawyer) is provided for only in certain cases like for example during the pre-trial detention and during the trial at a regional court if the possible punishment exceeds three
years (art. 61 par. 1 StPO). If in such cases the accused does not choose any lawyer, the court has to assign one
to him ex officio on his own costs. The ex officio lawyer will be appointed by the Lawyers‘ Chamber. The preference of the accused related to a certain lawyer has to be taken into consideration in so far as this is possible (art.
62 StPO). If the accused cannot pay the costs incurred by the appointment of a lawyer - and if the court deals
with a case of necessary defense or cases of difficult material and judicial situation - the court can approve a
lawyer on the costs of the state, who is assigned the same way as mentioned above (art. 61 par. 2 StPO).
In Austria we cannot speak formally of the accused acting within his own criminal procedure as a witness as well.
However his testimony as accused is subject equally like the testimony of the witnesses to the judge’s free
evaluation of evidence. This also allows for the judge to freely infer specific information from the behaviour of the
accused – hence also from his silence.
VI) 22)
Generally there are no special provisions related to procedures connected to terrorism and other severe criminal
offences. Thus neither the right to have the sentence examined by a higher court, nor the prohibition of double
jeopardy with a view to such procedures has been changed. In Austria there is generally the possibility to have all
sentences – no matter how severe the accusations – examined by a higher court within an orderly remedy procedure [Pertaining to the concrete jurisdiction in matters of remedy see V) 20)].
The same holds true for the possibility to have a sentence examined at a later point (like within a reopening, an
extraordinary reopening or a special nullity procedure initialized by the General Procurator´s Office).
The supreme instance in civil and criminal matters is the Supreme Court (art. 92 B-VG). As a consequence, the
Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction to examine criminal procedures.
- 28 -
Colloque Préparatoire du XVIIIème Congrès International de Droit Pénal.
Section III
Pula (Croatie), 6-9 novembre 2008
BELGIQUE*
Paul DE HERT / Ann JACOBS**
I – LE CADRE DE LA REFORME DU DROIT : LES MESURES SPECIALES AU REGARD DE LA
PREVENTION, DE L’INVESTIGATION ET DE LA POURSUITE
1. Dans quelle mesure les traités relatifs aux droits de l’homme et les traités relatifs au droit humanitaire
(Conventions de Genève) s’appliquent-ils dans votre système juridique interne ? Existe-t-il des limites à
l’application de ces dispositions internationales dans votre pays ? Les citoyens (suspects, accusés,
victimes, témoins) peuvent-ils invoquer des droits issus de ces traités dans votre ordre juridique
interne?
L'article 167 de la Constitution belge précise dans son second paragraphe que "Le Roi conclut les traités (…).
Ces traités n'ont d'effet qu'après avoir reçu l'assentiment des Chambres". Les normes de droit international
doivent être d'"effet direct" pour pouvoir être invoquées par un justiciable devant les juridictions nationales.1 Les
conditions formulées par la Cour de Cassation pour reconnaître un tel effet sont doubles et cumulatives. D’une
part, l'effet direct ne sera reconnu à une disposition internationale que si les auteurs de la norme avaient
l'intention de conférer des droits aux personnes privées ou de leur imposer des obligations. D’autre part, la
norme en question doit être suffisamment claire et précise.2 Ainsi, par exemple, l'article 2(4) de la Charte des
Nations Unies (interdiction du recours à la force) ne peut pas être invoqué par un justiciable car il n'a pas d'effet
direct. Il en est de même pour l'article 91 du Premier Protocole Additionnel de 1977 de la Convention de
Genève.3
Attention: Le texte publié constitue la dernière version originale du rapport national envoyé par l’auteur, sans révision
éditoriale de la part de la Revue.
** Paul De Hert, Professeur à la Vrije Universiteit Brussel / Ann Jacobs, Professeur à l’Université de Liège
1 D. Van Eeckhoutte & A. Vandaele, ‘Doorwerking van internationale normen in de Belgische rechtsorde’, dans Wouters, J. &
Lenaerts, K. (eds.), Internationaal en Europees Recht, Themis Cahiers vormingsonderdeel 13, Brugge, Die Keure, 2002, p. 532. Voir également. D. Van Eeckhoutte & A. Vandaele, ‘Doorwerking van internationale normen in de Belgische rechtsorde’,
Instituut
voor
Internationaal
Recht,
Working
Paper,
n°.
33,
2002,
31p.
(http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/iir/nl/wp/WP/WP33n.pdf); E. Claes & A. Vandaele, ‘L'effet direct des traités internationaux.
Une analyse en droit positif et en théorie du droit axée sur les droits de l’homme’, B.T.I.R., 2001, p. 411-491.
2 Voir Cass., 21 avril 1983, RCJB, 1985, p. 22 (tous les arrêts de la Cour de Cassation sont accessibles via www.cass.be);
Cass., 19 septembre 1997, Pas., I, n° 363 ; Cass., 11 mai 2001, Pas., n° 276 et J. Velu, Les effets directs des instruments
internationaux en matière de droits de l’homme, Bruxelles, Swinnen, 1981.
3 Br. Demeyere, ‘Survey Response, Laws of Belgium’, in Commerce, Crime and Conflict: A Survey of Sixteen Jurisdictions,
Fafo AIS, 2006, (93p.), p. 42 (http://www.fafo.no/liabilities/CCCSurveyBelgium06Sep2006.pdf) avec réf. à J. Verhoeven,
‘Belgium’ in P.M. Eisemann, The integration of international and European community law into the national legal order, Kluwer
Law International, 1996, 587p.
*
- 29 -
Colloque Préparatoire Pula (Croatie), novembre 2008
Belgique
- La Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales signée à Rome le 4
novembre 1954 (C.E.D.H.) a été approuvée par la loi belge du 13 mai 1955 et fait partie intégrante du droit
belge. La Convention est d’application immédiate. 4
Alors que les articles 5 de la C.E.D.H. et 9 du P.I.D.C.P. prévoient des garanties spécifiques au bénéfice entre
autres des personnes détenues provisoirement, les articles 6 de la C.E.D.H. et 14 du P.I.D.C.P. concernent le
droit à un procès équitable devant les autorités judiciaires. Il s'agit notamment du droit à un examen équitable et
public de la cause dans un délai raisonnable par un tribunal indépendant et impartial établi par la loi. La violation
de ces dispositions ou d’un de leurs alinéas est souvent invoquée dans les pourvois en cassation en matière de
détention préventive. La Cour de Cassation refuse de manière constante et en principe d’appliquer ces
dispositions,5 à moins que l’inobservation de l’une de ces règles ne compromette gravement le caractère
équitable du procès6 : dans ce cas, les dispositions directement applicables de la Convention peuvent être
invoquées devant les juridictions d’instruction.
La jurisprudence nationale retient qu’en principe, le non-respect des droits de la défense et de l’article 6 de la
Convention européenne des droits de l’homme n’est sanctionné, que si le moyen a été revendiqué en temps
opportun par la partie concernée7. Ce n’est que si la violation alléguée de la disposition de l’article 6 de la
Convention concerne une règle d’ordre public — par exemple la composition d’une juridiction8 — que le moyen
pourra être soulevé à tout moment. Cette jurisprudence a pour effet de restreindre de manière significative le
champ d’application et surtout l’effectivité du droit à un procès équitable garanti par l’article 6 de la Convention
européenne des droits de l’homme.9
-Le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques de New York du 19 décembre 1966 a été approuvé par
la loi belge du 15 mai 1981. Actuellement, la jurisprudence considère que presque toutes les dispositions du
Pacte sont d’application immédiate.10 Il faut relever que ce constat est peu (ou mal) motivé par les juges.11
4 D. Van Eeckhoutte & A. Vandaele, ‘Doorwerking van internationale normen in de Belgische rechtsorde’, Instituut voor
Internationaal Recht, Working Paper, l.c., sub n°. 15. Puisque la Convention instaure un ordre juridique sui generis, la Cour
de Cassation considère que la Convention échappe à la règle de l'effet direct classique et que dès lors toutes les dispositions
de cette Convention ont un effet direct. Les auteurs font référence à O. De Schutter & S. Van Drooghenbroeck, Droit
international des droits de l’homme, Bruxelles, Larcier, 1999, p. 35-39.
5 En ce qui concerne l'article 6 de la C.E.D.H. en général : Cass., 13 mars 1991, Pas., 1991, I, n° 364; 17 décembre 1991,
Pas., 1992, I, n° 208; 28 janvier 1992, Pas., 1992, I, n° 278; 10 juin 1992, Pas., 1992, I, n° 530; 20 juillet 1992, Pas., 1992, I,
n° 577; 31 octobre 1995, Pas., 1995, I, n° 466; 31 octobre 1995, Pas., 1995, I, n° 466; 2 octobre 1996, Pas., 1996, I, n° 348;
en ce qui concerne les articles 6.1 de la C.E.D.H. et 14 du P.I.D.C.P. : Cass., 23 janvier 1996, Pas., 1996, I, n° 49; 16 février
2000, Pas., 2000, I, n° 130; en ce qui concerne l'article 6.1 de la C.E.D.H. : Cass., 19 janvier 1993, Pas., 1993, I, n° 38 (non
applicable à la requête de mise en liberté provisoire); 4 juin 1997, Pas., 1997, I, n° 260 (délai raisonnable); 14 avril 1999,
Pas., 1999, I, n° 208 (procès équitable) ; en ce qui concerne l'article 6.3, c, de la Conv. D.H. : Cass., 23 juillet 1996, Pas.,
1996, I, n° 277 (moyens de défense suffisants); en ce qui concerne l'article 14.3 du P.I.D.C.P. (garanties minimales) : Cass.,
28 janvier 1992, Pas., 1992, I, n° 278; 17 décembre 1991, Pas., 1992, I, n° 208
6 Voir par exemple Cass., 10 avril 2002, P.02.0058.F ; Cass., 25 septembre 2002, P.02.0954.F ; Cass., 2 avril 2003, Rev. dr.
pén., 2003, p. 1171, J.T., 2004, p. 47.
7 M. Franchimont, « Les droits de la défense et leur contexte procédural, le discours et la réalité », Les droits de la défense
en matière pénale, éd. du Jeune Barreau de Liège, 1985, p. 32 ; Cass., 25 novembre 1975, Pas., 1976, I, p. 387 ; Cass.,
18 juin 1976, J.T., 1977, p. 29.
8 Cass., 27 février 1987, Bull., 1987, n° 386 ; Cass. 27 novembre 2002, P. 02.1158.F
9 M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs & A. Masset, Manuel de procédure pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2006, 2ème éd., p. 1108.
10 En particulier les articles 6 à 27 du Pacte dont le contenu est repris dans la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
précitée
11 Dans un arrêt du 17 janvier 1984, dans lequel la Cour de Cassation a reconnue pour la première fois l’application
immédiate d’une disposition du Pacte, la Cour ne dit pas plus que « l’article 9, § 2, du Pacte a en Belgique application
immédiate » (Cass. 17 janvier 1984, R.W., 1984-85, p. 1147). Pour une analyse de la jurisprudence sur l’applicabilté du Pacte
après 1984: J. Vande Lanotte & M. Van de Putte, ‘De Belgische rechtspraak met betrekking to het Internationaal Verdrag
inzake Burgerrechten en Politieke Rechten’, dans De Betekenis van het Internationaal Verdrag inzake Burgerrechten en
Politieke Rechten voor de interne rechtsorde, K. Rimanque (ed.), Anvers, Maklu, 1993, p. 75-103.
- 30 -
Belgique
-Les Conventions de Genève ont été ratifiées en Belgique par une loi du 3 septembre 195212. Les Conventions
ne sont pas d’application immédiate.
-Quant au droit international humanitaire matériel tel qu’il est fixé dans la Convention du 17 juillet 1998 portant
assentiment au Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale, il a été intégré dans le Code pénal belge sous
le titre Ibis intitulé « Des violations graves du droit international humanitaire » (articles 136bis à 136octies) par la
loi du 5 août 200313. La Convention n'est pas d'application immédiate. Si la loi belge reprend en général le texte
du Statut tel quel, quelques différences peuvent cependant être relevées (état de nécessité, légitime défense)14.
Les trois crimes relevant de la juridiction de la Cour ont été incorporés comme suit : le crime de génocide (art.
136bis), le crime contre l'humanité (art. 136ter) et les crimes de guerre (art. 136quater). Concernant ces trois
crimes, l'article 70 du Code Pénal belge exclut explicitement qu'ils puissent être excusés "lorsque le fait était
ordonné par la loi et commandé par l'autorité". Par ailleurs, la poursuite de ces trois crimes ne peut jamais être
limitée par une quelconque période de prescription : l'article 21 du Titre préliminaire du Code de Procédure
Pénale les exclut explicitement du bénéfice d'une telle période. Ainsi, les poursuites criminelles peuvent être
initiées sans tenir compte du moment où les crimes ont été perpétrés. De même, dans le cas d'une
condamnation prononcée à l'égard de l'un de ces crimes, elle peut être exécutée sans limitation dans le temps :
l'article 90 du Code Pénal exclut explicitement toute prescription des peines dans ces cas.15
En ce qui concerne la faculté des citoyens d’invoquer les droits en question, un certain nombre de conditions
alternatives pour la répression de ces crimes sont prévues en Belgique. L’auteur doit avoir la nationalité belge ou
avoir sa résidence principale en Belgique (art 6, 1°bis T.P. CiCr.). La victime doit être un ressortissant belge (ou
ayant le statut de réfugié reconnu en Belgique et y ayant sa résidence habituelle) ou une personne qui depuis au
moins trois ans séjourne effectivement, habituellement, et légalement en Belgique (art 10, 1°bis (T.P. CiCr.). En
plus de ces conditions, seul le Procureur fédéral a l’initiative de lancer les poursuites. L’art 10, 3°, Titre
préliminaire du C.P.P. met en place un “filtre”.
Il convient de relever qu'en règle générale l'ordre juridique belge intègre la coutume internationale, bien que la
Constitution ne le prévoie pas. La Cour de Cassation a à plusieurs reprises appliqué ou fait référence à la
coutume internationale.16 Le 6 novembre 1998, un juge d’instruction belge a prisune décision dans laquelle il
invoquait les crimes contre l’humanité en se fondant sur la coutume internationale17 bien que la répression des
crimes contre l’humanité n’était alors pas intégrée au droit belge. Considérant la définition des crimes contre
l’humanité donnée par la coutume internationale, le juge a décidé que cette définition pouvait être appliquée
directement dans l’ordre juridique interne. Pour aboutir à une telle décision le juge se fonda sur le fait que la
12 Moniteur belge, 26 septembre 1952. La Belgique a ratifié la plupart des traités relatifs au droit humanitaire. Voir
http://www.icrc.org/dih.nsf/Pays?ReadForm&c=BE
13 Moniteur belge, 7 août 2003. Le troisième paragraphe de l’article 136quater entre seulement en vigueur le jour de l’entrée
en vigueur pour la Belgique du Deuxième Protocole relatif à la Convention de La Haye de 1954 pour la protection des biens
culturels en cas de conflit armée, adopté à La Haye le 26 mars 1999. L'article 77 de la Loi du 10 avril 2003 réglant la
suppression des juridictions militaires en temps de paix ainsi que leur maintien en temps de guerre (Moniteur belge, 7 mai
2003) stipule que « Quelle que soit la qualité de la personne, en temps de guerre, les juridictions de droit commun restent
compétentes pour connaître toutes les infractions visées au livre II, titre Ibis, du Code pénal. Le législateur semble ainsi avoir
marqué sa volonté d’éviter que des tribunaux militaires prennent connaissance de violations graves du droit humanitaire,
même si les auteurs sont des militaires. »
14 Voir Br. Demeyere, l.c., p. 22-25 avec réf. à J. Wouters & C. Ryngaert, De strafbaarstelling van misdaden tegen het
internationaal humanitair recht in het Belgisch strafrecht, http://law.kuleuven.be/iir/nl/wp/WP/WP62n.pdf; G. Schamps,
‘L’incrimination du crime de génocide, du crime contre l’humanité et des crimes de guerre en droit belge à la lumière du droit
international humanitaire’, in Actualités de droit pénal et de procédure pénale, CUP, vol. 69, Larcier, 2004, (468p.), p. 329 et
s.
15 Br. Demeyere, l.c., p. 22.
16 Br. Demeyere, l.c., p. 33 avec réf. à J. Salmon, Le rôle de la Cour de Cassation belge à l’égard de la coutume
internationale, dans Miscellanea W.J. Ganshof van der Meersch, Tome II, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1972, p. 217 – 267, en
particulier p. 222 - 244
17 J.T., 1999, 308 – 311. Voir sur cette affaire : Br. Demeyere, l.c., , p. 34
- 31 -
Belgique
Belgique considérait, au moment de sa ratification de la Convention sur le génocide,18 qu’elle ne devait pas
nécessairement adapter son droit interne car les principes de la Convention pouvaient être considérés comme
étant déjà intégrés par son ordre juridique interne.
2a. Quelles réformes législatives importantes ont été réalisées dans votre pays au cours des dernières
décades dans l’intérêt de la sécurité nationale/globale et de la sûreté publique ? Y a-t-il de telles
prévisions de réforme en cours ? (Brève description).
La législation belge antérieure à 1998 a été commentée dans la Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal de 1998
consacré au thème de la criminalité organisée.19
- Loi du 19 décembre 2003 relative aux infractions terroristes insérant les articles 137 à 141ter dans le
Code pénal.
Cette loi transpose la Décision cadre de l’Union européenne du 13 juin 2002 relative à la lutte contre le
terrorisme (Décision cadre terrorisme).20 Avant cette loi, les infractions terroristes étaient poursuivies sur la base
des incriminations de droit commun (menaces, meurtre, assassinat, association de malfaiteurs, appartenance à
une organisation criminelle, etc.). La loi instaure deux nouvelles catégories d’infractions : les infractions
terroristes proprement dites,21 et les infractions relatives à un groupe terroriste.22
Ces infractions sont visées aux articles 137, 140 et 141 du Code pénal. Elles élargissent considérablement les
pouvoirs des autorités judiciaires.23 La notion de groupe terroriste et les incriminations qui y sont liées permettent
l’intervention des services de police ainsi que des autorités judiciaires bien avant la réalisation d’infractions
terroristes.
Les infractions visées aux articles 137, 140 et 141 du Code pénal ont été insérées dans la liste des infractions
retenues à l’article 90ter du Code d’instruction criminelle. Cet article permet le recours à certaines méthodes
d’investigation particulières (e.a. écoutes téléphoniques, enquête proactive, méthodes particulières de recherche,
anonymat d’un témoin,…).
Dans un arrêt de 13 juillet 2005, la Cour constitutionnelle est arrivée à la conclusion que la définition du
terrorisme empruntée à la Décision cadre terrorisme est conforme au principe de légalité. Les requérants
soutenaient que la définition de la notion "d'infraction terroriste" de l'article 137 CP violait les articles 12 et 14 de
la Constitution lus à la lumière des articles 7 C.E.D.H. et 15 P.I.D.C.P. D’après les requérants, cette définition de
l'infraction terroriste était contraire au principe de légalité dans la mesure où elle aurait comporté des termes
flous et imprécis, ne permettant pas à chacun de savoir, au moment d’adopter un comportement, si ce
comportement était punissable ou non. Dans son arrêt, la Cour constitutionnelle a conclu que le principe de
légalité en matière pénale n'empêche pas que la loi attribue un pouvoir d'appréciation au juge. Selon la Cour, il
Loi du 26 juin 1951 portant approbation de la Convention internationale pour la Prévention et la Répression du Crime de
Génocide, adoptée a Paris le 9 décembre 1948 par l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies au cours de sa troisième
session (Moniteur belge, 11 janvier 1952). Voir : http://www.crimeshumanite.be/approche/frameapproche.cfm?RUBRIC=1
19 F. Deruyck & A. De Nauw, ‘Belgique. Le droit pénal spécial belge à l’épreuve du crime organisé’ Revue Internationale de
Droit Pénal, 1998, vol. 69, n°. 1-2, p. 165-244.
20 Moniteur belge, 29 décembre 2003, p. 61689-61692. La loi est entrée en vigueur le 8 janvier 2004.
21 L'article 137 CP définit une infraction terroriste comme une infraction “qui, de par sa nature ou son contexte, peut porter
gravement atteinte à un pays ou à une organisation internationale et est commise intentionnellement dans le but d'intimider
gravement une population ou de contraindre indûment des pouvoirs publics ou une organisation internationale à accomplir ou
à s'abstenir d'accomplir un acte, ou de gravement déstabiliser ou détruire les structures fondamentales politiques,
constitutionnelles, économiques ou sociales d'un pays ou d'une organisation internationale”. Il s'agit en fait plutôt de la
définition d'une intention ou, mieux encore, de la définition d'un motif.
22 Une association structurée de plus de deux personnes, établie dans le temps et qui agit de façon concertée en vue de
commettre les infractions définies ci-dessus constitue, aux termes de l'article 139 du Code pénal, un groupe terroriste.
L'article 140, § 1er du même code réprime la participation aux activités d'un tel groupe par toute personne ayant
connaissance que cette participation contribue à la commission d'un crime ou d'un délit du groupe.
23 Les infractions terroristes sont traitées au niveau national (et non au niveau de l’arrondissement judiciaire) en ce qu’elles
relèvent de la compétence du procureur fédéral (art. 144ter, 2° du Code judiciaire) et d’un juge d’instruction spécialisé (art.
62bis, al. 2 du Code d’instruction criminelle).
18
- 32 -
Belgique
faut tenir compte du caractère général des lois, de la diversité et de la variabilité des situations, ainsi que des
matières auxquelles les s'appliquent et de l'évolution des comportements qu'elles répriment.24
- Loi organique du 30 novembre 1998 relative aux services de renseignement et de sécurité.
Les services de renseignement et de sécurité sont depuis 1998 dotés d'une loi organique.25 La loi s’applique à la
Sûreté de l’Etat, au Service civil de renseignement et de sécurité, et au Service général du renseignement et de
la sécurité des Forces armées, au Service militaire de renseignement et de sécurité, qui sont les deux services
de renseignement et de sécurité du Royaume (art. 2).
L'article 7, 1º de cette loi prévoit que la Sûreté de l'État a pour mission de rechercher, d'analyser et de traiter le
renseignement relatif à toute activité qui menace ou pourrait menacer la sûreté intérieure de l'État et la pérennité
de l'ordre démocratique et constitutionnel, la sûreté extérieure de l'État et des relations internationales, le
potentiel scientifique et économique tel que défini par le comité ministériel, ou tout autre intérêt fondamental
défini par le Roi sur proposition du comité ministériel. L'article 8 de la même loi précise que pour l'application de
l'article 7, on entend par (1º, e) « organisation sectaire nuisible : tout groupement à vocation philosophique ou
religieuse, ou se prétendant tel, qui, dans son organisation ou sa pratique, se livre à des activités illégales
dommageables, nuit aux individus ou à la société ou porte atteinte à la dignité humaine ». La Sûreté de l'État
collabore avec le ministère public dans le cadre de la circulaire nº COL 13/99 organisant les modalités de
collaboration entre le ministère public et la Sûreté de l'État.26
La loi vise aussi certaines méthodes utilisées par ces services tel que le recueil d'informations auprès des
services publics et des autorités judiciaires, les registres divers du secteur privé et le recours aux sources
humaines (articles 13 à 18 de la loi). Les enquêtes de sécurité sont visées par les lois du 11 décembre 1998
traitant de la classification et aux habilitations, des attestations et avis de sécurité, et portant création d'un organe
de recours en matière d'habilitations, attestations et avis de sécurité.27
- Loi du 3 avril 2003 modifiant la loi organique du 30 novembre 1998 relative aux services de
renseignement et de sécurité et l'article 259bis du Code pénal
Cette loi28 permet au service général du renseignement et de la sécurité des forces armées de procéder à un
certain type d' «écoutes». Cette autorisation est limitée à la captation, l'écoute, la prise de connaissance ou
l'enregistrement de toutes formes de communications émises à l'étranger, et ce tant à des fins militaires que pour
des motifs de sécurité et de protection des troupes belges, des troupes alliées lors de missions à l'étranger, ainsi
que des ressortissants belges établis à l'étranger.
- Projet de loi relative aux méthodes de recueil des données des services de renseignement et de
sécurité.
La loi organique du 30 novembre 1998 sur les services de renseignement et de sécurité prévoit une série de
méthodes de recueil de données. Un projet de loi de 2007 29 maintient ces méthodes de recueil des données,
mais les détaille et les classe en trois grandes catégories : ordinaires,30 spécifiques et exceptionnelles. La mise
en œuvre d'une méthode spécifique ou exceptionnelle de recueil des données est subordonnée au respect des
principes de subsidiarité et de proportionnalité. Par ailleurs, ces méthodes ne pourront pas porter préjudice au
secret professionnel de diverses professions. Les méthodes spécifiques de recueil des données ne pourront être
Cour Constitutionnelle, 13 juillet 2005, n° 125/2005, Moniteur belge, 3 août 2005. Tous les arrêts de la cour sont
disponibles sur http://www.courconstitutionnelle.be/. Voir Cour constitutionnelle 13 juillet 2005, Vigiles. Revue du droit de
police, 2007, vol. 13, n°. 5, p. 170-179, avec note de Eric Wauthers
25 Moniteur belge, 18 décembre 1998.
26 Voir la réponse sur la question nº 3-340 de M. Galand du 15 octobre 2003, Sénat de Belgique, Questions et Réponses,
session de 2003-2004, Bulletin 3-8, p. 519-521
27 Moniteur belge, 7 mai 1999.
28 Moniteur belge, 12 mai 2003, p. 25376-25377.
29 Projet de loi relative aux méthodes de recueil des données des services de renseignement et de sécurité, Doc. Parl.,
Sénat,
session
de
2006-2007,
n°.
2138/1,
21
mars
2007,
297p.
Voir :
http://www.senate.be/www/?MIval=/dossier&LEG=3&NR=2138&LANG=fr
30 Il s'agit essentiellement des articles 13 à 18 actuels de la loi du 30 novembre 1998 précitée
24
- 33 -
Belgique
mises en œuvre que si les méthodes ordinaires s'avèrent insuffisantes pour assurer la continuité d'une mission
de renseignement au vu des données pertinentes recueillies et concernant une menace potentielle. Sont
concernées les méthodes suivantes : d’une part, l'observation (à l'aide ou non de moyens techniques) dans des
lieux privés, l'observation (à l'aide de moyens techniques) dans des lieux accessibles au public. D’autre part,
l'inspection (à l'aide ou non de moyens techniques) d'objets fermés et de lieux accessibles au public ou de lieux
privés. Par ailleurs, prendre connaissance de données d'identification de l'expéditeur ou du destinataire d'un
courrier ou du titulaire d'une boîte postale, les mesures d'identification de l'abonné ou de l'utilisateur habituel d'un
service de communication électronique; les mesures de repérage des données d'appel, de moyens de
communication électroniques et de localisation de l'origine ou de la destination des communications
électroniques.
Les articles 18/1 à 18/3 du projet de loi contiennent des dispositions générales applicables aux deux catégories
de méthodes de recueil des données et énonce notamment le principe selon lequel une investigation menée par
un service de renseignement ne peut jamais porter préjudice à une enquête judiciaire. En cas de concours
d'enquêtes, la question relève de la Commission administrative de contrôle, créée par l'article 43/1 en projet.
Cette commission prendra sa décision au terme d'une procédure prévue elle aussi par le projet. Concernant
l'application de l'article 29 du CiCr (Code d’Instruction Criminelle), une passerelle entre la Commission et les
autorités judiciaires est également prévue : la Commission transmettra un procès-verbal non classifié au parquet
fédéral dans les conditions fixées par le projet, ce procès-verbal ne pouvant néanmoins fonder la condamnation
d'une personne ni de manière exclusive, ni dans une mesure déterminante. Les éléments contenus dans ce
procès-verbal doivent être corroborés par d'autres éléments.
- Loi du 10 juillet 2006 relative à l’analyse de la menace créant l’Organe de coordination pour l’analyse de
la menace
Suite aux attentats perpétrés en 2001 de nouvelles compétences ont été attribuées aux services de sécurité et
de nouvelles structures de coordination ont été mises en place partout dans le monde. Le Royaume-Uni s'est
doté du "Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre" (2003), l'Allemagne a installé le "Gemeinsames
Terrorismusabwehrzentrum" (2004) et les Pays-Bas ont mis en place un "Nationaal Coördinator
Terrorismebestrijding" et le "CT Infobox" (2005). La Belgique ayant également souhaité mettre en place une telle
structure, la loi du 10 juillet 2006 relative à l'analyse de la menace a créé l'Organe de coordination pour l'analyse
de la menace : l' O.C.A.M. 31 Cet Organe remplace le Groupe Interforces Antiterroriste (G.I.A.). L' O.C.A.M.
effectue des analyses ponctuelles ou stratégiques de la menace en matière de terrorisme et d'extrémisme au
profit de diverses autorités politiques, administratives ou judiciaires, et ce principalement sur la base des
renseignements qu'il reçoit de services publics très diversifiés. Ces analyses sont ensuite envoyées aux autorités
qui en ont besoin pour accomplir leurs missions légales. La création de cet Organe par l'autorité politique avait
initialement été présentée comme une réaction au terrorisme et à l'extrémisme. Cependant le Roi peut, sur
proposition du Comité ministériel du renseignement et de la sécurité, étendre le mandat de l'O.C.A.M. à
l'espionnage, aux organisations sectaires et même à la criminalité organisée. La loi ne mentionne qu'une seule
source d’informations : les renseignements provenant des services d'appui. Il semble que les analyses de l'
O.C.A.M. puissent également être alimentées indirectement par des informations provenant d'homologues
étrangers et par des informations tirées de sa propre banque de données. 32
L' O.C.A.M. peut puiser dans les renseignements provenant de huit services : la Sûreté de l'Etat, le Service
Général du renseignement et de la sécurité des Forces Armées, la police fédérale, les corps de la police locale,
l'Administration des Douanes et Accises du Service Public Fédéral Finances, l'Office des étrangers du S.P.F.33
Intérieur, le S.P.F. Mobilité et Transports (qui a des compétences en matière de transport aérien, fluvial, routier
et ferroviaire), et le S.P.F. Affaires Etrangères. Il s'agit donc de services très variés, ayant chacun une culture
Moniteur belge, 20 juillet 2006, p. 36182-36187. Voir P. Pieters, ‘Terrorisme en extremisme: coördinatie van de
dreigingsanalyse’, Panopticon, 2007, n°. 2, p. 68–75 ; W. Van Laethem, ‘L'organe de coordination pour l'analyse de la
menace: une analyse ponctuelle’, Vigiles. Revue du droit de police, 2007, vol. 13, no. 4, p.109-127.
32 W. Van Laethem, l.c., p. 116.
33 Service public fédéral (ministère).
31
- 34 -
Belgique
propre et une taille distincte, mais surtout, ayant une finalité qui n'est pas toujours liée à la lutte contre le
terrorisme et l'extrémisme. 34
- Loi du 6 janvier 2003 concernant les méthodes particulières de recherche et quelques autres méthodes
d’enquête.
Dans le passé, l'utilisation de techniques spéciales par les services de police en Belgique s'est développée de
manière exclusivement empirique, en dehors de toute réglementation spécifique.35 Sous l'influence de la
jurisprudence tant interne qu'européenne, la Belgique s'est dotée en 1991 d'une législation insérée dans le Code
d'instruction criminelle, tel que l’article 88bis qui fixe les conditions d'application et de contrôle des mesures de
repérage de communications téléphoniques. En 1994, les articles 90ter à 90decies traitant des écoutes, de la
prise de connaissance et de l'enregistrement de communications et de télécommunications ont à leur tour été
insérés dans le Code d'instruction criminelle. Ces articles qui prévoyaient de manière détaillée et stricte les
conditions de mise en oeuvre et d'application des mesures d'écoutes sont actuellement en cours de révision.
Cette révision a pour objectif d’une part d'adapter les dispositions en question aux évolutions technologiques,
d’autre part d'en assouplir les modalités d'exécution et enfin d'en étendre le champ d'application. Des ‘affaires’
comme l'affaire François et l'affaire Reyniers ont conduit le ministre de la Justice d’alors à adopter la circulaire
ministérielle confidentielle du 24 avril 1990 partiellement remaniée par une circulaire du 5 mars 1992 organisant
les méthodes particulières de recherche.36
Si la loi du 6 janvier 2003 concernant les méthodes particulières de recherche et quelques autres méthodes
d'enquête37 entend donner un cadre législatif à des méthodes policières telles que l'observation, l'infiltration et le
recours aux indicateurs, elle prévoit également des dispositions concernant l'interception du courrier, les
contrôles visuels discrets (infra), les écoutes directes, l'intervention différée et la récolte de données concernant
des comptes et transactions bancaires.
Dans son arrêt du 21 décembre 200438 la Cour d'arbitrage a annulé plusieurs articles qui avaient été insérés par
la loi du 6 janvier 2003 dans le Code d'instruction criminelle : les articles 28septies al. 3, 47quater (provocation),
47sexies, §§ 4 et 7, al. 2, 47septies, § 1er, al. 2 et § 2, 47octies, §§ 4 et 7, al. 2, 47novies, § 1, al. 2 et § 2,
47undecies, et 56bis, al. 2 (dans la mesure où il peut être appliqué en combinaison avec l'article 28septies du
Code d'instruction criminelle) et l'article 89ter (dans la mesure où il peut être appliqué en combinaison avec
l'article 28septies du Code d'instruction criminelle). La loi du 27 décembre 2005 portant des modifications
diverses au Code d'instruction criminelle et au Code judiciaire en vue d'améliorer les modes d'investigation dans
la lutte contre le terrorisme et la criminalité grave et organisée39 a pris acte de l'arrêt précité de la Cour
d'arbitrage.40 Cette ‘loi réparatrice’ de 2005 modifie substantiellement la loi du 6 janvier 2003 concernant les
méthodes particulières de recherche et quelques autres méthodes d’enquête, entre autres pour la mettre en
conformité avec l’arrêt rendu par la Cour d’arbitrage le 21 décembre 2004. La nouvelle loi a suscité elle aussi
différents recours en annulation sur lesquels la Cour constitutionnelle s’est prononcée dans son arrêt
W. Van Laethem, l.c., p. 118.
Commission parlementaire chargée d'enquêter sur la criminalité organisée en Belgique, ‘L'impact de la lutte contre la
criminalité organisée, entre autres par l'utilisation de techniques spéciales d'enquête, sur l'organisation des services de police
et du ministère public’, Deuxième ‘apport intermédiaire fait par Mm. Coveliers Et Desmedt, Doc. Parl., Sénat, 1997-1998, n°.
1-326/8, 14 mai 1998, (141p.) p. 10-12. Pour une analyse de ces techniques utilisées en Belgique avant la loi: Fr. Thomas &
A. Liners, ‘La justice pénale à l’épreuve du crime organisé. Coopération au stade des investigations et des poursuites’, Revue
Internationale de droit pénal, 1999, vol. 70, n°. 1-2, p. 428-456.
36 Ibid, avec références.
37 Moniteur belge, 12 mai 2003. Dans le Moniteur du même jour figure également l'arrêté royal du 9 avril 2003 relatif aux
techniques d'enquête policières. Voir : Council of Europe, ‘Belgium’, in Terrorism: special investigation techniques,
Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2006, (496p.), p. 73-86; H. Berkmoes & J. Delmulle, Les méthodes particulières de
recherche et quelques autres méthodes d’enquête, Bruxelles, Politeia, 2003, feuillets mobiles (avec actualisations).
38 Cour d'arbitrage n°202/2004, 21 décembre 2004, Moniteur belge, 6 janvier 2005.
39 Moniteur belge, 30 décembre 2005.
40 F. Schuermans & H. Berkmoes, ‘De Reparatiewet betreffende de bijzondere en enige andere onderzoeksmethoden, gewikt
en gewogen’ in A. De Nauw (éd.), De groeipijnen van het strafrecht, Bruges, die Keure, 2007, p. 59-108
34
35
- 35 -
Belgique
n° 105/2007 du 19 juillet 2007. Dans cet arrêt la Cour a annulé plusieures articles insérés dans le Code
d'instruction criminelle par la loi du 27 décembre 2005.41
Revenant à plusieurs reprises sur la législation concernant les méthodes particulières, nous nous limiterons cidessous à quelques nouveautés introduites par la loi du 27 décembre 2005 portant des modifications diverses au
Code d'instruction criminelle et au Code judiciaire en vue d'améliorer les modes d'investigation dans la lutte
contre le terrorisme et la criminalité grave et organisée.
- Bien que l'intitulé de la loi du 27 décembre 2005 assure qu'il s'agit de lutter contre le terrorisme et la criminalité
grave et organisée, en réalité (tout comme la loi du 6 janvier 2003) cette loi a vocation à s'appliquer à la
recherche des auteurs de toute infraction de nature à entraîner un emprisonnement d'un an. De plus, la nouvelle
loi conduit à une extension du champ d'application de ces méthodes à de nouveaux faits par rapport au régime
instauré par la loi de 2003. L’intitulé de la loi du 2005 a été justifié par le fait que le deuxième volet de la loi insère
un certain nombre de dispositions dans le Code judiciaire et le Code d’instruction criminelle : ainsi, par exemple
de la désignation de juges d’instruction spécialisés dans l’instruction des dossiers de terrorisme et pouvant
exercer leurs attributions sur l’ensemble du territoire du Royaume. Six juges d’instruction spécialisés en matière
de terrorisme seront désignés. En cas de terrorisme, le procureur fédéral devra saisir le doyen des juges
d’instruction, lequel désignera alors le juge d’instruction fédéral.
-En ce qui concerne la provocation, l'article 30 du titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale inséré par la loi
du 27 décembre 2005, prévoit que la provocation est interdite et que le cas échéant l'action publique est
irrecevable.42 Cet article remplace l’ancien article 47quater inséré dans le Code d'instruction criminelle par la loi
précitée du 6 janvier 2003. Ce dernier article ne s'appliquait que lors de l'exécution d'une méthode particulière de
recherche. La Cour en 2004 y voyait une violation du principe de non-discrimination, les personnes faisant l'objet
de la provocation étant traitées plus favorablement dans le cadre d'une enquête ayant fait appel à une méthode
particulière de recherche que dans le cadre d’une enquête sans méthode particulière de recherche.
- L’article 6 de la loi du 27 décembre 2005 (insérant l’article 46quinquies nouveau du Code d’instruction
criminelle) stipule que le procureur du Roi peut sous certaines conditions autoriser les services de police à
opérer des «contrôles visuels discrets» dans des lieux privés.43 Autrement dit, ces services peuvent pénétrer de
jour comme de nuit dans un lieu privé à l’insu du propriétaire ou sans son consentement, dans la mesure où il
existe des indices sérieux laissant penser que les faits punissables constituent ou constitueraient d’une part une
infraction à l’article 90ter, §§ 2 à 4, du Code d’instruction criminelle, ou d’autre part, sont commis ou seraient
commis dans le cadre d’une organisation criminelle.
- L’article 46quater CiCr. étend la compétence du procureur du Roi en lui permettant de rassembler des données
relatives à des transactions bancaires (comptes et transactions bancaires, coffres bancaires, instruments
financiers) et d’imposer un gel des créances (c.-à-d. les banques ne peuvent plus se dessaisir des créances
durant une période de 3 jours ouvrables), « s'il existe des indices sérieux que les infractions peuvent donner lieu
à une peine d'emprisonnement correctionnel principal d'un an ou à une peine plus lourde ».
- L'article 47ter, § 1er, CiCr., inséré par la loi du 6 janvier 2003 et reformulé en 2005, définit les méthodes
particulières de recherche proprement dites : l'observation, l'infiltration et le recours aux indicateurs. Ces
41 Cour constitutionnelle 19 juillet 2007, n° 105/2007, Moniteur belge, 13 août 2007, T. Strafr., 2007, p. 254-260. Voir Fr.
Schuermans, ‘Les méthodes particulières de recherche vont-elles enfin pouvoir voler dans un ciel sans nuage?’, Vigiles.
Revue du droit de police, 2008, vol. 14, n°. 1, p. 9-23 ; D. Chichoyan, ‘Les droits fondamentaiux dans les méthodes
particulières de recherche : finalement, pourquoi pas ?, J.L.M.B., 2008, p. 600.
42 “Il est interdit de provoquer des infractions. Il y a provocation lorsque, dans le chef de l'auteur, l'intention délictueuse est
directement née ou est renforcée, ou est confirmée alors que l'auteur voulait y mettre fin, par l'intervention d'un fonctionnaire
de police ou d'un tiers agissant à la demande expresse de ce fonctionnaire. En cas de provocation, l'action publique est
irrecevable en ce qui concerne ces faits”
43 Le «lieu privé» est défini par l’article 46quinquies comme étant le lieu qui n’est manifestement pas un domicile, une
dépendance propre et close d’un domicile au sens des articles 479, 480 et 481 du Code pénal ou un local utilisé à des fins
professionnelles ou la résidence d’un avocat ou d’un médecin. Seul le juge d’instruction peut autoriser les services de police
à opérer des contrôles visuels discrets d’après la loi du 27 décembre 2005
- 36 -
Belgique
méthodes sont mises en oeuvre dans le cadre d'une information ou d'une instruction, par les services de police
désignés par le ministre de la Justice. Elles sont soumises au contrôle du ministère public. Sans préjudice des
articles 28bis, §§ 1eret 2, 55 et 56, § 1er, et 56bis, elles sont réalisées en vue de poursuivre les auteurs
d'infractions, de rechercher, de collecter, d'enregistrer et de traiter des données et des informations sur la base
d'indices sérieux que des faits punissables vont être commis ou ont déjà été commis, qu'ils soient connus ou
non. La chambre des mises en accusation contrôlera l’utilisation des méthodes particulières de recherche tant
aux fins d’information qu’aux fins d’instruction. Les méthodes particulières de recherche ne peuvent être mises
en œuvre que si elles poursuivent une finalité judiciaire. Les travaux préparatoires précisent que «toutes les
méthodes particulières de recherche mises en œuvre […] doivent viser à aider les autorités judiciaires ou le juge
pénal à statuer dans le cadre de la procédure pénale et [qu’] elles poursuivent donc la même finalité judiciaire»44.
L’observation et l’infiltration sont subordonnées aux exigences spécifiques de proportionnalité et de subsidiarité.
-La loi du 6 janvier 2003 porte également sur l’infiltrant (articles 47octies et 47novies du CiCr), l’expert civil
(article 47octies, § 1er, alinéa 2, du CiCr) et l’indicateur (article 47decies du CiCr). En ce qui concerne l’infiltrant
civil, le législateur n’a pas voulu marquer son accord sur le recours à ce type de technique en votant la loi du 6
janvier 2003. La loi de 2005 suit la même logique mais, par ailleurs, souhaite recourir plus largement aux
indicateurs : ainsi, l’article 47decies CiCr. a été complété par la loi de 2005 en lui ajoutant un 7e paragraphe
prévoyant que le procureur ne peut faire commettre des infractions à un indicateur qu’à des conditions strictes.
La Cour constitutionnelle a annulé cette disposition dans son arrêt n° 105/2007 du 19 juillet 2007 : si la Cour
accepte en principe que les indicateurs soient habilités à commettre des infractions, le fait que la loi ne fixe pas à
l’avance une liste limitative d’infractions autorisées constitue d’après la Cour une violation des articles 10
(principe d’égalité), 11 (interdiction de discrimination) et 12 (principe de légalité) de la Constitution. Selon la Cour,
l’article 12 de la Constitution implique que les magistrats sachent précisément quelles infractions les indicateurs
peuvent être autorisés à commettre. Ainsi, le législateur doit adopter des critères très précis afin d’éviter que
l’autorisation n’excède ce qui est strictement nécessaire pour atteindre le but visé.
- Loi du 7 avril 2005 relative à la protection des sources journalistiques.
La loi du 7 avril 2005 relative à la protection des sources journalistiques 45donne aux journalistes le droit de
garder secrètes leurs sources d'information. De plus, aucun acte d'instruction ou d'information ne peut être
entrepris afin de connaître ces sources. Seul le juge est habilité à contraindre le journaliste de révéler ses
sources dans la mesure où les informations en question sont de nature à prévenir une infraction terroriste ou une
menace grave à l’intégrité physique d’une ou de plusieurs personnes, à la condition que soient respectés les
principes de subsidiarité et de proportionnalité.
Le texte donne la définition des bénéficiaires de la protection (article 2 de la loi), instaure la protection en tant
que principe général (article 3 de la loi) et précise les conditions strictes et cumulatives (articles 4 et 5 de la loi)
dans lesquelles cette protection des sources peut être levée. Ainsi l'article 5 de la loi prévoit que : « Les mesures
d'information ou d'instruction telles que fouilles, perquisitions, saisies, écoutes téléphoniques et enregistrements
ne peuvent concerner des données relatives aux sources d'information des personnes visées à l'article 2 que si
ces données sont susceptibles de prévenir la commission des infractions visées à l'article 4, et dans le respect
des conditions qui y sont définies ».
La loi impose donc qu’un équilibre soit respecté entre la nécessité de protéger le secret des sources et les
intérêts vitaux qui seraient en jeu. Le juge d’instruction doit considérer d’une part la nécessité d’avoir accès à
l’information pour l’enquête en cours et d’autre part la liberté de l’information. En ce qui concerne le terrorisme, le
principe est que les mesures d’information ou d’instruction telles que fouilles, perquisitions, saisies, écoutes
téléphoniques et enregistrements ne peuvent pas concerner des données relatives aux sources d’information
des journalistes, à moins que ces données ne soient susceptibles de prévenir la commission d’infractions qui
constituent une menace grave pour l’intégrité physique. Ces mesures d’information ou d’instruction doivent
Doc., Chambre, 2001-2002, n°1688/001, p. 8.
Moniteur belge, 27 avril 2005. Loi du 9 mai 2006 visant à modifier l'article 5 de la loi du 7 avril 2005 relative à la protection
des sources journalistiques, Moniteur belge, 7 mars 2007, p. 11186. Voir K. Lemmens, ‘La protection des sources
journalistiques. Une commentaire de la loi du 7 avril 2005’, J.T., 2005, p. 699 et s.
44
45
- 37 -
Belgique
également respecter la double condition que ces informations soient cruciales pour cette prévention et qu’on ne
puisse les obtenir d’aucune autre manière.
Une loi de 2006 a précisé la loi et a reformulé l’article 5 en y supprimant les exemples pour éviter que cette liste
d'exemples ne puisse à l'avenir et de quelque manière que ce soit être considérée et interprétée comme une liste
limitative, c’est à dire être interprétée comme reprenant les seules mesures d'information ou d'instruction
assujetties aux conditions légales de levée de la protection des sources journalistiques. Ainsi, l’article 5 de la loi
du 7 avril 2005 relative à la protection des sources journalistiques est remplacé par la disposition suivante :
«Il ne pourra être procédé à aucune mesure d’information ou d’instruction concernant des données relatives aux
sources d’information des personnes visées à l’article 2, sauf si ces données sont susceptibles de prévenir la
commission des infractions visées à l’article 4, et dans le respect des conditions qui y sont définies».
- Loi du 19 décembre 2003 relative au mandat d’arrêt européen.
La loi relative au mandat d'arrêt européen du 19 décembre 2003 (ci-après la loi) transpose la décision cadre
2002/584/JAI du Conseil du 13 juin 2002 relative au mandat d'arrêt européen et aux procédures de remise entre
Etats membres de l'Union européenne (ci-après la décision cadre).46 Cette loi remplace la loi du 15 mars 1874
relative aux extraditions et aux conventions d'extradition applicables dans les relations avec les Etats membres
de l'Union européenne en ce qui concerne l'arrestation et la remise de personnes, tel que la Convention
européenne d'extradition du 13 décembre 1957, son protocole additionnel du 15 octobre 1975, son deuxième
protocole additionnel du 17 mars 1978, et la Convention européenne pour la répression du terrorisme du 27
janvier 1977 pour autant qu'elle concerne l'extradition.
L'article 3 détermine les seuils de peines à partir desquels un mandat d'arrêt européen peut être émis. Peuvent
donner lieu à la remise les faits punissables par la loi de l'Etat membre d'émission d'une peine privative de liberté
ou d'une mesure de sûreté privative de liberté d'au moins 12 mois d’une part ou, d’autre part, dans l'hypothèse
où une condamnation est déjà intervenue ou une mesure de sûreté a été infligée, pour des sanctions ou des
mesures de sûreté d'une durée d'au moins 4 mois. Le premier paragraphe de l'article 5 pose le principe de
l’exigence de double incrimination. Ainsi, la remise sera refusée si le fait qui est à la base du mandat d'arrêt
européen ne constitue pas une infraction au regard du droit belge. Le deuxième paragraphe de l'article 5 contient
une exception au principe du maintien de la double incrimination : cette exception s'applique à une liste de 32
infractions. Il n'y aura donc pas de contrôle de la double incrimination du fait pour les 32 infractions énumérées
par cette liste, à la condition toutefois que les faits soient passibles dans l'Etat d'émission d'une peine privative
de liberté d'au moins trois ans.
Contrairement à l'extradition, l'infraction politique ne constitue plus une cause de refus de la remise. En
revanche, l'exécution du mandat d'arrêt européen est refusée lorsqu'il y a des raisons de croire qu'elle aurait
pour effet de porter atteinte aux droits fondamentaux de la personne concernée, tels qu'ils sont consacrés par
l'article 6 du traité sur l'Union européenne (article 4.5 de la loi). Le contrôle sera strictement limité à l'appréciation
de circonstances concrètes relatives au cas donnant lieu au mandat d'arrêt européen.
- La législation sur le blanchiment d’argent : volet répressif.
Pour lutter contre le blanchiment, la Belgique s’est dotée au fil des années d’un arsenal législatif incluant à la fois
un volet préventif et un volet répressif. Le volet répressif a été introduit dans le code pénal par la loi du 17 juillet
1990 modifiant les articles 42, 43 et 505 du Code pénal et insérant un article 43bis dans ce même Code. 47
L’article 505 du code pénal érige en infraction divers actes relatifs aux avantages patrimoniaux tirés d’une
infraction et punit les auteurs d’un emprisonnement et/ou d’une amende. Il en est ainsi par exemple de
Moniteur belge, 22 décembre 2003, p. 60075. B. Dejemeppe, ‘La loi du 19 décembre 2003 relative au mandat d’arrêt
européen’, J.T., 2004, p.113.
47 Moniteur belge, 15 août 1990. Voir F. Deruyck & A. De Nauw, l.c., p. 224-236 ; N. Hustin – Denies, La législation belge sur
le blanchiment de capitaux d’origine criminelle: un instrument d’indemnisation des victimes et de lutte contre la criminalité
organisée?’, in Ann. Dr. Louvain, 1995, p. 53–94; L. Cornelis & R. Verstraeten, ‘Mag er nog wit worden gewassen?’, T.B.H.,
1992, p. 176–221; G. Stessens, De nationale en internationale bestrijding van het witwassen: onderzoek naar een meer
effectieve bestrijding van de profijtgerichte criminaliteit, Anvers, Intersentia, 1997.
46
- 38 -
Belgique
l’acquisition, de la possession ou de la gestion d’avantages patrimoniaux par des auteurs en connaissant ou
devant en connaître l’origine au début de ces opérations (article 505 al 1er, 2° CP) ainsi que de la dissimulation
ou le déguisement de la nature, l’origine, de l’emplacement, de la disposition, du mouvement ou de la propriété
de tels avantages patrimoniaux alors qu’ils en connaissaient ou devaient en connaître l’origine au début de ces
opérations (article 505 al 1er, 4° CP).
L’article 505 du Code pénal a été modifié à plusieurs reprises et presque toujours en étendant la portée de
l’article. C’est le cas par exemple de la loi du 7 avril 1995. 48 L’article a été modifié pour la dernière fois en 2007,
mais cette fois en sens inverse :49 les incriminations des articles 505, 2° et 4°, sont dorénavant limitées en
matière fiscale à la seule fraude fiscale grave et organisée, mettant en œuvre des mécanismes complexes, ou
qui use de procédés à dimension internationale.50 On trouve également dans la loi de 2007 quelques
modifications relatives à la nature même de l’incrimination de blanchiment : le caractère continu de l’infraction est
renforcé et l’impossibilité qui existait sous le régime antérieur de poursuivre du chef de recel élargi (505, al. 1er
2° du Code pénal) l’auteur de l’infraction principale est atténuée.
La portée de la législation pénale est particulièrement étendue : le fait de recevoir des capitaux provenant d'un
délit quelconque est punissable ; il n'est donc pas nécessaire que la personne qui pose l'acte connaisse l'origine
délictueuse des capitaux ou biens concernés, il suffit qu'elle « doive » en connaître l'origine.51 La jurisprudence
est de plus en plus souple concernant la preuve apportée par le ministère public : il suffit que le juge de fond
puisse exclure toute origine légale de l’argent en question.52 En pratique cela implique un renversement de la
charge de la preuve : c’est à la personne poursuivie de prouver que l’origine des montant est légale.53
-La législation sur le blanchiment d’argent : volet préventif
La loi du 11 janvier 1993 complète l’approche répressive de l’article 505 du Code pénal.54 Cette loi poursuit en
fait deux objectifs complémentaires : d’une part, éviter la mise en œuvre d’opérations de blanchiment, et d’autre
part, permettre une meilleure connaissance des dossiers de blanchiment. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la notion de
‘blanchiment’ est définie, et une série d’obligations plus ou moins précises et contraignantes ont été créées pour
divers opérateurs économiques qui sont susceptibles d’intervenir dans des opérations de blanchiment. La loi
instaure notamment pour les notaires, les huissiers de justice et les experts-comptables, l’obligation de déclarer
certains actes qui sont liés au blanchiment de capitaux provenant de délits en rapport avec le trafic de drogue,
les carrousels T.V.A. et d'autres formes de criminalité grave ou organisée. Cette obligation administrative est
volontairement définie beaucoup plus strictement que les actes qui sont actuellement punissables en application
Moniteur belge, 10 mai 1995, err., Moniteur belge, 25 mai 1995. Voir F. Deruyck & A. De Nauw, l.c., p. 224-236.
Loi du 10 mai 2007 portant diverses mesures en matière de recèlement et de saisie, Moniteur belge, 22 août 2007. Voir R.
Verstraeten & D. Dewandeleer, ‘Repressieve en preventieve witwaswetgeving na de Wetten van 27 april 2007 en 10 mei
2007’, Nullem Crimen (N.C.), 2008, n°. 1, p. 1-45 ; J. Maldague, ‘Du nouveau en matière de blanchiment, Koan News, 2007,
1-2 (http://www.koan.be/_file/_upload/_spaw/Finance%20&%20Tax%20dec%2007.pdf); J.-P. Buyle, ‘Fraude fiscale,
blanchiment et banque : un pas vers la sécurité juridique’, Banque & Finances, 15 juin 2007, p. 1 (http://www.banquefin.be/).
50 La portée de cette immunité est limitée à certains cas de blanchiment d’avantages patrimoniaux acquis par fraude fiscale
ordinaire et l’auteur du blanchiment ne peut s’en prévaloir que si toutes les conditions légales sont remplies. Elle ne
s’applique pas à tous les délits de blanchiment énumérés par l’article 505 CP.
51 Voir pour un examen critique de l’élément moral : F. Deruyck & A. De Nauw, l.c., p. 229-236.
52 E. Van Dooren, ‘De feitelijke precisering van het aan een witwasmisdrijf voorafgaand basismisdrijf wordt steeds minder
vereist’, (note sous Cass. P.06.0608.N, 19 septembre 2006), N.C., 2007, afl. 3, p. 215-218; Y. Van Den Berge, ‘Het bewijs
van witwassen en de motivering van de verbeurdverklaring’, (note sous Cass. 21 mars 2006), R.A.B.G. 2006/20, p. 14981504
53 R. Verstraeten & D. Dewandeleer, l.c., p. 1-45
54 Loi du 11 janvier 1993 relative à la prévention de l’utilisation du système financier aux fins de blanchiment de capitaux,
Moniteur belge, 28 janvier. 1993. Voir : P. Monville, ‘Blanchiment’, Mémorialis Postal (B45), juin 2003 (particulièrement les
pages 13 et suivants à propos de la loi du 11 janvier 1993); M.L. Cesoni & D.Vandermeersch, ‘Le recel et le blanchiment’, in
Les infractions contre les biens, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2008, p.455 à 544 (principalement les pages 459, 483 à 486, 502 à 512 et
518 à 524)
48
49
- 39 -
Belgique
de l'article 505 du Code pénal. 55 La loi du 11 janvier 1993 a été modifiée en profondeur par la loi du 7 avril 1995
qui a étendu les catégories d’entreprises financières, de personnes et de formes de criminalité rentrant dans le
champ d’application de la loi.
Les articles 2, 2bis et 2ter énumèrent les opérateurs économiques concernés par les obligations de la loi de
1993. Les obligations prévues par la loi sont plus ou moins importantes selon que l’opérateur économique visé
est repris dans l’article 2, 2bis ou 2ter de la loi. Parmi les obligations qu’impose la loi on peut relever dans le chef
des opérateurs économiques : l’obligation, lorsque par exemple le client souhaite réaliser une opération dont le
montant atteint ou excède 10 000 EUR, d’identifier leurs clients et les mandataires de ceux-ci et de vérifier leur
identité sur un document probant dont il est pris copie sur support papier ou électronique ; l’obligation de
sensibiliser leurs employés et leurs représentants aux dispositions de la présente loi ; et l’obligation d’informer la
Cellule de traitement des informations financières lorsque les organismes ou les personnes savent ou
soupçonnent qu'une opération est liée au blanchiment de capitaux ou au financement du terrorisme.
Seules les autorités de contrôle, de tutelle, ou les autorités disciplinaires peuvent sanctionner les organismes ou
opérateurs économiques qui ne respectent pas les obligations découlant de la loi du 11 janvier 1993. Ces
sanctions sont la publication des décisions et mesures prises, une amende administrative dont le montant ne
peut être inférieur à 250,00 EUR et ne peut excéder 1.250.000,00 EUR56.
La Cellule est à la fois le lien et le filtre entre le monde financier et le monde judiciaire. C’est pourquoi elle est
placée sous le contrôle conjoint des Ministres de la Justice et des Finances.57 La Cellule peut demander aux
services de police et aux services administratifs de l’Etat qu’ils lui transmettent toutes les informations qu’elle
juge utiles à l’exercice de sa mission. Il faut relever que la circulation de l’information se fait toujours à sens
unique : la Cellule ne peut communiquer des informations que dans des situations énumérées limitativement par
la loi, comme la transmission d’informations au parquet en cas d’indices sérieux de blanchiment ou, dans le
cadre de la collaboration mutuelle, à des organismes étrangers remplissant des fonctions similaires et soumis à
des obligations de secret analogue. Une fois l’information transmise de la Cellule vers le parquet, la Cellule n’est
plus maître de celle-ci. 58
A l’inverse du Code pénal, la loi du 11 janvier 1993 emploie effectivement le terme « blanchiment ». En outre, cette notion
reçoit une définition plus restrictive que dans le Code pénal. L’article 3, §1er de la loi donne la définition suivante : « Aux fins
de l'application de la présente loi, par blanchiment de capitaux il faut entendre : - la conversion ou le transfert de capitaux ou
d'autres biens dans le but de dissimuler ou de déguiser leur origine illicite ou d'aider toute personne qui est impliquée dans la
réalisation de l'infraction d'où proviennent ces capitaux ou ces biens, à échapper aux conséquences juridiques de ses actes; la dissimulation ou le déguisement de la nature, de l'origine, de l'emplacement, de la disposition, du mouvement ou de la
propriété des capitaux ou des biens dont on connaît l'origine illicite; - l'acquisition, la détention ou l'utilisation de capitaux ou
de biens dont on connaît l'origine illicite; - la participation à l'un des actes visés aux trois points précédents, l'association pour
commettre ledit acte, les tentatives de la perpétrer, le fait d'aider, d'inciter ou de conseiller quelqu'un à le commettre ou le fait
d'en faciliter l'exécution ». De prime abord, les opérations visées sont les mêmes que celles définies, plus largement dans le
Code pénal. Néanmoins, l’article 3, § 2 de la même loi limite les infractions pour lesquelles l’infraction de blanchiment peut
être retenue : « Pour l'application de la présente loi, l'origine de capitaux ou de biens est illicite lorsque ceux-ci proviennent de
la réalisation : 1° d'une infraction liée : - au terrorisme ou au financement du terrorisme; - à la criminalité organisée; - au trafic
illicite de stupéfiants;(…) 2° d'un délit boursier, d'un appel public irrégulier à l'épargne ou de la fourniture de services
d'investissement, de commerce de devises ou de transferts de fonds sans agrément ; 3° d'une escroquerie, d'un abus de
confiance, d'un abus de biens sociaux, d'une prise d'otages, d'un vol ou d'une extorsion à l'aide de violences ou de menaces
ou d'une (infraction liée à l'état de faillite ».
56 Article 22 de la loi du 11 janvier 1993.
57 Voir J. Spreutels, ‘Blanchiment et fraude fiscale grave et organisée’, texte présenté au Colloque ‘Face à la criminalité
organisée en matière fiscale’, Palais des Congrès, Bruxelles, 15p. (http://www.ctif-cfi.be/doc/fr/articles/s8V10335.pdf); J.
Spreutels & C. Scohier, ‘La Cellule de traitement des informations financières et la prévention du blanchiment de capitaux en
Belgique’, Revue pénitentiaire et droit pénal, 2000; G. Stessens, ‘Meldingsplicht inzake witwassen’, Comm. Strafr. en Strafv.,
Divers, 2000. On trouvera de plus amples informations sur le site Internet http://www.ctif-cfi.be
58 J. Spreutels, ‘Blanchiment et fraude fiscale grave et organisée’, l.c., p. 5-6.
55
- 40 -
Belgique
-Loi portant extension des possibilités de saisie et de confiscation en matière pénale
La Belgique dispose d’un régime élaboré de saisie et de confiscation. Les articles 35 et 35bis du CiCr traitent de
la saisie, l’article 35ter du CiCr de la saisie par équivalent. En matière de confiscation, l’article 17 de la
Constitution belge interdit la peine de confiscation générale qui consistait en la privation de l’ensemble du
patrimoine du condamné. L’article 17 de la Constitution ne s’oppose pas à la mise en place d’un régime de
confiscation spéciale qui est organisé dans les articles 42 et suivants du Code Pénal. La confiscation dite
spéciale peut s’appliquer aux choses formant l’objet de l’infraction et à celles qui ont servi ou qui ont été
destinées à la commettre dès lors que le condamné en est le propriétaire (art. 42,1° CP), ou encore aux choses
qui ont été produites par l’infraction (art. 42,2° CP).59 La loi du 17 juillet 1990 modifiant les articles 42, 43 et 505
du Code pénal et insérant un article 43bis dans ce Code 60 a également introduit un article 42,3°. Cet article
étendait les possibilités de confiscation existant à l’époque en droit belge en permettant la confiscation des
avantages patrimoniaux tirés directement de l’infraction (les avantages primaires), aux biens et valeurs qui leur
ont été substitués (les biens dits de substitution) et aux revenus de ces avantages investis (art. 42,3° CP).
L’article 505 al. 3 CP permet de confisquer les choses qui constituent l’objet de l’infraction de blanchiment, même
si la propriété n’en appartient pas au condamné.
La loi portant extension des possibilités de saisie et de confiscation en matière pénale votée le 19 décembre
2002 61 a pour but de lutter contre la criminalité grave et la criminalité organisée. Elle a introduit la possibilité de
procéder en certaines circonstances à une saisie conservatoire par équivalent et de partager la charge de la
preuve en ce qui concerne l'origine d'avantages patrimoniaux illégaux.
La saisie et la confiscation spéciale par équivalent ne sont pas soumises à une condition de propriété mais
doivent respecter les droits des tiers. L’article 35ter du CiCr sur la saisie par équivalent et les articles 42,3° et
43quater CP sur la confiscation par équivalent permettent de priver un inculpé de ses biens ou de la valeur
correspondante si leur acquisition est la conséquence d’infractions pénales,62 sans devoir établir un lien entre
l’infraction et le bien saisi.
L’article 43quater met en place une répartition de la charge de la preuve entre le ministère public et l’inculpé pour
la provenance d’avantages patrimoniaux illégaux. Cette répartition a été critiquée par une partie de la doctrine.63
Sans qu’il n’y ait renversement de la charge de la preuve, la charge est dorénavant partagée : c’est à la
personne poursuivie de prouver que des sommes d’argents en sa possession ne découlent pas de l'infraction
pour laquelle elle a été condamnée ou de faits identiques. 64
Groupe d’Etats contre la corruption (Greco), Deuxième Cycle d’Evaluation. Rapport d’Evaluation sur la Belgique,
Strasbourg, 2 décembre 2004, (27p.), p. 3
(http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/greco/evaluations/round2/GrecoEval2(2004)1_Belgium_FR.pdf)
60 Moniteur belge, 15 août 1990.
61 Moniteur belge, 14 février 2003. Voir D. Vandermeersch et autres, Saisie et confiscation des profits du crime, Anvers,
Maklu, 2004, 330p.; M-A Beernaert, ‘La loi du 19 décembre 2002 portant extension des possibilités de saisie et de
confiscation en matière pénale’, Rev. dr. pén., 2003, p. 565-589.
62 Groupe d’Etats contre la corruption (Greco), o.c., p. 7.
63 Voir Ch. Van Den Wyngaert, Strafrecht, strafprocesrecht en internationaal strafrecht, Anvers, Maklu, 2006, (762p.) p. 398400
64 Article 43quater CP : « § 1er. Sans préjudice de l'article 43bis, alinéas 3 et 4, les avantages patrimoniaux visés au § 2, les
biens et les valeurs qui y ont été substitués et les revenus provenant des avantages investis trouvés dans le patrimoine ou en
possession d'une personne peuvent, à la demande du procureur du Roi, être confisqués ou cette personne peut être
condamnée au paiement d'un montant que le juge estime correspondre à la valeur de ces choses si elle a été reconnue
coupable (…) § 2. La confiscation visée au § 1er peut être prononcée contre les auteurs, coauteurs et complices condamnés
pour une ou plusieurs des infractions énumérées au présent article et aux conditions définies au § 1er si le condamné a
acquis pendant une période pertinente des avantages patrimoniaux supplémentaires alors qu'il existe des indices sérieux et
concrets que ceux-ci découlent de l'infraction pour laquelle il a été condamné ou de faits identiques et que le condamné n'a
pas pu rendre plausible le contraire. Ce contraire peut également être rendu plausible par tout tiers prétendant avoir droit à
ces avantages » (…).
59
- 41 -
Belgique
La loi a également introduit la possibilité de mener une enquête particulière sur les avantages patrimoniaux visés
aux articles 42,3°, 43bis et 43quater CP en vue de leur confiscation (art. 524bis et ter du CiCr), une telle enquête
pouvant être ordonnée sur réquisition du ministère public ou par le juge du fond qui déclare le prévenu coupable
du fait qui lui est imputé. Elle est menée par l’office central de lutte contre la délinquance économique et
financière organisée (OCDEFO) ou tout autre service de police, sous la direction et la surveillance du ministère
public qui en assume la responsabilité.65
- Loi du 7 juillet 2002 contenant des règles relatives à la protection des témoins menacés et d'autres
dispositions
La loi du 7 juillet 2002 contenant des règles relatives à la protection des témoins menacés et d'autres
dispositions entend donner un cadre légal à la protection des témoins menacés en précisant les conditions dans
lesquelles une telle protection est possible. La loi distingue entre les mesures ordinaires et les mesures
spéciales, définit la procédure à suivre et institue une commission de protection des témoins.66 Un témoin
menacé est défini comme étant une personne mise en danger à la suite de déclarations faites ou à faire dans le
cadre d'une affaire pénale durant l'information ou durant l'instruction en Belgique, devant un tribunal international,
soit, si la réciprocité est assurée, à l'étranger. Cette personne doit être disposée à confirmer ses déclarations sur
demande à l'audience (art. 102,1° nouveau du CICr). Les mesures de protection spéciales peuvent prendre la
forme de relocalisation pour une période de plus de 45 jours et de changement d'identité de la personne
concernée (art. 104, §2 nouveau du CICr).
La loi du 7 juillet 2002 doit être lue à la lumière de la loi du 2 août 2002 relative au recueil de déclarations au
moyen de médias audiovisuels :67 cette dernière instaure les conditions dans lesquelles il sera possible de
recourir à des enregistrements audio ou vidéo lors d'auditions. La loi permet ainsi au procureur du Roi et au juge
d'instruction d'entendre un témoin menacé ou se trouvant à l'étranger par le biais d'une vidéoconférence.
- Loi du 8 avril 2002 relative à l'anonymat des témoins
La loi du 8 avril 2002 relative à l'anonymat des témoins a été publiée au Moniteur le 31 mai 2002. Cette loi
introduit la possibilité d'accorder aux témoins qui en feraient la demande un anonymat partiel ou complet dans le
cadre des auditions de témoins par les juridictions de fond ou d'instruction. 68 Cette loi donne une base légale à
la jurisprudence interne en insérant une série de nouvelles dispositions dans le code d'instruction criminelle: art.
75bis, 75ter et 86bis à 86quinquies CiCr.
La loi distingue l'anonymat partiel de l’anonymat complet : l'anonymat partiel implique qu'il ne sera pas fait
mention dans le procès-verbal d'audition ou dans le procès-verbal de l'audience de “certaines des données
d'identité”, prévues à l'article 75 CiCr. L'anonymat partiel peut être accordé par le juge d'instruction dans le cas
où il peut y avoir un “préjudice grave” pour le témoin si son identité était totalement divulguée, les conditions
étant que le témoin veuille comparaître à l'audience et qu'il puisse en principe être entendu directement par la
défense. Un témoignage partiellement anonyme peut être utilisé comme preuve substantielle.69 Si la mesure de
protection prévue à l'article 75bis ne semble pas suffisante, le juge d'instruction peut accorder l’anonymat
complet d'office ou sur réquisition du ministère public, à la suite de la demande d'une personne faisant l'objet
d'une information, ou du témoin ou de la personne à l'égard de laquelle l'action publique est engagée (art. 86bis
CiCr) : l'identité est alors totalement protégée, le juge d'instruction pouvant néanmoins décider de retirer
l'anonymat et de faire témoigner la personne à “visage découvert”. Les conditions de l'anonymat complet sont:
Groupe d’Etats contre la corruption (Greco), o.c, p. 7.
Loi du 7 juillet 2002 contenant des règles relatives à la protection des témoins menacés et d'autres dispositions, Moniteur
Belge, 10 août 2002, p. 34665.
67 Moniteur belge, 12 septembre 2002.
68 Moniteur belge, 31 mai 2002. Fr. Verspeelt, ‘Trois filets de sécurité pour un funambule : la protection de la source
d'information humaine dans le procès pénal (deuxième partie)’, Vigiles. Revue du droit de police, 2007, vol. 13, n°. 2, p. 3549 ; F. Schuermans, De anonieme getuige: Een eerste commentaar op de wet van 8 april 2002 betreffende de anonimiteit
van getuigen in C.A.B.G., Bruxelles, Larcier, 2003, p. 7-17; M. Beernaert & D. Vandermeersch, ‘La loi du 8 avril 2002 relative
à l’anonymat des témoins’, Rev. dr. pén., 2002, p. 729 et s.
69 Fr. Verspeelt, l.c., p. 36.
65
66
- 42 -
Belgique
une menace subjective grave du témoin et/ou de son entourage proche, des indications précises et sérieuses
relatives à des menace si le témoin est un fonctionnaire de police, le témoin ne veut pas faire de déclaration
sans anonymat (nécessité), la protection partielle ne suffit pas (subsidiarité), et les faits sur lesquels porte le
témoignage doivent constituer une infraction grave (visée à l'article 90ter §§ 2 à 4 CiCr.), ou une infraction
commise dans le cadre d'une organisation criminelle visée à l'article 324bis CP ou de toute violation du droit
international humanitaire (proportionnalité).
La condamnation ne peut être fondée de manière exclusive ni même dans une mesure déterminante sur des
témoignages anonymes, les déclarations faites sous anonymat complet devant être corroborées dans une
mesure déterminante par des éléments recueillis selon d'autres modes de preuve (l'article 189bis CiCr.).
La loi insère également un article 75ter, 70 et un article 86bis § 1, 2°71 dans la Code d'instruction criminelle. Ces
articles concernent le fonctionnaire de police en tant que respectivement témoin anonyme partiel et témoin
complet. L'octroi du statut de témoin totalement anonyme à un policier est soumis à l'exigence d'indications
concrètes d'une menace. L’article 86bis § 1, 2° est issu d’un compromis entre le régime précédent qui était
souple72 et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (arrêt Van Mechelen contre Pays-Bas
du 23 avril 1999). Il a été très critiqué par les services de la police, qui mettent aussi l’accent sur les lacunes de
la loi, la protection insuffisante de la source et la lourde procédure du témoignage totalement anonyme : « La
règle de la “preuve corroborante” a pour conséquence que le témoignage anonyme n'est justifié que s'il est
totalement superflu. Il est par définition déjà difficile dans notre régime de preuve de définir ce qu'est une preuve
substantielle et ce qu'est une preuve corroborante : le juge du fond détermine lui-même quelle valeur il accorde à
un élément de preuve ».73
- Proposition de loi du 29 octobre 2003 instaurant le régime des repentis
Il n'existe pas de règle générale sur la reconnaissance des repentis par la justice pénale. On peut néanmoins
trouver, notamment dans le code pénal, plusieurs dispositions accordant une exemption ou une réduction de
peine à celui qui dénonce une infraction dont il est le coauteur ou le complice. Certaines remontent au XIXe
siècle, d'autres ont été récemment introduites. 74 Depuis une dizaine d'années la mise en place d'un droit des
«Par dérogation à l'article 75, il ne faut pas faire état de la demeure des personnes qui, dans l'exercice de leurs activités
professionnelles, sont chargées de la constatation et de l'instruction d'une infraction ou qui, à l'occasion de l'application de la
loi, prennent connaissance des circonstances dans lesquelles l'infraction a été commise, et qui sont en cette qualité
entendues comme témoins. En lieu et place, ils peuvent indiquer leur adresse de service ou l'adresse à laquelle ils exercent
habituellement leur profession. La citation à témoigner peut être régulièrement signifiée à cette adresse ».
71 Art. 86bis § 1 ; « Si la mesure de protection prévue à l'article 75bis ne semble pas suffisante, le juge d'instruction peut
ordonner soit d'office, soit sur réquisition du ministère public, à la suite, le cas échéant, de la demande d'une personne faisant
l'objet d'une information, soit à la demande du témoin ou de la personne à l'égard de laquelle l'action publique est engagée
dans le cadre de l'instruction, de l'inculpé ou de la partie civile ou de leurs conseils que l'identité du témoin soit tenue secrète
de la manière arrêtée à l'article 86ter : 1° (…), ou 2° s'il existe des indications précises et sérieuses que ce témoin ou une
personne de son entourage court un danger, si le témoin est un officier ou un agent de police judiciaire ».
72 Fr. Verspeelt, l.c., 40. L'audition anonyme de policiers ne posait pas problème avant la loi du 8 avril 2002 On reconnaissait
alors le droit à l'anonymat des témoins qui pouvaient par la suite encore servir les intérêts de l'instruction (Cass. RG
P.97.0860.N, 27 avril 1999, http://www.cass.be; R. Cass. 2000, p. 121, note P. Traest, T. Strafr. 2001, p. 118, note F.
Verbruggen et Vigiles 1999, n° 5, p. 27, note C. De Valkeneer). Les infiltrants étaient assimilés aux indicateurs sur ce plan, de
sorte que l'on pouvait conserver leur véritable identité secrète (Ch. Mises Mons 4 mai 1990, J.L.M.B. 1990, 1129, avec note
F. Piedboeuf.).
73 Fr. Verspeelt, l.c., 40.
74 Cf. http://www.senat.fr/lc/lc124/lc1244.html: (1) Les articles du code pénal qui régissent les complots contre la sûreté de
l'État, l'association de malfaiteurs, ainsi que les infractions relatives à la fausse monnaie comportent des mesures en faveur
des repentis. Les dispositions du même code sur la diffusion d'écrits sans indication d'auteur ou d'imprimeur et sur les loteries
non autorisées prévoient également de telles mesures. À l'exception de celle qui vise l'association de malfaiteurs, qui a été
introduite en 1999, toutes ces règles remontent au XIXe siècle. (2) La loi du 12 mars 1858 relative aux crimes et délits qui
portent atteinte aux relations internationales envisage également le cas des repentis pour les complots dirigés contre un
gouvernement étranger. (3) Depuis 1975, la loi sur les stupéfiants comporte des dispositions favorables aux repentis. Elles
visent toutes les infractions, qu'elles soient définies par la loi ou par ses arrêtés d'application. (usage en groupe de telles
70
- 43 -
Belgique
repentis pour lutter contre la grande criminalité et le crime organisé est régulièrement évoquée, aussi bien dans
les rapports des commissions d'enquête parlementaires que dans les projets du gouvernement. La question a
fait l'objet en 1997 d'une étude universitaire à la demande du gouvernement, cette étude a mené à un avantprojet de loi du ministère de la Justice. Faute de consensus gouvernemental aucun projet définitif n'a été élaboré.
Récemment, deux propositions de loi reprenant la plupart des dispositions de l'avant-projet ont été déposées à la
Chambre des représentants. Plusieurs propositions de loi sur les repentis ont été déposées au Parlement au
cours des dernières années. 75
La plus récente a été déposée le 29 octobre 2003. Elle vise à instaurer un régime pour les collaborateurs de
justice.76 La proposition de loi sur les repentis distingue trois formes de promesses que le procureur du Roi et le
procureur fédéral peuvent faire en fonction de la phase de la procédure pénale dans laquelle se situe l’affaire du
repenti.
La promesse peut en effet porter sur l’action publique, sur le taux de la peine ou encore sur l’exécution de celleci. Dans le premier cas, la promesse aboutit à une extinction de l’action publique. Dans le deuxième cas, elle
aboutit à l’application d’une cause d’excuse par le juge du fond. Dans le troisième cas, elle aboutit à un avis ou à
une décision favorable du procureur du Roi ou du procureur fédéral en ce qui concerne l’exécution de la peine,
chacun dans le cadre de ses compétences en la matière.
Le témoignage du repenti ne peut être utilisé que comme preuve accessoire. Des garanties procédurales sont
prévues pour permettre au juge du fond d’apprécier la valeur du témoignage du repenti. Des mécanismes sont
prévus en ce qui concerne la proportionnalité et la subsidiarité (recours aux repentis en tant qu’ultime « planche
de salut »).
2b. Les réformes ont-elles amendé le cadre juridique du droit commun en vigueur, ou bien ont-elles
élaboré une voie alternative de mesures procédurales spéciales (justice militaire, justice policière, justice
administrative, commissions militaires, etc) en dehors du système de justice pénale normale ?
Des réformes importantes ont eu lieu ces dernières années. Elles touchent à tous les niveaux des institutions.
Toutes ces reformes ne sont pas dues aux développements sécuritaires, mais font suite à des développements
propres.
Ainsi par exemple des lois et arrêtés sur la suppression des juridictions militaires en temps de paix ainsi que leur
maintien en temps de guerre, ou de la procédure devant les juridictions militaires.77 Ces réformes font suite à la
révision de l'article 157 de la Constitution publiée le 31 janvier 2003. Cette suppression des juridictions militaires
en temps de paix résulte plutôt du changement de mission et d’organisation des forces armées, ainsi que du fait
que cette organisation et ces compétences étaient considérées comme dépassées et plus pertinentes.
Il convient aussi de relever la réforme de la procédure pénale dite “Petit Franchimont”78 suite à la grande
pression sociale issue de la période dite ‘Dutroux’. L’affaire du même nom a non seulement mené à une réforme
de la police79, mais aussi à une réforme de la procédure pénale dont les fondements divergeaient des bases
belges traditionnellement inquisitoires.80 Une deuxième réforme, le “Grand Franchimont”, également à l’étude
pendant de longues années par un groupe d'experts placé sous la direction du professeur émérite liégeois
substances, fourniture à autrui, prescription abusive par un médecin...). (4) Il en va de même depuis 1994 de la loi de 1985
sur les hormones animales pour les infractions consistant à s'opposer aux contrôles de l'Agence fédérale pour la sécurité
alimentaire (refus d'inspection ou de prélèvement d'échantillons, fourniture de renseignements inexacts...). Voir sur ces lois :
F. Deruyck & A. De Nauw, l.c., p. 165-244.
75 Voir pour une analyse : http://www.senat.fr/lc/lc124/lc1244.html:
76 Proposition de loi 29 octobre 2003 instaurant le régime des repentis, Doc. Parl., Chambre, 2003-2004, doc 51 0358/001,
47p.
77 Moniteur belge, 7 mai 2003
78 Loi du 12 mars 1998 relative à l'amélioration de la procédure pénale au stade de l'information et de l'instruction, Moniteur
belge¸ 2 avril 1998.
79 P. De Hert, ‘De politiehervorming en de heilzaamheid van het publieke’, Panopticon 1998, n°. 3, p. 199-206.
80 Voir Br. Pesquié (supervisee par Françoise Tulkens et Yves Cartuyvels), ‘Belgian system’ dans M. Delmas-Marty, & J.R.
Spencer, European criminal procedures, Cambridge, Cambridge U.P., 2005, (775p.), (p. 81-141), p. 85-86 & 108.
- 44 -
Belgique
Michel Franchimont, a été approuvée par le Sénat le 1er décembre 2005, puis a été transmise à la Chambre des
Représentants.81 Mais le projet semble aujourd’hui abandonné suite à la pression des acteurs de la justice et de
la police qui craignent des conséquence négatives concernant leur méthodes de travail.82
Cela montre bien qu’aujourd’hui le climat belge est plutôt sécuritaire, sans toutefois que cela se montre trop
ouvertement. Toutes les réformes de la procédure pénale discutées plus haut restent apparemment dans le
cadre procédural classique. Aucune réforme ne prévoit de mesures procédurales spéciales échappant au
système et au contrôle jusque là en vigueur. Cependant il y a sans aucun doute possible une divergence avec
certains principes classiques, notamment en ce qui concerne la charge de la preuve et le droit d’entendre des
témoins. On pourrait également faire référence aux changements apportés au régime des prescriptions83 et au
régime relatif à la détention préventive,84 amendés avec un souci d’efficacité du point vue de la justice et de la
police.
Deux développements peuvent être considérés comme étant des voies alternatives aux mesures d’action dans le
domaine de la sécurité.
Premièrement, il y une implication croissante de l’administration dans le travail de la justice et de la police. La
voie « traditionnelle » est d’accorder aux fonctionnaires de l’Etat le statut d’agent ou d’officier. Ainsi, une loi du 10
juin 1997 a octroyé la qualité d’officier de police judiciaire aux fonctionnaires des administrations fiscales mis à la
disposition du procureur du Roi. Plus fondamentale est la modification apportée à la loi dite sur les drogues85. En
2006 deux nouveaux articles ont été insérés.86 Le nouvel article 9bis de la loi sur les drogues confère au
bourgmestre une nouvelle et très large compétence de fermeture,87 le nouvel article 9ter de la loi sur les drogues
Doc. Parl. Chambre 2005-2006, n° 51-2138. Outre quelques modifications visant à accroître la cohérence du code
d'instruction criminelle, le projet contient des éléments nouveaux tels qu’ une théorie générale des nullités; les droits de la
victime et du suspect pendant l'information sur le modèle des droits que leur avait déjà accordé le “Petit Franchimont” dans le
contexte de l'instruction judiciaire; un (premier) petit filtre à la recevabilité de la constitution de partie civile; un régime légal de
l'expertise privilégiant plus de contradiction; et une définition plus générale de la place de la victime.
82 P. De Hert, 'Le pendule de Franchimont. Sur l’arrêt d’une réforme’, Vigiles. Revue du droit de police, 2006, vol. 12, n°. 5, p.
149-151
83 La loi du 16 juillet 2002 modifiant diverses dispositions en vue notamment d'allonger les délais de prescription pour les
crimes non correctionnalisables (Moniteur belge, 5 septembre 2002). Cette loi, qui est entrée en vigueur le 5 septembre 2002,
porte de 10 à 15 ans le délai de prescription de ces crimes. Voir aussi la loi portant assentiment à la Convention européenne
sur l’imprescriptibilité des crimes contre l’humanité et des crimes de guerre, faite à Strasbourg le 25 janvier 1974 et signée
par la Belgique en 1984 (Moniteur belge, 30 juillet 2003).
84 La loi du 31 mai 2005 modifiant la loi du 13 mars 1973 relative à l'indemnité en cas de détention préventive inopérante, la
loi du 20 juillet 1990 relative à la détention préventive et certaines dispositions du Code d'instruction criminelle, est entrée en
vigueur le 26 juin 2005 (Moniteur belge, 16 juin 2005). Cette loi prévoit notamment des modifications du règlement de
procédure (en principe : une seule phase de 15 jours au lieu de deux) ainsi qu'une prolongation (3 mois au lieu d’un mois) de
la validité de l'ordonnance de maintien en détention préventive pour les crimes non correctionnalisables.
85 Loi du 24 février 1921 concernant le trafic des substances vénéneuses, soporifiques, stupéfiantes, psychotropes,
désinfectantes ou antiseptiques et des substances pouvant servir à la fabrication illicite de substances stupéfiantes et
psychotropes, Moniteur belge, 6 mars 1921.
86 La loi portant des dispositions diverses du 20 juillet 2006, Moniteur belge, 28 juillet 2006. Voir K. Van Cauwenberghe,
‘Quelques modifications importantes de la loi sur les drogues’, Vigiles. Revue du droit de police, 2006, vol. 12, n°. 5, p. 160165.
87 Le bourgmestre a le droit de fermer des lieux privés mais accessibles au public s'il y a des indices que des activités
illégales concernant la vente, la livraison ou la facilitation de la consommation de drogues ou de substances pouvant servir à
la fabrication illicite de substances stupéfiantes et psychotropes s'y produisent à plusieurs reprises et compromettent la
sécurité et la tranquillité publiques. L'article prévoit que le bourgmestre doit se concerter préalablement avec les autorités
judiciaires. La durée de la fermeture ne peut excéder une période de maximum six mois et doit être immédiatement confirmée
lors de la réunion qui suit du collège du bourgmestre et des échevins et elle est portée à la connaissance du conseil
communal de la première séance qui suit. Ce délai peut éventuellement être prorogé en cas de nouveaux faits et après avis
favorable du conseil communal. Avant la modification législative présentement commentée, la fermeture de certains lieux
publics était également possible mais la base légale était moins solide et de telles fermetures étaient limitées à trois mois.
« La motivation de ce genre de décisions était souvent difficile et le Conseil d'Etat a plus d'une fois annulé ces décisions. Il
81
- 45 -
Belgique
crée la possibilité pour les services de police d'arrêter une personne administrativement pendant six heures si
elle se trouve manifestement sous l'influence de drogues dans un lieu accessible au public et si sa présence
provoque désordre, scandale ou danger pour autrui ou pour elle-même. Un auteur constate que la loi sur les
drogues prévoit ainsi une arrestation administrative de plus.88
Il faut également considérer l’utilisation des sanctions administratives communales. Les lois de 1999 et 2004
relatives à l'instauration de sanctions administratives communales, ont attribué aux communes de nouveaux
instruments juridiques leur permettant de traiter avec plus d'efficacité les phénomènes de nuisance. Désormais,
elles peuvent frapper d'une sanction administrative allant jusqu'à 250 euros les comportements qui constituent
une atteinte à l'ordre public (propreté, sécurité et repos) ou qui provoquent des « nuisances publiques ». La
compétence d'intervention communale fut élargie le 1er avril 2005 (lois du 7 mai et du 17 juin 2004 portant
modification de la loi sur la protection de la jeunesse et de la nouvelle loi communale) en permettant aux
communes de reprendre dans leurs règlements les faits reconnus punissables par le Code pénal belge. Le
législateur a organisé ce transfert de deux façons : d'une part, il a supprimé du Code pénal un certain nombre
d'infractions (comme par exemple le fait de ne pas nettoyer les rues, de ne pas réparer les taudis, de tirer des
feux d'artifice et de braconner), laissant ainsi aux communes le choix de les reprendre ou non dans leurs
règlements de police. D'autre part, le législateur a qualifié de « mixtes » certaines infractions et certains méfaits
figurant dans le Code pénal (par exemple, les graffiti, le vandalisme, le tapage nocturne, les menaces, le vol, les
offenses, la profanation de sépultures). Ces infractions mixtes restent punissables et ne peuvent être traitées par
la juridiction administrative de la commune que dans trois hypothèses : le parquet donne son accord pour une
sanction administrative, classe l'affaire sans suite ou ne se manifeste pas (selon le type d'infraction mixte). Les
communes peuvent choisir d'inclure ou non ces infractions décriminalisées et mixtes dans leur règlement de
police.89 Enfin, le rôle du ministre de l'Intérieur est croissant : celui-ci joue un rôle important sur le plan de la
police administrative, et son rôle ne cesse de gagner en importance en raison des menaces terroristes qui
semblent actuellement présentes dans le monde entier.90
Deuxièmement, il y a un rapprochement entre justice militaire, justice policière, justice administrative et justice
classique par la création des transferts d’informations entre ces sphères distinctes.91 On renvoie à notre
discussion sur l'Organe de coordination pour l'analyse de la menace et sur la Cellule de traitement des
informations financières, constituant des liens et des filtres entre des sphères distinctes. On pourrait également
mentionner une loi du 15 mars 1999 qui a modifié l’article 38bis de l’arrêté royal n° 185 du 9 juillet 1935 afin que
la Commission bancaire et financière puisse dénoncer aux autorités judiciaires les mécanismes particuliers ayant
pour but ou pour effet de favoriser la fraude fiscale dans le chef de tiers, ces mécanismes particuliers sont ceux
sont mis en place par un établissement de crédit ou une entreprise d’investissement dont elle assure le contrôle.
La Commission procède à une telle dénonciation lorsqu’elle a connaissance du fait que ces mécanismes
particuliers constituent, dans le chef de ces établissements ou entreprises mêmes, en tant qu’auteur, coauteur
ou complice, un délit fiscal sanctionné pénalement. Un système similaire a été prévu à l’égard de l’Office de
contrôle des assurances par une loi du 28 avril 1999.92 Voir aussi infra, sub 10a.
fallait alors généralement attendre la fermeture judiciaire éventuelle qui ne pouvait être prononcée que lors de la
condamnation définitive de l'exploitant (et donc souvent bien plus tard, ce qui empêchait de lutter immédiatement contre les
nuisances) » (K. Van Cauwenberghe, l.c., p. 165).
88 K. Van Cauwenberghe, l.c., p. 166. Les arrestations administratives sont prévues par la loi sur la fonction de police (voir les
articles 22, 31 et 34 de cette loi) ou par des lois diverses.
89 K. Meerschaut, P. De Hert, S. Gutwirth & A. Vander Steene, ‘L'utilisation des sanctions administratives communales par les
communes bruxelloises. La Région de Bruxelles-Capitale doit-elle jouer un rôle régulateur ?’ Brussels Studies. La revue
scientifique électronique pour les recherches sur Bruxelles, 2008, vol. 3, n° 18 - 19/05/2008, 16p.
http://www.brusselsstudies.be/PDF/FR_60_BruS18FR.pdf
90 P. Pieters, ‘Le ministre de l'Intérieur en tant qu'autorité de police administrative’, Vigiles. Revue du droit de police, 2006,
vol. 12, n°. 3, p. 82-99.
91 W. Van Laethem, ‘Les rapports entre les services de renseignements et la justice hier, aujourd'hui et demain’, Vigiles.
Revue du droit de police, 2007, vol. 13, n°. 1, p. 1-6
92 Voir J. Spreutels, ‘Blanchiment et fraude fiscale grave et organisée’, l.c., p. 4 avec références.
- 46 -
Belgique
2c. Ces réformes législatives sont-elles gouvernées par des dispositions constitutionnelles sur l’urgence
(y compris la guerre) ?
Non. L’article 187 de la Constitution prévoit que la Constitution ‘ne peut être suspendue en tout ni en partie’.
Contrairement à l’article 15 C.E.D.H., la Constitution ne connaît pas un système d’urgence ou de nécessité.
2d. La pratique judiciaire pénale a-t-elle joué un rôle dans la définition et la réalisation des réformes ?
Les hautes cours, par exemple (Cour de cassation ou Cour constitutionnelle), ont elles censuré des
éléments de ces réformes ?
Rappelons que la Cour constitutionnelle peut annuler et suspendre lois, décrets et ordonnances. Elle a succédé
à la « Cour d’arbitrage » créée en 1980 lors de la transformation progressive de la Belgique en un Etat fédéral.
La première dénomination lui avait été attribuée par le Constituant en raison de sa mission originaire d’arbitre
entre les divers législateurs, celui de l’Etat fédéral et ceux des communautés et des régions. Sa mission était
alors limitée au contrôle de la conformité des lois, décrets et ordonnances aux règles répartissant les
compétences, règles inscrites dans la Constitution et dans les lois de réformes institutionnelles. La dénomination
« Cour constitutionnelle » qui est la sienne depuis le 7 mai 2007 est davantage conforme à ses compétences, qui
ont été étendues en 2003 au contrôle des lois, décrets et ordonnances au regard du titre II de la Constitution
(articles 8 à 32 relatifs aux droits et libertés des Belges) ainsi que des articles 170 et 172 (légalité et égalité des
impôts) et 191 (protection des étrangers). 93 Rappelons aussi que déjà avant cette réforme la Cour d’arbitrage,
par une démarche ‘combinatoire’ se considérait compétente pour exercer un contrôle indirect de l’ensemble du
Titre II de la Constitution sur le fondement des articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.94 Il en était ainsi, par exemple,
de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme ou du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et
politiques. Les arrêts de principes sont les arrêts "Biorim" (n°. 21/89 du 13 juillet 1989 et l’arrêt n°. 23/89 du 13
octobre 1989). Dans ces arrêts, la Cour définit pour la première fois la portée de l’article 10 énonçant le principe
d’égalité et de l’article 11 relatif au principe de non-discrimination. La Cour considère ces principes comme étant
des bases de compétence autonomes par rapport à l’article 24 de la Constitution. Aussi, la Cour se déclarait
compétente pour prendre connaissances des violations prétendues d’autres droits et libertés quand ceux-ci
étaient invoqués conjointement avec les articles 10 et 11. Il était donc nécessaire que les requérants fassent
chaque fois référence aux articles 10 et 11.
La Cour constitutionnelle a joué un rôle important en ce qui concerne les méthodes particulières de recherche,
principalement pour exiger que les méthodes justifiant l’existence d’un dossier confidentiel échappant aux partie
La révision de la Constitution du 15 juillet 1988 (Moniteur belge, 29 juillet 1988) et la loi spéciale du 9 mars 2003 modifiant
la loi spéciale du 6 janvier 1989 sur la Cour d'arbitrage ont attribué à celle-ci ces nouvelles compétences. S. Depré & V. Ost,
‘La Cour d’arbitrage et les droits fondamentaux du Titre II de la Constitution’, dans La Cour d’arbitrage, vingt ans après, sous
la dir. de A. Rasson-Roland, D. Renders, M.Verdussen , Bruxelles, Ed. Bruylant, 2004, p. 83 et s.
94 X, ‘L’évolution des compétences de la Cour d’arbitrage depuis sa création’, Fiche d’information dans Service des Études et
de la Documentation du Parlement de la Communauté Française, Bulletin d’information relatif a la jurisprudence de la Cour
d’arbitrage.
Quatrième
trimestre
2004,
Septembre
2005,
(28p.),
p.
23-28
(http://www.pcf.be/ROOT/PCF_2006/public/documentation) En 1998, l’ancienne Cour d’arbitrage reçut compétence pour
statuer, par voie d’arrêt, sur la conformité des lois, décrets et ordonnances à l’article 24 de la Constitution relatif aux droits et
libertés en matière d’enseignement, à l’article 10 énonçant le principe d’égalité et à l’article 11 relatif au principe de nondiscrimination. Cette compétence restreinte s’avérait en pratique très large. En effet, par le biais du contrôle du principe
d’égalité et de non-discrimination, la Cour d’arbitrage fut amenée à contrôler un ensemble beaucoup plus large de normes,
non seulement constitutionnelles, mais aussi de normes relatives aux droits et libertés fondamentaux des personnes tels
qu’inscrits dans des traités internationaux auxquels la Belgique a adhéré, par exemple, la Convention européenne des droits
de l’homme ou le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. Toutes ces normes sont combinées dans une
démarche combinatoire, c’est-à-dire que la Cour les applique toutes sans distinction. Il convenait, pour qu’elle puisse exercer
ce contrôle élargi, que les requérants démontrent qu’une catégorie de personnes (dont ils font partie) subit d’une manière
discriminatoire une atteinte à un droit ou à une liberté inscrit dans la Constitution ou un traité international ayant effet en droit
interne, alors que les membres d’autres catégories de personnes, dans une situation comparable, ne subissent pas cette
atteinte. Il s’agit donc pour la Cour de contrôler le respect égal des droits et libertés entre personnes placées dans des
situations comparables ; ou encore, s’il y a une différence de traitement dans l’exercice ou la jouissance d’un droit, la Cour
vérifie si l’atteinte au droit et la différence de traitement sont raisonnablement justifiés.
93
- 47 -
Belgique
et au juge du fond soient soumises au contrôle d’une juridiction indépendante et impartiale (voir supra). De la
même façon la Cour constitutionnelle, dans son arrêt n° 202/2004 du 21 décembre 2004 rendu à propos de la loi
du 6 janvier 2003, a assimilé la technique du contrôle visuel discret en matière d’ingérence dans les droits
garantissant la vie privée, à une perquisition ou à l’écoute d’une communication téléphonique. La Cour a dès lors
imposé l’intervention d’un juge d’instruction, considérant qu’il s’agissait «d’une perquisition ou visite domiciliaire
dans un lieu non public».
La Cour de cassation, au contraire, a été perçue dans les dernières années par bon nombre d’observateurs
comme une Cour qui a facilité un certain nombre de pratiques existantes. Il n’y a presque pas d’exemples où la
Cour a censuré des éléments de réformes sécuritaires, bien que la Cour de Cassation se soit dotée dans l'arrêt «
Franco-Suisse Le Ski » rendu le 27 mai 1971 du droit, et même du devoir d'écarter l'application des actes
législatifs qu'elle juge incompatibles avec les normes directement applicables issues des traités internationaux,
comme la C.E.D.H. Il y a évidemment plusieurs exemples qui viennent à l’esprit. Dans son arrêt du
25 septembre 2007, la Cour de Cassation a confirmé que la procédure de contrôle de l’observation/infiltration
prévue à l’article 235ter C.I.Cr. (désignant la Chambre des mises en accuasation comme organe de contrôle
chargée de l’observation et de l’infiltration) était en conformité avec les exigences de l’article 6 C.E.D.H.95
2e. Ces réformes ont-elles suscité des débats politiques ou publics ?
De manière générale, peu de débats ont eu lieu et ont concerné l’opinion publique ; de tels débats ont plutôt
concerné les juristes. De même, les débats politiques ont été très nourris.
II – QUESTIONS GENERALES SUR LES PROCEDURES CRIMINELLES ET MESURES SPECIALES
3. Quels sont les principes généraux de votre procédure pénale (par exemple principe de légalité, justice
équitable, égalité des armes) et quelle est leur source juridique (par exemple Constitution, loi) ?
Pratiquement toutes les garanties procédurales de droit belge procèdent de la Constitution ou de l’article 6 de la
Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. On peut relever :
- Le principe d’indépendance des autorités judiciaires96
- Le principe d’impartialité du juge97
- la séparation des fonctions de justice répressive
- la présomption d’innocence
- le droit au silence
- le respect des droits de la défense98
- le droit à un procès équitable
- la publicité des débats devant la juridiction de jugement
- le délai raisonnable
- la motivation des décisions judiciaires
- le droit au double degré de juridiction
- le droit à la liberté individuelle
- le droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale
- le principe de légalité99
Cass. 25 septembre 2007, n° P.07.0677.N, http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be. Voir pour d’autres exemples : Cass. 13 novembre
2007, n° P.07.1190.N, http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be; Cass., 6 décembre 2006, P.06.1300.F, Rev. dr. pén., 2007, p. 620-621
96 Art. 146 Const.
97 Pas reconnu expressément par une disposition légale mais reconnu comme principe général de droit par la Cour de
Cassation, notamment dans son arrêt du 14 octobre 1996 (Cass., 14 octobre 1996, Bull.,1996, n°379)
98 N’est consacré comme tel ni par la Constitution, ni par le Code d’instruction criminelle, la notion ayant été élaborée par la
jurisprudence.
99 Garanti par l’article 12 de la Constitution.
95
- 48 -
Belgique
- le droit à l’égalité de traitement et à la non-discrimination
4a. A quel(s) stade(s) du procès pénal votre système juridique prévoit-il la présomption d’innocence ?
Tout au long de la procédure, jusqu’à ce qu’intervienne une condamnation définitive (culpabilité établie100). Donc
aussi durant les phases préparatoires au procès. 101
4b. A quel(s) stade(s) du procès pénal votre système juridique prévoit-il le droit du suspect/accusé de
garder le silence et le droit de ne pas être contraint de témoigner contre lui-même ou de s’avouer
coupable ?
- Droit au silence : même si ce droit n’est pas explicitement consacré dans l’ordre juridique belge102, la doctrine et
la jurisprudence reconnaissent, sur la base de l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, le
droit pour une personne de ne pas devoir contribuer à sa propre incrimination.103 La Cour de Cassation
considère que le droit au silence de l’inculpé fait partie des droits de la défense et est, ainsi, un principe général
de droit.104
Toutefois, plusieurs mécanismes législatifs tentent de contourner le droit au silence dans les matières
réglementaires : c’est par exemple le cas de l’article art 67bis des lois coordonnées relatives à la police de la
circulation routière qui crée une présomption susceptible de preuve contraire à charge du titulaire de
l’immatriculation lorsqu’une infraction de roulage été commise tandis que le conducteur n’a pas été identifié.
C’est aussi le cas des délits d’obstacle, nombreux en matières fiscales et douanières, qui sanctionnent la
personne qui refuse de communiquer les pièces ou documents permettant d’établir l’infraction, quand bien même
ces personnes sont les auteurs de l’infraction.
La Cour de cassation, dans une affaire ‘terroriste’,105 a rappelé que l'audition sous serment d'une personne
faisant l'objet d'une instruction judiciaire méconnaît le principe général du droit relatif au respect des droits de la
défense lorsque le serment ainsi prêté contraint la personne entendue à témoigner contre elle-même ou à
s'avouer coupable. Elle a néanmoins continué en considérant que l’article 6 C.E.D.H. et le principe général du
droit précité ne confèrent (dès lors) pas au prévenu qui n'a pas été entendu lui-même sous serment le droit de
faire écarter des débats relatifs à l'action publique exercée à sa charge les déclarations faites à son égard par un
suspect à qui, en raison de cette qualité, le serment fut irrégulièrement déféré (nous soulignons).
5. Votre procédure pénale de droit commun ou d’exception prévoit-elle une distinction entre citoyens et
non citoyens, nationaux ou non nationaux, ou des catégories spécifiques de sujets (étrangers, ennemis,
non- personnes) ?
De manière générale, le droit belge ne prévoit aucune distinction de ce genre. L’article 191 de la Constitution
prévoit que tout étranger qui se trouve sur le territoire de la Belgique jouit de la protection accordée aux
personnes et aux biens, sauf exceptions établies par la loi. L’article 10 prévoît que « Il n'y a dans l'État aucune
distinction d'ordres. Les Belges sont égaux devant la loi; seuls ils sont admissibles aux emplois civils et militaires,
sauf les exceptions qui peuvent être établies par une loi pour des cas particuliers. L'égalité des femmes et des
hommes est garantie ». Dans le même élan, l’article 11 de la Constitution met en lumière que « la jouissance des
droits et libertés reconnus aux Belges doit être assurée sans discrimination. A cette fin, la loi et le décret
garantissent notamment les droits et libertés des minorités idéologiques et philosophiques ».
Il y a lieu aussi de tenir compte des immunités diplomatiques.106
100 Ainsi, la présomption d’innocence n’est pas retenue au niveau de la fixation de la peine quant à sa nature et son taux
étant donné qu’alors la culpabilité est établie.
101 Voir Ch. Van Den Wyngaert & H.D. Bosly, ’Belgique’, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 1992, vol. 63, n°. 1-2, p. 105117.
102 P. De Hert, 'Le droit au silence des suspects et témoins', Vigiles. Revue de droit de police, 1999, n°. 2, p. 20-30
103 Cass, 5 avril 2000, Pas., I, p.228
104 Cass., 13 mai 1986, Rev.dr.pén., 1986, p. 905.
105 Cass., 27 juin 2007 (P.07.0333.F), http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/?lang=fr
106 Pour un point d’entrée : Ch. Van Den Wyngaert, Kennismaking met het Internationaal en Europees strafrecht, Anvers,
Maklu, 2003, (138p.), p. 74-85
- 49 -
Belgique
Les militaires sont soumis au droit commun, sauf en temps de guerre où ils relèvent des tribunaux militaires.107
Ce ne sera qu’en temps de guerre que des tribunaux militaires et une cour militaire seront établis. Ces
juridictions militaires sont également compétentes en ce qui concerne les personnes qui sont attachées à l’armée
ou qui sont autorisées à suivre un corps de troupe. (art 73 alinéa 2 de la loi du 10 avril 2003), les prisonniers de
guerre, et les étrangers pour toutes les infractions à l’encontre des lois pénales belges ordinaires. (art 74 de la loi
du 10 avril 2003). Les tribunaux militaires connaissent des infractions visées au livre II, titre Ier chapitre II du
Code pénal (« Des crimes et délits contre la sûreté extérieure de l’Etat ») (art 76 Loi du 10 avril 2003). Dans des
circonstances exceptionnelles constitutives d’un état de nécessité pourront être institués des tribunaux militaires
en campagne (art. 16) ainsi que, lorsqu’une place est investie ou sous l’état de siège, des tribunaux militaires en
campagne extraordinaires (art. 17). A défaut de magistrat ou de docteurs ou licenciés en droit, des officiers
pourront être désignés pour exercer les fonctions de juge, de Ministère public et de juge d’instruction, la seule
limitation prévue étant l’interdiction de cumul de fonction d’instructeur et d’assesseur au cours d’une même
procédure. Dans les cas prévus dans les articles 16 et 17 de la loi du 10 avril 2003 il est possible que des
citoyens qui commettent un crime contre la sécurité extérieure de l’Etat doivent comparaître devant un tribunal
militaire composé uniquement de militaires sans ou avec peu d’expertise juridique, ce qui pose évidemment des
problèmes au regard du droit à un juge impartial prévu dans l'article 6 C.E.D.H. En outre, le législateur a prévu
une « ouverture » dans l’article 78, spécifiant que « les tribunaux militaires connaissent des infractions relevant
de leur compétence en temps de guerre en vertu des lois pénales spéciales ».
6. Votre système juridique autorise-t-il la suspension des droits de l’homme dans des situations
d’urgence (y compris la guerre) ?
Non, en aucun cas (voir supra question 2c), avec les réserves émises sous la question 5.
- Qui dispose du pouvoir de prendre cette décision et quels mécanismes de contrôle s’appliquent ?
Sans objet
- Quelles garanties peuvent être suspendues ? Votre système juridique distingue-t-il entre les droits de
l’homme dérogeables et non dérogeables ?
La Constitution belge a un système limité en ce qui concerne les dérogations. Une disposition très pertinente
comme l’article 15 C.E.D.H. n’existe pas en droit belge, ce qui créé le danger qu’en temps de crise des mesures
soient adoptées sans reconnaître leur nature exceptionnelle. En outre, de nouveaux droits, comme le droit à la
vie privée (art. 24 de la Constitution), ont été reconnus en 1994 et modelés sur des dispositions de la C.E.D.H.
sans que le législateur ait cru utile de reprendre les conditions de limitations de ces droits telles que prévues
dans la C.E.D.H., comme par exemple dans le second paragraphe de l’article 8 de la C.E.D.H. Durant les débats
qui ont eu lieu au sein des parlements, il a été prétendu que la Constitution devait être lue à la lumière de la
C.E.D.H. et donc faire application des critères prévus par l’article 8, par. 2 de la C.E.D.H. En conséquence, la
Constitution prévoit la possibilité de limiter plusieurs droits énumérés dans le titre II de la Constitution sur la base
d’une simple loi, sans faire explicitement référence aux exigences additionnelles prévues par la C.E.D.H.
- L’urgence peut-elle servir de fondement pour glisser des règles procédurales de droit commun vers les
procédures spéciales (domaine militaire, procédure policière, procédure administrative, commissions
militaires) ?
Voir plus haut notre analyse de la loi du 10 avril 2003 réglant la procédure devant les juridictions militaires et
adaptant diverses dispositions légales suite à la suppression des juridictions militaires en temps de paix (voir
supra sous 5). On ajoute à ce qui a été dit que cette même loi prévoit dans son article 5 qu’en temps de guerre, il
est impossible de se constituer partie civile devant le juge d’instruction auprès des juridictions militaires. C’est
une limitation par rapport aux règles procédurales de droit commun. Dans la même loi, les règles relatives à la
détention préventive sont adaptées pour le militaire se trouvant sur le territoire étranger (en mission). En cas de
force majeure, le délai de 24 heures peut être prolongé de cinq jours. Aucune possibilité de recours n’existe
contre cette mesure (art 52 de la loi du 10 avril 2003).
Loi du 10 avril 2003 réglant la suppression des juridictions militaires en temps de paix ainsi que leur maintien en temps de
guerre, Moniteur belge, 7 mai 2003 (voir supra)
107
- 50 -
Belgique
7. Votre système permet-il l’utilisation du renseignement (par exemple renseignement policier,
information émanant des services nationaux ou étrangers de renseignement) dans les procédures
criminelles, telles que l’enquête préliminaire en vue de l’ouverture d’une investigation criminelle ; la
preuve d’une cause probable pour user de mesures de contrainte sur les lieux et sur les personnes (par
exemple perquisition et saisie, arrestation, détention); la preuve de responsabilité/culpabilité dans les
poursuites pénales ?
En matière répressive et lorsque la loi n'établit pas un mode spécial de preuve, le juge du fond apprécie d’après
les circonstances de fait la valeur probante des éléments sur lesquels il fonde sa conviction et que les parties ont
pu librement contredire. Le juge peut notamment déduire la culpabilité du prévenu d'un ensemble d'éléments
concordants, vérifiés et précis dont l'accumulation constitue un faisceau de présomptions suffisantes, et ce, alors
même qu'il existerait dans la cause d'autres éléments différents ou contraires. Son appréciation à cet égard étant
souveraine, le juge n'est pas tenu de justifier la valeur probante relative qu'il attache respectivement à chacun
des faits dont il observe la convergence.108
Le renseignement peut servir de point de départ à une procédure ou de justification à une mesure. Mais un tel
renseignement doit pouvoir être objectivé et figurer dans le dossier répressif. Néanmoins, dans la suite de la
procédure, il est dépourvu en tant que tel de valeur probante : il constitue une information qui peut conduire à la
découverte ou à l’obtention d’autres éléments de preuve. Statuant sur des informations anonymes hors du cadre
des articles 75bis et 86bis et s. CiCr., la Cour de Cassation a indiqué qu’on ne peut pas utiliser ces
renseignements comme preuve, mais le contenu peut tout de même être utilisé pour analyser les preuves aux
sens strict.109
Par un arrêt rendu le 19 janvier 2007 par la Cour d'appel de Bruxelles110 les membres du « groupe islamique
combattant marocain » installé au Maroc et en Europe ont été condamnés du chef d'infraction à l'article 140 CP.
Pour conclure que les préventions étaient établies, l'arrêt se réfère en substance aux auditions des membres des
différentes cellules du groupe, à des déclarations propres, aux recherches internationales dont les personnes
poursuivies ont fait l'objet, aux surveillances effectuées par la Sûreté de l'Etat et à l'enquête téléphonique. Bien
que la loi du 6 janvier 2003 sur les méthodes particulières de recherche est inapplicable aux services de
renseignements et qu’une loi spécifique pour permettre aux services de renseignements d’utiliser des méthodes
particulières n’a pas encore vu le jour (voir supra), la Cour a néanmoins accepté l’usage des renseignements
provenant des services de renseignements en considérant qu’une base légale suffisante peut être trouvée dans
la loi organique du 30 novembre 1998 relative aux Services de renseignement et de sécurité. La Cour d’appel
considéra qu’ "Il résulte des considérations qui précèdent que les filatures et les surveillances précisées cidessus, réalisées dans le cadre du présent dossier par les agents de la Sûreté de l'Etat - auxquelles la loi du 6
janvier 2003 sur les méthodes particulières de recherche est inapplicable - ont été réalisées conformément aux
pouvoirs conférés à ce service par la loi organique du 30 novembre 1998 concernant les services de
renseignement et de sécurité. En outre, les dispositions précitées de cette loi habilitant la Sûreté de l'Etat à agir
de la sorte respectent les exigences de l'article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et,
notamment, les principes de proportionnalité et de finalité. Enfin, ces dispositions sont, compte tenu de l'atteinte
relative à la vie privée qu'engendrent la filature et les surveillances sur la voie publique, suffisamment explicites
et prévisibles". Devant la Cour, la défense avançait notamment que les auditions recueillies au Maroc avaient été
obtenues par la torture ou par des traitements inhumains ou dégradants. La Cour s’est limitée à constater
l'absence d'éléments de nature à donner crédit à ces assertions ou à permettre raisonnablement d'en déduire la
conséquence que la défense en tirait.
L’arrêt de la Cour d'appel de Bruxelles et les interprétations que ce jugement contient ont été confirmés par la
Cour de cassation dans son arrêt du 27 juin 2007.111 La Cour de cassation y a constaté qu’il n’y a pas eu usage
Cass., 27 juin 2007 (P.07.0333.F), http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/?lang=fr
S. Vandromme, ‘Anonieme inlichtingen in de strafprocedure,’ (note sous Cass. 23 mars 2005, avec conclusions de
l’avocat général Vandermeersch), R.W., 2006, p. 829-837
110 Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, chambre correctionnelle, 19 janvier 2007, à apparaître dans T. Strafr.
111 Cass., 27 juin 2007 (P.07.0333.F), http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/?lang=fr
108
109
- 51 -
Belgique
des méthodes particulières par la police et affirme que la loi organique est une base légale suffisante pour les
filatures et observations sur la voie publique ou dans des lieux publics.112 Le troisième moyen de défense, dans
lequel le demandeur soutenait que les déclarations recueillies au Maroc étaient nulles au motif qu'elles
émanaient d'accusés condamnés dans ce pays sur la base d'une application rétroactive de la loi pénale a
également été rejeté dans les termes suivantes:
« En tant qu'il critique l'analyse faite par les juges d'appel de l'arrêt du 26 septembre 2003 de la cour d'assises de
Rabat, le moyen en cette branche, dirigé contre une considération surabondante de l'arrêt attaqué, est
irrecevable à défaut d'intérêt.
Pour le surplus, de la circonstance qu'une décision judiciaire prononcée à l'étranger serait entachée de l'illégalité
précitée, il ne se déduit pas que les auditions effectuées au cours de l'enquête préliminaire soient elles-mêmes
affectées par une irrégularité découlant, selon le droit de l'Etat dans lequel elles furent recueillies, de la violation
d'une règle de forme prescrite à peine de nullité.
Aux conclusions du demandeur, l'arrêt oppose que « les prévenus n'apportent aucun élément concret de nature
à susciter un doute raisonnable concernant la violation, par la police ou les autorités judiciaires marocaines, de la
législation de ce pays dans la procédure ayant conduit à l'audition des personnes dont les déclarations sont
versées au dossier pénal. La cour [d'appel] observe à ce propos, notamment, que les procès-verbaux d'audition,
dont une traduction est jointe au dossier, relatent de manière circonstanciée les déclarations de la personne
interrogée, mentionnent l'identité du policier rédacteur, la durée précise de l'arrestation judiciaire et la référence
qu'elle fut autorisée par le procureur général du Roi compétent. Ni la forme de ces procès-verbaux, ni le mode
propre de retranscription des déclarations des personnes entendues au Maroc (division en sujets abordés lors de
l'audition et non en questions-réponses) ne sont révélateurs d'une quelconque illégalité ».
Les juges d'appel ont, ainsi, régulièrement motivé et légalement justifié leur décision ».
La jurisprudence accepte depuis longtemps que le témoignage anonyme ait valeur de charge lors de la
confirmation ou du maintien de la détention préventive113. Dès l'entrée en vigueur de la loi du 8 avril 2002 relative
à l'anonymat des témoins (voir supra), la question s’est posée de savoir si les déclarations anonymes pouvaient
encore valablement avoir lieu en dehors du cadre contraignant de la loi et, si oui, quelle était la valeur probante
de ces déclarations. La Cour de Cassation a tranché : les déclarations anonymes faites à la police ou au parquet
n'ont pas de valeur probante et peuvent toutes servir à ouvrir ou orienter une instruction et à inciter la police à
recueillir des preuves de manière autonome. Les déclarations anonymes peuvent également servir à évaluer la
cohérence de l'instruction et des preuves réunies114. De plus, ces informations anonymes ne revêtent pas une
importance déterminante pour l'instruction et ne sont pas utilisées comme moyen de preuve lorsque le juge a
assis son intime conviction115. Un acte d'information ou d'instruction n'est donc pas illégal du seul fait qu'il a été
ordonné à la suite d'informations recueillies exclusivement par un témoignage anonyme ou une dénonciation
anonyme116 : il suffit que la dénonciation – au regard de sa forme, de son contenu et des circonstances dans
« L'article 7.1° de la loi du 30 novembre 1998 organique des services de renseignements et de sécurité donne pour
mission à la Sûreté de l'Etat de rechercher, d'analyser et de traiter le renseignement relatif à toute activité qui menace ou
pourrait menacer la sûreté intérieure de l'Etat et la pérennité de l'ordre démocratique et constitutionnel, la sûreté extérieure de
l'Etat et les relations internationales, le potentiel scientifique ou économique, ou tout autre intérêt fondamental du pays. Les
filatures et observations sur la voie publique ou dans des lieux publics constituent une méthode de recherche usuelle qu'il
appartient aux services de renseignements et de sécurité de mettre en oeuvre, s'il y a lieu, sur la base de l'article 13 de la loi
organique précitée. Cette disposition, dont les termes ne sont pas entachés de l'imprécision que le demandeur leur prête,
permet en effet aux dits services de rechercher, collecter, recevoir et traiter des informations et des données à caractère
personnel utiles à l'exécution de leurs missions et de tenir à jour la documentation appropriée à cette fin ».
113 Cass. 7 janvier 1986, Arr. Cass. 1985-86, n° 295 et Pas. 1986, I, 565.
114 Cass. 27 juin 2000, T. Strafr. 2001, 85; Cass. 23 mars 2005, RG P.04.1528.F, J.T. 2005, 267, J. Proc. 2005, n° 500, 25,
note D. Vandermeersch et De juristenkrant, 2005, n° 108, 1 (traduction S. Vandromme); Cass. RG P.05.0263.F, 13 avril
2005, http://www.cass.be.
115 Cass. 21 janvier 2003, Vigiles 2003, 112-113 avec note K. Van Cauwenberghe; Cass. 26 mars 2003, http://www.cass.be
116 Cass. 4 janvier 2006, RG P.05.1417.F, http://www.cass.be, J.T., 2006, 46, De juristenkrant 2006, n° 127, 4 (traduction P.
Van Walleghem) et Rev. dr. pén. 2006, p. 454, avec conclusions D. Vandermeersch.
112
- 52 -
Belgique
lesquelles elle a été reçue – puisse être considérée comme un indice sérieux. Il s’agit là d’une question de fait
qui échappe donc à la compétence de la Cour de Cassation. Des renseignements anonymes peuvent également
justifier un mandat de perquisition ou d'arrestation117. La Cour de Cassation va toutefois plus loin en évaluant la
cohérence des éléments de preuve recueillis sur la base des renseignements anonymes et en rendant possible
une certaine relation des faits : cela se rapproche du statut de la preuve sur laquelle le juge va s'appuyer pour
prononcer une condamnation. On peut dès lors se demander si cette nuance subtile pourrait satisfaire au
contrôle de la Cour de Strasbourg118. Verspeelt conclut à juste titre que cette jurisprudence implique que
dorénavant, les déclarations anonymes sous toutes leurs formes possibles (déclarations anonymes écrites ou
verbales, audition anonyme par la police, déclarations écrites anonymes adressées au parquet, …) peuvent être
versées au dossier pour autant qu'elles satisfassent aux critères précités.119 Néanmoins il évoque ‘afin de ne pas
provoquer de confusion’ la pratique des agents de police qui consiste à enregistrer la déclaration anonyme dans
un procès-verbal d'information et à ne pas dresser de procès-verbal d'audition. « Il appartient au parquet
d'effectuer un contrôle marginal sur ces procès-verbaux d'information et d'exclure les abus. Dès le moment où le
parquet constate que ce qui est avancé constitue des éléments de preuve, il doit soit les écarter du dossier soit
requérir un témoignage anonyme ».120 Il va sans dire que cette pratique affaiblit considérablement la portée de la
loi du 8 avril 2002 et privé la défense de possibilités importantes telles que celles prévues à l'article 6, alinéa 3, d)
C.E.D.H.
L’art 57bis du Code pénal Militaire prévoit dans son quatrième paragraphe que les actes de l’autorité étrangère
constatant certaines faits (par exemple des faits en matière forestière, rurale, de chasse, pêche, circulation
routière, douanes, change, importation/exportation) auront devant la juridiction belge la force probante que leur
attache en la matière la législation du territoire où les faits ont été commis.
III – Application proactive (police ordinaire ou règles procédurales de droit commun; procédures
spéciales)
8. a) Les services de renseignement, les forces de police régulières, ou les agences administratives
d’exécution (telles que les douanes ou les services fiscaux) ont-ils dans votre pays compétence pour
user de pouvoirs contraignants de manière proactive ? Si oui, sous quelles conditions ? b) Doit-il exister
un soupçon basé sur une cause probable d’user de leur pouvoir de contrainte, ou y a-t-il des indications
de dangerosité pour la sécurité nationale ou un intérêt public suffisant ? La définition du soupçon a-t-elle
été modifiée pour les crimes graves ? c) Ces pouvoirs de contrainte peuvent-ils être utilisés contre des
personnes autres que les suspects/accusés de crimes (par exemple les combattants ennemis, les
ennemis étrangers, les personnes n’ayant pas droit à la protection de la procédure pénale ordinaire,
etc.) ? d) Comment la division du travail est-elle réglementée entre les autorités chargées de
l’investigation ? e) Les informations obtenues de façon proactive, au moyen de l’usage de mesures de
contrainte peuvent-elles être partagées entre les services de renseignement, de police, ou administratifs,
ou les autorités judiciaires ?
a) L’article 28bis § 2 du Code d’instruction criminelle introduit par la loi du 12 mars 1998 a consacré l’enquête
proactive dans le cadre de l’information121, et est donc réservée aux services de police. La loi introduisant les
Cass. 26 mars 2003, http://www.cass.be; Anvers 16 janvier 2002, Vigiles 2002, 56 avec note F.VERSPEELT.
Fr. Verspeelt, ‘Trois filets de sécurité pour un funambule: la protection de la source d'information humaine dans le procès
pénal (deuxième partie)’, l.c., p. 42 avec réf. à S. Vandromme, ‘Anonieme inlichtingen hebben geen bewijskracht in
strafproces’, De juristenkrant 2005, n°. 108, p. 7.
119 Fr. Verspeelt, l.c., p. 42
120 Ibid,
121 Voir L. Huybrechts (dir.), « La recherche proactive », Custodes, Politeia, 1999, n° 1, 151p. ; C. De Valkeneer, La
tromperie dans l’administration de la preuve pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2000, p. 185-192 et 429-441 ; B. Renard, ‘La mise en
œuvre et le suivi de l’enquête de recherche proactive: étude qualitative des facteurs influençant le processus de décision’,
Rev. dr. pén., 2003, p. 133-167 ; L. Delbrouk, ‘De proactive recherche. Een nieuwe middel in de strijd tegen georganiseerde
criminaliteit?’, Jura Falc., 1999-2000, p. 121 ; C. Caliman, « Le contrôle judiciaire sur les informations recueillies lors des
investigations proactives », Custodes, 1999, p. 77-94 ; R. Verstraeten, Handboek Strafvordering, Anvers, Maklu, 2005,
4e éd., p. 256 ; C. De Valkeneer, Manuel de l’enquête pénale, Larcier, 2005, p. 13-20 ; H.-D. Bosly et D. Vandermersch, Droit
117
118
- 53 -
Belgique
méthodes particulières de recherche visait avant tout les services policiers,122 mais il faut remarquer que le
ministère public peut aussi ordonner une observation dans l’enquête proactive. La loi du 22 avril 2003123 octroie
la qualité d’officier de police judiciaire aux 52 agents de l'Administration des douanes et accises qui peuvent
exécuter des observations, le cas échéant proactives. Le recours aux indicateurs leur est aussi permis.124 La loi
impose les conditions suivantes :
- le but de l’enquête proactive est de permettre la poursuite d’auteurs d’infractions ; la finalité est donc clairement
judiciaire et répressive (et non préventive) ;
- elle consiste en la recherche, la collecte, l’enregistrement et le traitement d’informations ;
- il faut une suspicion raisonnable que des faits punissables vont être commis ou ont été commis mais ne sont
pas encore connus ;
- ces faits sont ou seraient commis dans le cadre d’une organisation criminelle telle que définie par le Code
pénal, ou constituent ou constitueraient un des crimes ou délits autorisant notamment une écoute téléphonique
(art. 90ter CiCr.) ;
- l’autorisation écrite et préalable du procureur du Roi, de l’auditeur du travail ou du procureur fédéral, chacun
selon ses compétences, est requise.
b) Ce n’est pas la nécessité du recours à des mesures de contrainte qui justifie l’enquête proactive. Dans le
système belge, la contrainte ne peut, en effet, être utilisée que sous la responsabilité du juge d’instruction, or
l’enquête proactive n’est possible que dans le cadre de l’information diligentée sous la responsabilité du
ministère public.
Pour pouvoir procéder de manière proactive, une suspicion d’infraction grave, sans référence spécifique à la
mise en péril de la sécurité nationale est requise. Toutefois, la liste des infractions graves permettant notamment
le recours à la proactivité ne cesse de s’allonger, incluant des infractions dont le degré de gravité peut donner
lieu à appréciations diverses. En revanche, certaines infraction qui pourraient a priori être considérées comme
graves ne s’y trouvent pas.
c) Comme l’information dont elle fait partie, la recherche proactive exclut tout acte de contrainte à l’égard des
biens ou des personnes, toutes personnes confondues.
d) L’enquête proactive est diligentée par les services de police, à leur demande ou à l’initiative du ministère
public, suite à une décision de celui-ci et sous sa responsabilité. Le juge d’instruction n’intervient pas à ce stade
de l’enquête préliminaire. Les informations recueillies sont conservées dans les banques de données policières
(voir art. 44/1 et s. loi 5 août 1992 sur fonction de police) et communiquées au ministère public ; tant qu’elles ne
révèlent pas d’infractions constatables, elles sont traitées comme « informations douces » permettant le cas
échéant de recouper et d’analyser d’autres informations125.
e) L’information s’étend à l’enquête proactive. Sauf exceptions prévues par la loi, les actes d’information (et donc
d’enquête proactive) ne peuvent comporter aucun acte de contrainte ni porter atteinte aux libertés et aux droits
individuels.
La législation belge autorise pendant l’enquête proactive des atteintes aux libertés et aux droits individuels
notamment en autorisant, sous des conditions précises, l’utilisation de certaines méthodes particulières de
recherche.
Puisque l’enquête proactive fait partie de l’information et que celle-ci est menée sous la direction et l’autorité du
procureur du Roi, c’est lui qui est destinataire des informations obtenues et qui décide si une transmission des
de la procédure pénale, La Charte, 4e éd., 2005, p. 365-368 ; H. Berkmoes et D. Lybaert, « De proactieve politie.
Bevoegdheden en (bijzondere) middelen in de strijd tegen de georganiseerde criminaliteit », Panopticon, 1999, n° 1, p. 33-52
122 Exposé des motifs, Doc. Parl., Chambre, 2001-02, 50-1688/001, p. 10
123 Loi du 22 avril 2003 octroyant la qualité d'officier de police judiciaire à certains agents de l'Administration des douanes et
accises, Moniteur belge, 8 mai 2003
124 Art. 4 de la loi du 22 avril 2003
125 Voir C. De Valkeneer, Manuel de l’enquête pénale, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2006. 341 et s.
- 54 -
Belgique
informations obtenues à d’autres services ou autorités s’impose. Ceci peut être le cas lorsque ces informations
concernent par exemple l’ordre public.
A contrario, il ne peut être question d’un échange systématique et ‘spontané’ entre les services de police et les
services de renseignement dans le contexte d’enquête proactives.
Les informations provenant des services de renseignement, peuvent cependant être introduites dans une
procédure judiciaire moyennant certaines conditions.
9. Votre système juridique permet-il l’usage de formes graves de techniques d’investigation (torture ou
traitement cruel, exceptionnel ou inhumain) au cours de la phase d’exécution proactive, et, dans
l’affirmative, à quelles conditions ?
Non, la torture et le traitement cruel ou inhumain seraient en toute hypothèse des causes de nullité de la
procédure. La loi du 14 juin 2002 de mise en conformité du droit belge avec la Convention contre la torture et
autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants adoptée à New York le 10 décembre 1984,126 a
introduit dans le Code pénal les articles 417bis à 417quinquies qui répriment la torture et la soumission à des
traitements inhumains ou dégradants.
10. En cas de crimes graves, votre système juridique permet-il de limiter a) le droit aux données (habeas
data), (protection des données, vie privée) ? b) Le droit à l’habeas corpus (arrestation, détention,
déportation, [remise extraordinaire] etc.) ?
a) Oui : en cas de recours à certaines méthodes particulières de recherche, à savoir l’observation et l’infiltration,
un dossier confidentiel comprenant uniquement les données techniques relatives à l’opération échappe
entièrement aux parties et au juge du fond ; il n’est connu que des services de police mettant la mesure en
œuvre, du parquet, le cas échéant du juge d’instruction et de la chambre des mises en accusation (juridiction
d’instruction d’appel), intervenant dans le cadre d’une procédure ex parte.
La loi du 8 décembre 1992 relative à la protection de la vie privée à l'égard des traitements de données à
caractère personnel précise entre autres les droits individuels et prévoit un régime d'exception en ce qui
concerne les services judiciaires, de renseignement et de sécurité. L'article 3, § 4, de la loi du précise en outre
que les articles 6 à 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 17bis, alinéa 1er, 18, 20 et 31, §§ 1er à 3, de ladite loi ne s'appliquent pas
aux traitements de données à caractère personnel gérés par la Sûreté de l'Etat.
L’art. 44/1 de la loi du 5 août 1992 sur la fonction de police se lit comme suit : « Dans l'exercice des missions qui
leur sont confiées, les services de police peuvent recueillir et traiter des données à caractère personnel et des
informations relatives notamment à des événements, à des groupements et à des personnes présentant un
intérêt concret pour l'exécution de leurs missions de police administrative et pour l'exécution de leurs missions de
police judiciaire conformément aux articles 28bis, 28ter, 55 et 56 du Code d'instruction criminelle. En vue
d'accomplir leurs missions de police judiciaire et de police administrative, les services de police peuvent recueillir
et traiter, selon les modalités déterminées par le Roi, après avis de la Commission de la protection de la vie
privée, des données à caractère personnel visées à l'article 6 de la loi du 8 décembre 1992 relative à la
protection de la vie privée à l'égard des traitements de données à caractère personnel. Ces informations et
données ne peuvent être communiquées qu'aux autorités visées à l'article 5, aux services de police belges ou
étrangers, au Service d'Enquêtes du Comité permanent P, au Service d'Enquêtes du Comité permanent R, ainsi
qu’à l'Organe de coordination pour l'analyse de la menace, à l'inspection générale de la police fédérale et de la
police locale ainsi qu'aux services de renseignements et de sécurité au Comite permanent P et au Comité
permanent R qui en ont besoin pour l'exécution de leurs missions. Elles peuvent également être communiquées
aux organisations internationales de coopération policière à l'égard desquelles les autorités publiques ou les
services de police belges ont des obligations. Le Roi détermine à quelles autres autorités publiques ces mêmes
données et informations peuvent être communiquées par un arrêté délibéré en Conseil des ministres qui en fixe
les modalités après avis de la Commission de la protection de la vie privée […]. ». 127
Moniteur belge, 14 août 2002
Kr. D'hoore, ‘La gestion des informations de la police intégrée: situation - évaluation - perspectives d'avenir’, Vigiles.
Revue du droit de police, 2007, n°. 5, 155-164.
126
127
- 55 -
Belgique
b) Non.
IV – Dispositions avant jugement (procédure criminelle de droit commun, procédures spéciales)
11. Votre système juridique a-t-il connu un accroissement des pouvoirs d’investigation et des pouvoirs
de contrainte (perquisitions et saisies, interceptions et écoutes téléphoniques, décision de gel des
avoirs, ordres de production de preuves, arrestation et détention, infiltration, etc) de la part des autorités.
Votre système juridique a-t-il connu un accroissement des obligations de coopération de la part des
personnes poursuivies ? Si oui, de quelle façon ? Existe-t-il de nouvelles obligations de coopération
prévues dans les dispositions transnationales (par exemple, production d’ordres transnationaux
d’information) ?
La procédure pénale belge a connu un accroissement des pouvoirs d’investigation et des pouvoirs de contrainte,
en particulier depuis 2002 ; ont ainsi été introduits les témoignages anonymes, les méthodes particulières de
recherche et autres techniques d’enquête ; on assiste à une multiplication des cas où des écoutes
téléphoniques, des saisies et des confiscations sont possibles ; les moyens de lutte contre le blanchiment ont été
accrus ; la saisie et la confiscation par équivalent ont été introduites (voir supra).
En revanche, l’on n’observe pas que les obligations de coopération de la part des personnes poursuivies ait été
augmentées, sauf sur ce qui a été dit de l’article 43quater CP introduit par la loi portant extension des possibilités
de saisie et de confiscation en matière pénale (voir supra). Aussi il faut faire référence à l’article 88quater CiCr.
inséré par l’article 9 de la loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique :128 selon le paragraphe
premier, le juge d’instruction ou un officier de police judiciaire auxiliaire du procureur du Roi délégué par lui, peut
ordonner aux personnes dont il présume qu’elles ont une connaissance particulière du système informatique qui
fait l’objet de la recherche ou des services qui permettent de protéger ou de crypter des données qui sont
stockées, traitées ou transmises par un système informatique, de fournir des informations sur le fonctionnement
de ce système et sur la manière d’y accéder ou d’accéder aux données qui sont stockées, traitées ou transmises
par un tel système, dans une forme compréhensible. L’ordonnance du juge d’instruction peut être prise à l’égard
de l’inculpé.129
La Belgique n’a pas souscrit de nouvelles obligations de coopération par le biais de dispositions transnationales
significatives. Des possibilités de coopération, sous forme d’échange d’informations ainsi que d’observation et de
poursuite transfrontalière sont prévues par les articles 39 et 44 à 46 de la Convention Schengen130, mais elles ne
sont pas contraignantes. La convention de Schengen du 19 juin 1990, en ses articles 92 à 119, crée, quant à
elle, le S.I.S. (système d’information Schengen), vaste banque de données131.
Quant aux commissions rogatoires étrangères, l’appréciation d’y donner suite revient à la Belgique132.
12. Un changement des pouvoirs s’est-il produit dans votre pays de la part du pouvoir judiciaire
(magistrats instructeurs, juges chargés de la phase préliminaire), vers le pouvoir exécutif compétent en
Moniteur belge, 3 février 2001.
Pour une analyse critique à la lumière des droits de l’homme, voir P. De Hert & G. Lichtenstein, 'La signification de la
Convention Européenne sur la cybercriminalité pour l'information et la coopération internationale’, Vigiles. Revue du droit de
police, 2004, vol. 10/5, p. 149-165
130 Voir aussi les articles 10 et 13 à 15 du Traité Benelux du 8 juin 2004.
131 La Belgique devrait toutefois ratifier à la fin de l’année 2008 le Traité de Lisbonne du 13 décembre 2007. Cette
Convention crée notamment de nouvelles structures de coopération judiciaire et policière. Le Traité de Lisbonne consacre un
chapitre 4 intitulé « Coopération judiciaire en matière pénale ». Les domaines de criminalité visés sont le terrorisme, la traite
des êtres humains et l’exploitation sexuelle des femmes et des enfants, le trafic illicite de drogues, le trafic illicite d’armes, le
blanchiment d’argent, la corruption, la contrefaçon de moyens de paiement, la criminalité informatique et la criminalité
organisée. Dans son chapitre 5 intitulé « Coopération policière », le Traité de Lisbonne prévoit que l’Union développe une
coopération policière qui associe toutes les autorités compétentes des Etats membres, y compris les services des douanes et
autres services répressifs spécialisés dans les domaines de la prévention ou de la détection des infractions pénales et des
enquêtes.
132 M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 1319-1320.
128
129
- 56 -
Belgique
matière d’investigation (police, procureurs, services de renseignement, agences administratives
d’exécution, armée) ? Si oui, comment et dans quelle mesure ?
Un changement des pouvoirs s’est-il produit dans votre pays des autorités de poursuite vers la police,
etc ? Si oui, comment et dans quelle mesure ?
L’on observe, en Belgique, un certain déplacement des pouvoirs, en particulier déplacement du pouvoir judiciaire
(magistrats instructeurs) vers le pouvoir exécutif compétent en matière d’investigation (ministère public133 et
police).
La loi du 6 janvier 2003 relative aux méthodes particulières de recherche marque un tournant à cet égard : le
ministère public a un pouvoir accru puisqu’il peut ordonner de sa propre initiative et sans intervention du juge
d’instruction un certain nombre de méthodes particulières de recherche et d’autres techniques d’enquêtes, sans
contrôle juridictionnel effectif ; ce n’est qu’en raison de la censure de la Cour constitutionnelle que le législateur a
prévu un véritable contrôle juridictionnel, mais a posteriori (loi du 27 décembre 2005, art. 235ter CiCr.). Dans ce
contexte, les services de police ont également vu leurs pouvoirs s’étendre, dans la mesure où ils sont
responsables, sous la direction du parquet, de la mise en œuvre de ces méthodes et techniques d’enquête, le
premier contrôle étant interne. Les enquêteurs peuvent être autorisés par le procureur du Roi à commettre
certaines infractions ; en cas d’urgence, la demande d’autorisation peut même prendre la forme d’une simple
information a posteriori.
Dans le même domaine, l’on observe une marginalisation du juge d’instruction au profit du ministère public : les
méthodes particulières de recherche sont mises en œuvre sous la direction exclusive de celui-ci ; c’est encore le
ministère public qui est seul compétent pour autoriser la commission d’infractions, etc. Cette marginalisation du
juge d’instruction vaut également dans ses relations avec les services de police : les fonctionnaires de police
exécutant une méthode particulière de recherche en rendent compte principalement au ministère public (sous la
réserve que le juge d’instruction conserve toujours le pouvoir d’en modifier la portée ou d’y mettre fin). Dans le
même ordre d’idées, toutes les mesures tendant à prendre connaissance des données bancaires d’un suspect
ou à procéder au gel de ses avoirs relèvent du ministère public sans devoir saisir le juge d’instruction.
Un transfert de pouvoir du ministère public vers les services de police peut également être relevé, soit dans la
législation (ainsi les services de police disposent dans certaines matières déterminées par circulaires d’un
pouvoir d’enquête autonome), soit dans les faits : les services de police mènent, dans certains domaines, des
enquêtes policières d’office (sans devoir attendre les apostilles du ministère public) ; les problèmes de capacités
policières donnent de facto aux services de police un pouvoir important en matière de politique criminelle, en
dépit du pouvoir de réquisition consacré par le Code d’instruction criminelle tant au profit du procureur du Roi
que du juge d’instruction ; au gré d’une carence du pouvoir politique, ce sont les services de police qui ont
élaboré, sans concertation avec le parquet, le dernier plan national de sécurité traçant les grandes lignes de la
politique criminelle pour les années 2008 à 2011, plan repris par le ministre de la justice qui en impose la mise
en œuvre au ministère public134.
De manière générale, l’on observe un accroissement des pouvoirs du ministère public, mais pas de transfert du
pouvoir judiciaire vers la sphère administrative.
13. Une spécialisation et/ou une centralisation des autorités judiciaires d’investigation ont-elles eu lieu
dans votre pays ?
L’on assiste en Belgique à une certaine spécialisation et centralisation des autorités judiciaires d’investigation,
notamment par la création d’un parquet fédéral et la désignation de juges d’instruction spécialisés en matière de
terrorisme compétents pour tout le Royaume (article 79, al. 2 à 4 du Code judiciaire) (voir supra). Le parquet est
normalement organisé au niveau des arrondissements judiciaires (il y en a 27 en Belgique), tandis que le parquet
133 L’on considère, en Belgique, que le ministère public a un statut hybride en raison de sa double appartenance au pouvoir
exécutif et à l’ordre judiciaire ; voir not. M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 49.
134 Déclaration de politique générale du ministre de la Justice Jo Vandeurzen d’avril 2008, p. 33
(www.just.fgov.be/communiques/2008/04/07_a.html).
- 57 -
Belgique
fédéral est unique pour le pays135 ; il a des compétences spéciales dans la recherche et la poursuite des
infractions portant atteinte à la sûreté de l’État belge, ou touchant aux matières nucléaires, à l’immigration
clandestine organisée, ou s’analysant en infractions de terrorisme, en infractions de trafic aggravé des armes, en
infractions contre la sécurité publique (sous la forme de l’association de malfaiteurs et de l’organisation
criminelle) mais encore des infractions qui ont une dimension internationale ou une dimension qui, dans une
large mesure, concernent plusieurs ressorts, les infractions de la criminalité organisée étant spécialement
visées136.
La loi du 27 décembre 2005 portant des modifications diverses au Code d'instruction criminelle et au Code
judiciaire en vue d'améliorer les modes d'investigation dans la lutte contre le terrorisme et la criminalité grave et
organisée a été commenté plus haute (sub 2a.). La loi a créé les juges d’instruction spécialisés en matière de
terrorisme compétents pour tout le Royaume. Dans les travaux parlementaires, on peut lire que c’est le Collège
des Procureurs généraux qui a insisté sur la nécessité de spécialiser davantage les magistrats, qu’ils soient du
ministère public, juges d’instruction, des juridictions d’instruction et du siège. Mme Laurette Onkelinx, alors
ministre de la Justice, s’est déclaré d’accord avec cette position et a annoncé une réflexion plus large sur cette
nécessité de spécialiser la magistrature afin d’aboutir à des initiatives législatives concrètes. Le ministre a
souligné cependant que cette spécialisation ne peut engendrer des procédures d’exception. 137
14. Les règles de votre système juridique ont-elles changé en ce qui concerne a) les conditions
d’approbation des mesures de contrainte (mandat) de la part des autorités judiciaires ? Si oui, comment
et dans quelle mesure ? Y a-t-il eu une redéfinition de la cause probable pour les mandats ? b) La
compilation du dossier d’investigation ou la révélation de la preuve en vue de la conserver ex parte, et
par conséquent non accessible à la défense ? c) La preuve destinée à inclure l’accusé comme source de
preuve ? d) Les conditions de l’arrestation et de la détention ? Votre système juridique dispose-t-il de
possibilités d’arrestation et de détention secrètes, de déportation, et de reddition extraordinaire sans
habeas corpus ?
14. a) Les règles de procédure pénale belge n’ont pas changé en ce qui concerne les conditions d’approbation
des mesures de contrainte (mandat) de la part des autorités judiciaires. Les mesures de contrainte doivent
toujours être autorisées par un mandat du juge d’instruction, sauf rares exceptions telles les saisies138. On
constate néanmoins une extension des possibilités d’y procéder, y compris dans le chef du ministère public139.
L’on rappellera que l’examen des données bancaires ne nécessite pas de mandat du juge d’instruction et relève
donc du parquet.
Sous l’angle du pouvoir de contrainte et du mandat qui l’accompagne, il faut relever que lorsque la Belgique
remet une personne sous le couvert d’un mandat d’arrêt européen aux autorités judiciaires d’un autre État, elle
perd une partie de son pouvoir d’appréciation.
b) En ce qui concerne la compilation du dossier d’investigation ou la révélation de la preuve en vue de la
conserver ex parte, et par conséquent non accessible à la défense, l’on relèvera que le dossier confidentiel
constitué à l’occasion d’une observation ou d’une infiltration échappe complètement aux parties (défense et
partie civile), de même qu’au juge du fond. Il s’agit d’une situation tout à fait nouvelle et unique en procédure
pénale belge. Il faut toutefois relever que ce dossier confidentiel ne comprend que les données techniques
relatives à ces méthodes particulières de recherche (matériel utilisé, identité des membres des services de police
les ayant mises en œuvre, etc.) et non les constatations opérées et les preuves rassemblées. En d’autres
135 Art. 144bis à 144sexies et 148, al. 1er C.J.
136 Voir les matières pour lesquelles il est prioritairement compétent à l’art. 144ter C.J.
137 Voir le rapport fait au nom de la commission de la justice par m. Jean-Pierre Malmendier à l’occasion du projet de loi
apportant des modifications diverses au code d’instruction criminelle et au code judiciaire en vue d’améliorer les modes
d’investigation dans la lutte contre le terrorisme et la criminalité grave et organisée, Chambre, Documents, 2005-2006, no.
doc 51 2055/005, 16 décembre 2005, (127p>.), p. 17 (http://www.lachambre.be/FLWB/PDF/51/2055/51K2055005.pdf)
138 Observons que dans le cas de flagrant délit, le ministère public peut poser un certain nombre d’actes de contrainte
(visites domiciliaires, écoutes téléphoniques en cas d’infractions graves, etc.).
139 Voir M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 352.
- 58 -
Belgique
termes, les parties pourront discuter les preuves récoltées, mais non la manière dont elles l’ont été. Un contrôle
est exercé a posteriori par la chambre des mises en accusation (juridiction d’instruction en degré d’appel). La
chambre de mises en accusation entend les observations du procureur général et des parties, mais sans que
ces derniers aient eu accès au dossier confidentiel.
c) La Belgique n’a pas connu de changements du point de vue de la preuve destinée à inclure l’accusé comme
source de preuve. L’accusé n’est jamais obligé de collaborer à la constitution des preuves, il garde le droit au
silence et le droit de ne pas s’auto accuser140.
d) L’on n’observe pas de changements en Belgique du point de vue des conditions de l’arrestation et de la
détention. Le système belge ne dispose pas de possibilités d’arrestation et de détention secrètes, de déportation,
et de reddition extraordinaire sans habeas corpus. Néanmoins, force est de constater que la loi du 19 décembre
2003 relative au mandat d’arrêt européen a aboli le droit de faire vérifier la légalité de la détention préventive par
un examen périodique (dans les cinq jours et ensuite tous les mois ou trimestres selon la gravité des faits) par
les juridictions d’instruction prévue dans le régime commun de la détention établi par la loi sur la détention
préventive.141
15. Des ordres de production spécifiques (sub poena ou non) ont-ils été introduits dans votre pays pour
stocker de l’information à la disposition des fournisseurs de services (fournisseurs internet, agences de
voyage, compagnies aériennes, compagnies de cartes de crédit) ?
Non, aucune information ni base de données ne sont mises à disposition de fournisseurs de service.
Cependant, inversement, certains fournisseurs de service sont tenus de mettre à disposition des autorités
certaines informations recueillies dans leur base de données. A titre d’exemples, nous pouvons citer l’obligation
de dénonciation de la cellule de traitement des informations financières aux fins de lutter contre le blanchiment
d’argent, l’obligations pour des fournisseurs de service de conserver des données et des documents comptables,
ou encore l’obligation pour les opérateurs de réseaux de communications et les fournisseurs de services de
télécommunications de conserver les données et de prêter leur concours quand ils sont requis par le juge
d’instruction en vue d’écoute, de prise de connaissance et d’enregistrement de communications ou de
télécommunications (art. 90quater, § 2 CiCr.). En outre, le refus de collaboration engendre des sanctions
pénales ou des sanctions administratives.
16. La preuve avant jugement, recueillie par les autorités policières et judiciaires, est-elle soumise au
contrôle judiciaire (admissibilité de la preuve avant jugement) dans votre pays ? Existe-t-il des mesures
spéciales en matière de crimes graves ?
En ce qui concerne la preuve avant jugement, recueillie par les autorités policières et judiciaires, un système de
contrôle judiciaire (admissibilité de la preuve avant jugement) est largement développé en Belgique.
Lorsque les faits ont fait l’objet d’une instruction, les juridictions d’instruction sont tenues de contrôler la légalité et
la régularité des preuves recueillies ; elles ont le pouvoir d’annuler les preuves illégales ou irrégulières, sachant
que seront aussi annulées toutes les preuves ultérieures qui en découlent ; des poursuites peuvent ainsi être
déclarées irrecevables. Il faut toutefois attirer l’attention sur une jurisprudence récente de la Cour de cassation
en matière de preuves irrégulières voulant que, sauf lorsque la preuve a été recueillie en violation d’une forme
prescrite à peine de nullité, la juridiction d’instruction ou le juge du fond est tenu de procéder à une balance
d’intérêts entre l’intérêt poursuivi et l’irrégularité commise ; il doit142 en conséquence admettre une preuve
140 L’on peut tout au plus relever certaines techniques de récolte des preuves, tels les tests ADN, les écoutes téléphoniques
ou les tests polygraphiques dans lesquelles l’accusé peut fournir des preuves à son insu. A l’exception des tests
polygraphiques, ces modes de preuves sont strictement réglementés, la défense étant avertie au préalable pour les tests
ADN et a posteriori pour les écoutes téléphoniques.
141 Voir Ch. Van Den Wyngaert, Strafrecht, strafprocesrecht en internationaal strafrecht, o.c., p. 1272.
142 F. Verbruggen, ‘Vindt het spook van Antigoon rust? Franstalig ‘schoonmoederarrest’ als slotluik van de nieuwe
Cassatierechtspraak over de uitsluiting van ontrechtmatig bewijs?’, (note sous Cass. 12 octobre 2005), T. Strafr. 2006/1, p.
25-31 ; Cass. P.07.1302.N, 4 décembre 2007, www.cass.be.
- 59 -
Belgique
irrégulière ou illégale ; toutefois, une preuve irrégulière doit être écartée lorsque son obtention est entachée d’un
vice de nature soit à lui ôter sa fiabilité, soit à compromettre le droit à un procès équitable143.
Cette jurisprudence a été reprise par l’article 13 de la loi du 9 décembre 2004 sur l’entraide judiciaire
internationale en matière pénale pour ce qui est de l’utilisation en Belgique des preuves recueillies à l’étranger.
Il n’y a pas de mesures spéciales en matière de crimes graves, mais la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation
évoquée permet d’atténuer de manière significative les exigences de légalité, de régularité et de loyauté des
preuves en la matière lorsque les juridictions d’instruction ou de fond procèdent à la balance d’intérêts.
Lorsque les faits n’ont pas été soumis au juge d’instruction, mais ont seulement fait l’objet d’une information, le
contrôle judiciaire des preuves s’opère uniquement au niveau du juge du fond, sauf en cas de recours aux
méthodes particulières de recherche qui justifient un examen de régularité par la chambre des mises en
accusation.
17. Votre pays autorise-t-il l’usage de la preuve obtenue à l’étranger (usage extraterritorial de la preuve) ?
Si oui, sous quelles conditions ?
La Belgique autorise l’usage de la preuve obtenue à l’étranger.
La preuve recueillie à l’étranger doit l’avoir été selon les règles du pays dans lequel elle a été recueillie et
respecter les articles 2, 3 et 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme144. Toutefois, comme on l’a
dit, lorsque des preuves ont été obtenues irrégulièrement à l’étranger, le juge du fond et les juridictions
d’instruction sont tenues, sauf exception, de procéder à une balance d’intérêts de telle sorte que ces preuves
peuvent éventuellement être retenues (article 13 de la loi du 9 décembre 2004 sur l’entraide judiciaire
internationale en matière pénale).
18. Des mesures de contrainte ont-elles été introduites de telle sorte qu’elles puissent définitivement
faire obstacle aux règles du procès équitable ?
Non.
19. Des mesures spéciales ont-elles été introduites dans votre pays pour la protection des témoins
anonymes, des victimes, des juges, etc. ?
Différentes mesures de protection des témoins sont présentes dans la législation belge :
1° Audition à huis clos par le juge (art. 148 de la Constitution) ;
2° Audition hors de la présence physique de l’accusé devant la cour d’assises, le président de la cour d’assisses
étant tenu d’informer l’accusé de ce qui a été dit par le témoin (art. 327 CiCr.145) ;
3° Anonymat des témoins : loi du 8 avril 2002 relative à l’anonymat des témoins.
- soit partiel (seule certaines données relatives aux témoins sont occultées) : art. 75bis et 155bis C.I.C.
- soit complet (toutes les données permettant d’identifier le témoin sont tenues secrètes) : art. 86bis et ter,
189bis, al.2, 315bis, al.2. Le juge d’instruction, le ministère public et le juge du fond doivent veiller au respect de
l’anonymat (voir supra).
4° Protection des témoins menacés : loi du 7 juillet 2002 contenant les règles relatives à la protection des
témoins menacés et d’autres dispositions (art. 102 à 111 CiCr.). Le témoin reconnu par une commission ad hoc
comme témoin menacé peut bénéficier de différentes mesures spéciales de protection, telles une assistance
psychologique ou une aide dans la recherche d’un emploi, l’octroi d’une aide financière, un changement
d’identité, une relocalisation, etc.146. Ces mesures spéciales ne peuvent être octroyées qu’à un témoin menacé
dont la protection ne peut être assurée par des mesures ordinaires et dont les déclarations concernent une
143 Voir M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., 2006, p. 1025 et les références citées ; pour les juridictions
d’instruction, Cass., 20 septembre 2006, J.T., 2006, p. 741.
144 Cass., 13 mars 2002, Pas., 2002, 718, Rev. dr. pén., 2003, p. 109, note P. Monville ; T. Strafr., 2003, p. 28, note E. De
Busser.
145 Cette règle fait partie du Code d’instruction criminelle tel qu’il a été adopté en 1808.
146 Voir Memorialis Postal, v° « protection des témoins menacés », éd. Kluwer.
- 60 -
Belgique
infraction visée à l’article 90ter CiCr., c’est-à-dire une infraction grave permettant des écoutes téléphoniques. Le
cas échéant, ces mesures peuvent être appliquées aux membres de la famille du témoin menacé ainsi qu’à ses
autres parents.
5° Audition au moyen de médias audiovisuels : loi du 2 août 2002 (art. 112 à 112ter CiCr.). Cela peut concerner
les témoins anonymes, les témoins protégés, etc.
6° Audition des mineurs témoins et victimes de certaines infractions graves (art. 91bis CiCr.). Ils bénéficient
d’une aide spécifique et leur audition est enregistrée.
Il n’y a pas de règles particulières relatives à la protection des victimes d’infractions (sauf si elles sont aussi
témoins ou si elles sont mineures d’âge), ni des juges. Cette protection relève de la compétence des services de
police dans le cadre de leur mission générale de sécurité publique, et de la Sûreté de l’État. En effet, parmi les
missions confiées à la Sûreté de l’État figure celle d’exécuter les missions qui lui sont assignées par le ministre
de l’Intérieur en vue de protéger les personnes, tels les chefs d’États étrangers,… mais surtout, certaines
personnalités qui font l’objet de menaces résultant des activités touchant à la pérennité de l’ordre démocratique
et constitutionnel et à la sûreté de l’État ; parmi ces personnes peuvent se trouver des magistrats.
Dans ce domaine, les conditions d’approbation des mesures de contrainte (mandat) de la part des autorités
judiciaires n’ont pas été modifiées, si ce n’est que le témoignage anonyme ou l’audition au moyen de médias
audiovisuels ne peuvent être autorisés, en vertu de la loi, que pour certaines infractions graves ou dans certaines
circonstances.
V – Phase de jugement (procédure criminelle, procédures spéciales)
20. a) En matière de crimes graves, votre système juridique prévoit-il des règles spéciales concernant la
compétence ? Si oui, quelle est la compétence ratione materiae; le déroulement du procès, y compris les
dispositions relatives aux tribunaux spéciaux? b) la protection des témoins anonymes, des victimes, des
juges, etc ?; Le cas échéant, ces mesures peuvent être appliquées aux membres de la famille du témoin
menacé ainsi qu’à ses autres parents c) la preuve (evidence and proof) lors du procès. La preuve
anonyme/protégée ou secrète peut-elle être utilisée dans les procédures ex parte ? d) Y a-t-il une
exception d’intérêt public à la révélation de la preuve et au contre-interrogatoire ? e) La preuve en faveur
du suspect peut-elle être écartée dans des circonstances spéciales ? f) L’évolution de la preuve ?
a) En matière de crimes graves, le système juridique belge ne prévoit pas de règles spéciales concernant la
compétence ratione materiae, ceux-ci relevant, conformément au droit commun, soit du tribunal correctionnel soit
de la cour d’assises ; en revanche, du point de vue de la compétence ratione loci, l’article 62bis, al. 4 CiCr
prévoit certaines dérogations pour les infractions en matière de terrorisme, dérogations résultant de la
compétence de juges d’instruction spécialisés147. Ainsi, plutôt que de confiner l’instruction dans un
arrondissement judiciaire donné, celle-ci est menée par un juge d’instruction ayant compétence sur tout le
territoire national.
En matière de crimes graves, le système juridique belge ne prévoit pas de règles spéciales concernant le
déroulement du procès, ni de dispositions relatives à des tribunaux spéciaux (ceux-ci n’existant pas en
Belgique).
b) En ce qui concerne les témoins dans les procès pour crimes graves, il faut, pour commencer, souligner qu’en
droit belge, tous les témoins entendus au cours de la phase préliminaire du procès ne doivent pas
nécessairement être entendus à l’audience. Le juge peut se fonder sur les pièces du dossier. Ce n’est que si ces
témoins sont produits à l’audience par le ministère public ou que leur audition est sollicitée par une des parties
de manière circonstanciée que le juge les entendra à l’audience, son pouvoir d’appréciation quant à ces
auditions restant souverain148.
En ce qui concerne la protection des témoins anonymes, l’on relèvera que le témoin entendu anonymement au
cours de l’enquête préliminaire ne peut être entendu à l’audience que de son consentement et de manière à ce
147 Voir M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c.,p. 418.
148 Voir sur cette question notamment M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 1045-1046.
- 61 -
Belgique
que son anonymat soit préservé (par exemple audition à distance en circuit de télévision fermé).
Les témoins ayant le statut de témoins menacés seront en principe entendus à l’audience selon les règles
habituelles ; toutefois, si leur protection le requiert, ils pourront être entendus par le moyen de médias
audiovisuels.
Du point de vue de la protection des témoins et victimes mineurs de certaines infractions graves, c’est
l’enregistrement de leur audition au cours de l’enquête préliminaire qui sera produit à l’audience.
En ce qui concerne la protection des juges, il faut se référer à ce qui a été dit à propos de la phase préliminaire
du procès pénal.
c) De manière générale, on ne peut pas dire que le système belge prévoit des règles spéciales de preuve en
matière de crimes graves lors du procès. La preuve anonyme/protégée ou secrète ne peut être utilisée dans les
procédures ex parte.
Rappelons toutefois que ce n’est que pour les infractions graves que le droit belge autorise le recours à certains
modes de preuve, tels les écoutes téléphoniques, les témoignages complètement anonymes, les analyses ADN
non consenties, les méthodes particulières de recherche.
Observons aussi que lorsque le témoignage anonyme est admis, seule l’identité du témoin est occultée, mais
non le témoignage lui-même ; il en est de même lorsque les preuves obtenues le sont par l’observation ou
l’infiltration : seules les modalités techniques de l’opération sont consignées dans un dossier confidentiel non
soumis aux parties, mais non les preuves elles-mêmes.
d) Il n’y a pas, en droit belge, d’exception d’intérêt public à la révélation de la preuve et au « contreinterrogatoire ».
e) A aucun moment la preuve en faveur du suspect ne peut être écartée, même dans des circonstances
spéciales. Observons toutefois que la Cour de cassation considère que, bien que le droit à un procès équitable
implique que, dans le système de poursuite belge, le ministère public communique au juge tous les éléments à
décharge du prévenu dont il dispose, le juge ne peut faire à ce propos aucune injonction au ministère public et le
prévenu n’a aucun droit de regard sur des pièces ou des dossiers dont dispose le ministère public, mais que
celui-ci ne communique pas au juge149.
f) Le droit belge ne connaît aucune règle spéciale en matière de criminalité grave en ce qui concerne l’évolution
de la preuve. On rappellera simplement la jurisprudence récente de la Cour de cassation relative aux preuves
irrégulières qui peut trouver à s’appliquer aussi en cas de criminalité grave. On peut également relever qu’une
condamnation ne peut reposer de manière déterminante sur un témoignage complètement anonyme ou reçu par
conférence téléphonique150.
21. En matière de crimes graves, votre système juridique assure-t-il complètement a) le droit du
suspect/accusé/détenu à un tribunal indépendant et impartial ? La présomption d’innocence lors du
procès ou prévoit-il des dispositions spéciales (présomption de responsabilité ou de culpabilité,
renversement du fardeau de la preuve) ? b) Le droit d’être jugé sans retard injustifié et le droit d’avoir la
légalité de sa détention déterminée dès que possible (habeas corpus) ? c) La maxime in dubio pro reo ?
Les droits procéduraux des parties (égalité des armes, procès équitable) ? d) Le droit à la publicité des
débats avec présence du public; e) le droit à des débats oraux, d’être entendu loyalement et
contradictoirement; le droit d’assister à son procès ; f) le droit de son conseil d’avoir accès à toutes les
pièces du dossier ; le droit d’être informé sans délai des charges dont il est accusé ; g) le droit à la
révélation complète de l’état de la procédure et à un temps approprié pour préparer sa défense ; h) le
droit à la publicité interne (entre les parties concernées) et externe des actes de procédure; i) le droit
d’examiner les témoignages à charge et d’obtenir la présence et l’interrogatoire du témoin à décharge; J)
149 Cass., 30 octobre 2001, P.01.11239.N et note, T. Straf., 2002, p. 198 ; Anvers, 13 mars 2002, R.W., 2002-2003, p. 1022
et note B. De Smet ; Gand, 3 juin 2002, NjW, 2002, p. 321 et note M. de Swaef. Cette solution peut cependant rejaillir sur le
droit à un procès équitable.
150 Il en est de même lorsque l’altération de la voix ou de l’image a été ordonnée.
- 62 -
Belgique
le droit d’avoir l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète; k) le droit de ne pas témoigner contre lui-même ; l) le
droit à un conseil (commis d’office ou non), aux changements de privilèges légaux ???. Libre choix ou
imposés ou désignés par l’Etat ? m) le droit de garder le silence (existe-t-il des limites à l’obligation
d’informer l’accusé de ce droit ? n) Est-il permis de tirer des conclusions préjudiciables du fait que
l’accusé refuse de témoigner ?
a) En matière de crimes graves, le système juridique belge assure complètement le droit du
suspect/accusé/détenu à un tribunal indépendant et impartial, ainsi que la présomption d’innocence lors du
procès ; il ne prévoit aucune disposition spéciale (présomption de responsabilité ou de culpabilité, renversement
du fardeau de la preuve) ; il n’existe en effet pas de présomption de culpabilité en droit commun, pas plus que
pour les infractions graves (de telles présomptions – qui ne portent que sur l’identité de l’auteur mais non sur les
faits - n’existent que dans des législations particulières comme le roulage ou en matière douanière, et toujours
avec possibilité d’apporter la preuve contraire).
La seule hypothèse dans laquelle on peut déceler un certain renversement de la charge de la preuve se trouve à
l’article 43quater du Code pénal qui organise une enquête patrimoniale après un jugement de condamnation :
lorsqu’un individu a été condamné pour des faits visés à l’article 43quater § 1er C.P.151 et que le ministère public
peut soutenir, par des indices sérieux et concrets, que celui-ci a, sur une période maximale de cinq ans avant
l’inculpation, bénéficié de revenus, fait des dépenses ou été en possession de biens qui ne peuvent
apparemment pas provenir de sources légales mais bien d’infractions pour lesquelles il a été condamné ou de
faits identiques, il appartient alors au condamné de rendre crédible le fait qu’il n’a pas tiré la différence entre ses
actifs réels et ses actifs licites de pareilles infractions ; à défaut, le juge du fond peut ordonner la confiscation de
ces avantages patrimoniaux, ainsi que des biens et valeurs qui leur ont été substitués. Cette confiscation est
facultative152 (voir supra).
b) Le droit d’être jugé sans retard injustifié est garanti en ce sens que l’article 6 de la Convention européenne
des droits de l’homme n’est jamais suspendu ; l’appréciation du respect de cette disposition dépendra de la
complexité de l’affaire (or les affaires notamment de terrorisme sont souvent complexes), de l’attitude du/des
prévenus et de la célérité des autorités judiciaires.
La détention préventive ne peut être ordonnée que par le juge d’instruction moyennant mandat d’arrêt signifié
dans les 24 heures de l’arrestation. Le droit de faire vérifier la légalité de la détention préventive est toujours
assuré par un examen périodique (dans les 5 jours de la délivrance du mandat d’arrêt et ensuite tous les mois ou
trimestres selon la gravité des faits) par les juridictions d’instruction (chambre du conseil en instance et chambre
des mises en accusation en appel), avec possibilité pour l’inculpé d’interjeter appel de la décision d’instance.
c) La maxime in dubio pro reo est toujours d’application, ainsi que les droits procéduraux des parties (égalité des
armes, procès équitable).
d) En ce qui concerne le droit à la publicité des débats avec présence du public, le principe est consacré par
l’article 148 de la Constitution et rappelé par les articles 153 et 190 du Code d’instruction criminelle. Ce n’est que
dans le cadre des exceptions prévues par la loi qu’il est possible de déroger à cette publicité et uniquement pour
ce qui concerne les débats, à l’exclusion du prononcé de la décision. Compte tenu du thème du présent rapport,
on ne retiendra comme exception que le cas où la publicité est dangereuse pour l’ordre ou les mœurs (art. 148
Const.). Le huis clos ne peut être ordonné qu’à la requête du ministère public ou de la défense. En matière de
délits politiques et de presse, le huis clos ne peut être ordonné qu’à l’unanimité.
e) le droit à des débats oraux, d’être entendu loyalement et contradictoirement est toujours d’application, avec la
réserve de l’absence de débat contradictoire sur les modalités d’une observation ou d’une infiltration ainsi que
Ces faits peuvent être regroupés en trois catégories : la corruption publique ou privée commise par les chefs,
provocateurs ou commandants d’une association de malfaiteurs, le trafic de stupéfiants, la traite organisée et répétée d'êtres
humains, le trafic d'hormones et les infractions au droit international humanitaire ; les diverses formes de participation à une
organisation criminelle ou diverses infractions, énumérées limitativement, commises dans le cadre d'une organisation
criminelle; les infractions de fraude fiscale grave et organisée commises à une échelle internationale, à l’instar des «
carrousels à la TVA ».
152 Voir M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 356.
151
- 63 -
Belgique
sur l’identité d’un témoin anonyme ou sur l’existence d’une mesure de protection à l’égard d’un témoin menacé.
Le droit d’assister à son procès est toujours garanti, ainsi que le droit de son conseil d’avoir accès à toutes les
pièces du dossier, à l’exception, comme on l’a déjà relevé, de l’accès au dossier confidentiel en cas
d’observation ou d’infiltration et aux documents consignant l’identité d’un témoin anonyme ou la mesure de
protection à l’égard d’un témoin menacé.
f) le droit d’être informé sans délai des charges dont on est accusé est garanti pour les infractions graves au
même titre que pour toute autre infraction, du moins en cas de détention préventive car dans ce cas, l’inculpé a
un droit d’accès périodique au dossier complet. En dehors du cas de la détention préventive, le juge d’instruction
a l’obligation d’inculper formellement la personne contre laquelle il existe des indices sérieux de culpabilité (mais
l’on relèvera l’absence de sanction efficace). Le statut d’inculpé confère le droit de demander au juge
d’instruction l’accès au dossier répressif153, avec possibilité d’appel en cas de refus. En l’absence d’instruction, il
n’existe aucune obligation pour le parquet d’informer le suspect des charges pesant contre lui ni de droit pour
celui-ci d’avoir accès au dossier avant la fixation de l’affaire devant le juge du fond. En toute hypothèse, le
prévenu a accès à l’intégralité du dossier (sous les réserve mentionnées ci-dessus) 10 jours au moins avant
l’audience au fond (3 jours au moins si l’inculpé est détenu, mais dans ce cas, il a eu périodiquement accès au
dossier tout au long de l’instruction) ; en pratique, le délai est beaucoup plus long, selon l’importance de l’affaire.
g) Le droit de connaître l’état d’avancement de la procédure est garanti pour les infractions graves au même titre
que pour toute infraction dans les mêmes conditions que le droit d’être informé des charges. Le droit à un temps
approprié pour préparer sa défense est également garanti.
h) Le droit à la publicité interne est garanti pour les infractions graves au même titre que pour toute infraction,
moyennant les réserves énoncées ci-dessus. La publicité externe des actes de procédure n’est pas de règle ;
elle est organisée par l’article 28quinquies, § 3 du Code d’instruction criminelle et a lieu sous la responsabilité du
procureur du Roi ; celui-ci peut faire des communications à la presse – sans que la loi fasse mention de remise
de documents – lorsque l’intérêt public l’exige, mais dans le respect de la présomption d’innocence, des droits de
la défense, de la vie privée et de la dignité des personnes. En pratique, il est fréquent que des documents soient
remis officieusement à la presse et que le débat judiciaire soit porté dans les médias.
i) le droit d’examiner les témoignages à charge et d’obtenir la présence et l’interrogatoire du témoin à décharge
dans les mêmes conditions que le témoin à charge est garanti, sous la réserve qu’il appartient au juge du fond
d’apprécier souverainement l’opportunité d’entendre tel ou tel témoin ; le droit de demander l’audition des
témoins anonymes ou protégés est garanti dans les mêmes conditions sous la réserve que l’identité du témoin
anonyme ne soit pas révélée. Le témoin protégé est traité comme tout autre témoin ; une partie peut donc
demander son audition. Des dispositions particulières sont prévues pour les membres des services de police à
qui il est plus aisé de conférer la qualité de témoin anonyme (voir supra). Insistons toutefois sur le fait que le juge
du fond a un pouvoir d’appréciation souverain quant à la nécessité et à l’opportunité d’entendre un témoin à
l’audience.
j) Le droit d’avoir l’assistance gratuite d’un interprète est toujours garanti (cf. art. 332 CiCr. relatif à la cour
d’assises mais considéré par la jurisprudence comme applicable devant toute juridiction154).
k) Le droit de ne pas témoigner contre soi-même est toujours garanti. A cet égard, un inculpé ou un accusé ne
peut jamais être entendu sous la foi du serment quant aux faits qui lui sont reprochés, pas plus que toute
personne à l’égard de laquelle pèse des soupçons d’infraction.
l) L’assistance d’un avocat ne peut jamais être refusée. Elle n’est obligatoire que devant la cour d’assises. La
défense peut toujours demander la commission d’un avocat d’office en cas d’indigence (art. 508 à 508/23 du
Code judiciaire) ; dans ce cas, l’avocat est désigné par l’ordre des avocats et défrayé par l’État. Il est à noter que
la présence de l’avocat n’est en principe pas admise au cours de l’information et de l’instruction, même lorsqu’il
s’agit de l’audition du suspect ou de l’inculpé.
153 Il s’agit bien du droit de demander l’accès au dossier, laissé à l’appréciation du juge d’instruction sous le contrôle de la
chambre des mises en accusation, en non d’un droit d’accès au dossier.
154 M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 1151.
- 64 -
Belgique
m) Le droit de garder le silence est toujours garanti155 mais l’obligation pour les forces de l’ordre ou les
magistrats d’en informer la défense n’est pas prévue par le droit belge.
Le droit de garder le silence ne souffre en principe aucune limite, sous la réserve des délits d’obstacle fréquents
en matière douanière, fiscale ou de droit pénal social156.
n) Il n’est pas permis, en droit belge, de tirer des conclusions préjudiciables du fait que l’accusé refuse de
s’expliquer, sous peine d’atteinte à la présomption d’innocence et au libre choix des moyens de défense.
VI – Dispositions après jugement (procédures criminelles et spéciales)
22. En matière de terrorisme et de crimes graves, votre système juridique a-t-il modifié le droit d’une
haute cour de réviser la sentence (appel, cassation, révision constitutionnelle) ? La prohibition de la
double poursuite, soit après un acquittement ou après une reconnaissance de culpabilité et une
sanction?
Non.
CONCLUSIONS
1. A la lecture du présent rapport, il apparaît que la procédure pénale belge est, de manière générale, très
respectueuse des droits de l’homme, même lorsqu’elle s’applique aux affaires de terrorisme ou autres cas de
criminalité grave ou lorsqu’elle autorise le recours à des mesures procédurales spéciales : la Belgique ne connaît
en effet pas de procédures d’exception ; elle admet tout au plus le recours à certaines méthodes particulières de
recherche pour la récolte des preuves, mais en en limitant le champ d’application et en prévoyant une série de
garanties au bénéfice de la personne concernée.
Cette première conclusion est confirmée par des études internationales et comparatives157. Il n’en reste pas
moins que les méthodes particulières de recherche sont critiquées par la doctrine158, ce qui atteste d’une
vigilance et d’un haut degré d’exigence en matière de respect des droits de l’homme. Il reste à espérer qu’au vu
de certaines législations et pratiques étrangères beaucoup plus laxistes, une banalisation des procédures
d’exception et des méthodes d’enquêtes plus intrusives dans la vie privée et moins respectueuses des droits de
défense ne verra pas le jour.
2. Parmi les facteurs favorisant la situation très favorable de la Belgique, l’on peut relever à la fois une
Constitution garante des libertés et droits fondamentaux et le rôle actif de la Cour constitutionnelle159160 chargée,
en particulier du contrôle des lois, décrets et ordonnances au regard des dispositions relatives aux droits et
libertés des Belges161. Pour le sujet qui nous occupe, on observe en effet que la Cour constitutionnelle est
intervenue à de nombreuses reprises pour sanctionner des lois qu’elle estimait discriminatoires ou
insuffisamment garantes des libertés et droits fondamentaux162.
La Cour de cassation, quant à elle, fait largement référence à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme
mais se montre peut-être plus frileuse quant aux implications concrètes de celle-ci en droit belge ; c’est aussi la
155 Cass., 5 avril 2000, Pas., 2000, I, p. 228.
156 Dans ces cas, le contrevenant est obligé par la loi, sous peine de sanction, de fournir certains documents, mêmes s’ils
font la preuve des infractions qui lui sont reprochées.
157 Voir par exemple ‘Leading Surveillance Societies in the Wold’, rapport publié par Privacy International,
www.privacyinternational.org..
158 Voir par exemple M. Nève et M.-A. et Beernaert, « Les méthodes particulières de recherche et autres méthodes
d’enquête : de l’arrêt de la Cour d’arbitrage à la loi du 27 décembre 2005 », Colloque en droit pénal et procédure pénale,
Éditions du Jeune Barreau de Bruxelles, 2006, p. 5 et s. ; K. Van Cauwenberghe, « Bijzondere opsporingsmethoden : het
doel heiligt de middelen? », Orde van de dag, 2003, n° 21, p. 1-78.
159 Dénommée Cour d’arbitrage jusqu’au 7 mai 2007.
160 Sur cette problématique, voir B.J. Koops, R. Leenes et P. De Hert, Constitutional Rights and New Technologies. A Comparative Study, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, (Information Technology & Law Series, vol. 15), 2008, 301p.
161 Et cela par voie de la procédure de suspension et d’annulation, ainsi que par le biais de questions préjudicielles.
162 Pour se limiter à la matière des méthodes particulières de recherche, voir par exemple C.A., 202/2004 du 21 décembre
2004 ; Cour const., 105/2007 du 19 juillet 2007 ; Cour const. 107/2007 et 109/2007 du 26 juillet 2007 ; Cour const., 126/2007
du 4 octobre 2007.
- 65 -
Belgique
Cour de cassation qui a ouvert la porte à une prise en considération des preuves irrégulièrement récoltées. Il faut
toutefois lui concéder que, si la Cour constitutionnelle est garante des droits fondamentaux, le rôle de la Cour de
cassation se limite à un simple contrôle de légalité qui ne va pas jusqu’à un jugement sur la conformité de la loi à
la Constitution ou aux textes internationaux majeurs.
3. Il faut aussi observer que les débats qu’ont suscité les mesures à prendre face au phénomène terroriste
notamment n’ont eu qu’une ampleur limitée tant au niveau de la société civile qu’au niveau politique. De ce
dernier point de vue, il faut aussi souligner que les débats ont été menés davantage sur le registre de l’efficacité
que selon un clivage gauche/droite ou partis dits conservateurs/progressistes.
4. Enfin, la Belgique apparaît comme ayant un certain retard dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, notamment dans
la mesure où la Sûreté de l’État ne dispose que des moyens habituels de se procurer l’information, sans pouvoir
recourir ni aux écoutes téléphoniques, ni au méthodes particulières de recherche, par exemple163. Il n’en reste
pas moins que les interactions entre la Sûreté de l’État et les services judiciaires ne semblent pas poser de
problèmes majeurs. Ceci peut s’expliquer notamment par les règles de preuves assez libérales en application en
Belgique. Ainsi, la jurisprudence ne voit pas d’obstacle à ce qu’une procédure judiciaire démarre sur la base de
renseignements recueillis par des organes de contrôle164 ou par la Sûreté de l’État, sans d’ailleurs qu’ils ne
soient comme tels communiqués et soumis à la contradiction des parties ; en pareille hypothèse, la jurisprudence
donne à ces informations le statut de simples renseignements – qui n’ont donc pas le statut de preuves et ne
sont pas soumis aux règles de la preuve – ayant servi de point de départ à une procédure pénale et ayant
permis de récolter les preuves justifiant les poursuites165.
5. De manière générale, le système de preuve peut paraître très souple et même laxiste en Belgique : au niveau
du juge du fond, c’est le principe de l’intime conviction qui prévaut166 et les règles d’exclusion de preuves sont
rares167 ; l’on a en outre relevé que la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation admet que, face à une preuve
irrégulière, le juge du fond, procédant à une balance d’intérêts, l’admette.
Cet apparent laxisme en matière de preuve doit cependant être relativisé dans la mesure où la récolte des
preuves aux stades de l’information et de l’instruction est strictement et abondamment réglementé et soumis au
contrôle des juridictions d’instruction, soit la chambre du conseil et la chambre des mises en accusation en degré
d’appel.
Deux évolutions, contradictoires, doivent être soulignées : premièrement, l’on constate que la réglementation de
la récolte des preuves au stade de l’enquête préliminaire devient de plus en plus abondante et stricte :
compétences respectives du procureur du Roi et du juge d’instruction, matières dans lesquelles tel mode
d’enquête peut être utilisé, réglementation des méthodes d’investigation elles-mêmes, etc. Ceci veut dire que
d’un système de preuve libre, l’on se tourne petit à petit vers un système de preuves légales. En outre, le
législateur déroge, dans certains cas, au principe de la libre appréciation de la preuve en déterminant la force
probante de certains moyens de preuve (témoignages anonymes).Une deuxième évolution à relever réside dans
la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation permettant au juge du fond et aux juridictions d’instruction confrontées à
des preuves irrégulières de procéder à une balance d’intérêts et ainsi d’estimer la preuve irrégulière recevable ;
alors que, jusque là, c’est sur le registre de la récolte des preuves et de la réglementation de celle-ci que l’on se
situait, le problème des preuves irrégulières se déplace vers la sphère de l’appréciation des preuves ; or nous
avons vu que cette appréciation est très peu réglementée, ce qui confère au juge du fond (et aux juridictions
d’instruction qui ont le même pouvoir d’admettre une preuve illégale) un pouvoir exorbitant, même si la Cour de
cassation formule quelques critères – cependant insuffisants – d’appréciation de ces preuves irrégulières.
163 Il est dans les projets de l’actuel ministre de la Justice de remédier à ce problème ; voir Déclaration de politique générale
du ministre de la Justice Jo Vandeurzen d’avril 2008 (www.just.fgov.be/communiques/2008/04/07_a.html).
164 Par exemple l’Organe de coordination pour l'analyse de la menace (loi du 10 juillet 2006) (voir supra).
165 Voir par exemple Cass., 16 juin 2004, P.04.0281.F.
166 Pour une critique de ce système en droit belge, voir notamment M. Franchimont, A. Jacobs et A. Masset, o.c., p. 1084 et
s.
167 Voir par exemple l’art. 189bis C.I.C. qui interdit qu’une condamnation soit fondée exclusivement ou dans une mesure
déterminante sur des témoignages complètement anonymes.
- 66 -
Section III
BRAZIL*
Fábio Ramazzini BECHARA / Fauzi Hassan CHOUKR **
SUMMARY
1. To what extent do international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law treaties (Geneva
conventions) apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of these international standards in your country? Can citizens (suspects, accused, victims, witnesses...) derive rights from these
treaties in your domestic legal order?
2. What important legislative reforms were carried out in your country in the last decades in the interest of national/global security and public safety? Are there currently any such reform plans? (brief description)
- Did the reforms amend the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement, or did they elaborate
an alternative track of special proceedings (military justice, police justice, administrative justice, military commissions, etc.) outside the regular criminal justice system?
- Are these legislative reforms governed by constitutional provisions on emergency (including war)?
- Did criminal justice practice play a role in defining and carrying out the reforms? Did, e.g., higher courts (cassation or constitutional court) reverse elements of these reforms?
- Were the reforms subject to political or public debate?
II. General Questions on criminal proceedings and special measures
3. What are the general principles of your criminal procedure (e.g., principle of legality, fair justice, equality of
arms) and what is their legal source (e.g.,constitution, statute)?
4. At what stage(s) of the criminal process does your legal system provide for the presumption of innocence?
- the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to
confess guilt?
5. Does your common criminal procedure or special proceedings provide for a distinction between citizens and
non-citizens, nationals or non-nationals, or specific categories of subjects (aliens, enemies, non-persons)?
6. Does your legal system allow for the suspension of human rights in emergency situations (including war)?
- Who has the power to make this decision and which control mechanisms apply?
- What safeguards may be suspended? Does your legal system distinguish between derogable and nonderogable human rights?
** Fábio Ramazzini Bechara: Criminal District Prosecutor – São Paulo. Former integrant of Criminal Prosecutor’s Office for
Organized Crime Task-Force. Master in Law by Catholic University – São Paulo. Student at São Paulo University Law School
– Doctorate level. Professor at São Paulo School of Prosecutors. Fauzi Hassan Choukr: Doctor (1999) and Master (1994) in
Procedural Penal Law by São Paulo University Law School. Post graduate in Human Rights by Oxford University (New College; 1996) and in Procedural Penal Law by Castilla la Mancha University (2007). Criminal District Prosecutor – São Paulo.
*
- 67 -
Brazil
- Can emergency serve as a ground to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings (military
forum, police procedure, administrative procedure, military commissions)?
7. Does your legal system recognize special measures by which parts of the legislation and/or parts of the criminal process may be classified (classified legislation, secret procedures, secret actors of justice, secrecy in the
administration of criminal justice)?
8. Does your legal system allow for the use of intelligence information (e.g., general police intelligence, national
or foreign intelligence services information) in criminal proceedings, such as
- preliminary information for opening a criminal investigation;
- evidence for probable cause for using coercive measures on goods and on persons (e.g., search and seizure,
arrest, and detention);
- evidence of liability/guilt in criminal proceedings?
III. Pro-active enforcement (common police or common criminal proceedings, special proceedings)
9. Do intelligence forces, regular police forces, or administrative enforcement agencies (such as customs or tax
agencies) have the competence in your country to use coercive powers in a pro-active way? If yes, - under which
conditions?
- must there be a suspicion based on probable cause to use these coercive powers or are indications of dangerousness for the national security or public interest sufficient? Has the definition of suspicion been changed for
serious offences?
- can these coercive powers be used for persons other than suspects/accused of crimes (e.g., enemy combatants, enemy aliens, persons having no right to the protection of regular criminal procedure, etc.)?
- how is division of labour regulated within the investigative authorities?
- can the information obtained through the pro-active enforcement by means of use of coercive measures be
shared between intelligence, police, administrative enforcement agencies, and judicial authorities?
9. Does your legal system allow for the use of tough forms of investigation techniques (torture or cruel, unusual,
or inhuman treatment) during pro-active enforcement, and, if yes, under which conditions? What is the practice of
your country in this field?
10. In case of serious offences, does your legal system allow for limiting
- the right to habeas data (data protection, private life)?
- the right to habeas corpus (arrest, detention, deportation, extraordinary rendition,
etc.)?
IV. Pre-trial setting (common criminal proceedings, special proceedings)
11. Did your legal system experience an increase of - investigative powers and coercive powers (search and
seizure, bugging and tapping, freezing orders, evidence production orders, arrest and detention, infiltration, etc.)
of the investigation authorities? If yes, in which way?
- cooperation duties of the investigated persons? If yes, in which way? Are there any new cooperation duties
foreseen in transnational settings (e.g., transnational production orders of information)?
12. Did a shift of powers occur in your country
- from the judiciary (investigation magistrates, judges for the preliminary trial setting) to the executive dealing with
investigation (police, prosecutors, intelligence forces, administrative enforcement agencies, army)? If yes, how
and to which extent?
- from the public prosecutors to police, etc.? If yes, how and to what extent?
13. Did a specialization and/or centralization of the judicial investigative authorities take place in your country?
14. Were the rules in your legal system changed on - the conditions to approve coercive measures (warrants) of
the judiciary? If yes, how and to what extent? Has there been a redefinition of the probable cause for warrants?
- 68 -
Brazil
- the compilation of the investigative dossier or on the disclosure of evidence in order to keep part of it ex parte,
thus not available for the defense?
- evidence in order to include the defendant as a source of evidence?
- the conditions for arrest and detention? Does your legal system provide for possibilities of secret arrest and
detention, deportation, and extraordinary rendition without habeas corpus?
15. Were specific production orders (subpoena or not) introduced in your country for stored information at disposal of the service providers (internet providers, travel agencies, air companies, credit card companies)?
16. Is pre-trial evidence, gathered by police and judicial authorities, subject to judicial control (admissibility of pretrial evidence) in your country? Are there special measures in the field of serious offences?
17. Does your country allow for the use of evidence obtained abroad (extraterritorial use of evidence)? If yes,
under which conditions?
18. Have coercive measures been introduced in such a way that they could definitely preclude fair trial norms?
19. Were special measures introduced in your country for the protection of the secrecy of witnesses, victims,
judges, etc.?
V. Trial setting (criminal proceedings, special proceedings)
20. When dealing with serious offences, does your legal system foresee special rules concerning
- jurisdiction? If yes, what is the jurisdiction rationae materiae?
- the organization of the trial, including the setting up of special tribunals?
- the protection of the secrecy of witnesses, victims, judges, etc.?
- evidence and proof at trial? Can shielded or secret evidence be used in ex parte proceedings? Is there a public
interest exception to disclosure of evidence and cross-examination? Can evidence in favour of the suspect be
deleted in special circumstances?
- the evaluation of evidence?
21. When dealing with serious offences, does your legal system fully provide for - the right of the suspect/accused/detained person to an independent and impartial tribunal?
- the presumption of innocence at the trial or does it foresee special rules (presumption of liability or accountability, reverse of the burden of proof)?
- the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined as soon as
possible (habeas corpus)?
- the maxim in dubio pro reo?
- the procedural rights of parties (equality of arms, fair trial)?
• the right to a public trial with an audience;
• the right to an oral, fair hearing and adversarial proceedings;
• the right to be present at the trial;
• the right of the counsel to have access to all criminal case records;
• the right to be informed without delay of the offence charged;
• the right to full disclosure of the state's case and to adequate time to prepare a
• defence;
• the right to internal (between parties involved) and external publicity of the
• proceedings;
• the right to examine the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witness on his
behalf under the same conditions as the witness against him; special measures for new cyber techniques (video-
- 69 -
Brazil
conferencing, etc.); special measures concerning shielded or protected witnesses (undercover agents, agents of
intelligence forces)?
• the right to have free assistance of an interpreter;
• the right not to be a witness in proceedings against oneself;
VI. Post-trial setting (criminal, special proceedings)
22. When dealing with terrorism and serious offences, did your legal system modify
- the right of a higher court to review the sentence (appeal, cassation, constitutional review)?
- the prohibition of double jeopardy, following either an acquittal or finding of guilt and punishment?
1. To what extent do international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law treaties (Geneva conventions) apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of
these international standards in your country? Can citizens (suspects, accused, victims, witnesses...)
derive rights from these treaties in your domestic legal order?
Brazil, as part of the system of inter-American human rights, signs and ratifies the Convention Inter-American
Human Rights1 and accepts the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Human Rights Court since 19982. At the same
time, and is a signatory of the Pact of Civil and Political Rights in New York and adheres to the Geneva Conventions regarding called "international humanitarian law" and, moreover, formally integrates an entire international
order dedicated on human rights.
The discussions on the differentiated regulatory framework gained impetus after editing the Constitution of the
Republic of 19883 which, in its original version, permitted the understanding of the rules are contained in international texts holders of constitutional status, as well as the principles provided therein, set of standards that, often,
is broader than original writing of the CR/88 and, undoubtedly, broader than Criminal Procedure Code and Penal
Code which are dated from 40 years of last century, created in a period of exception to the rule of Right.
With the constitutional amendment n. 45, 2004 there was significant modification of the original writing of the
constitutional text, going to provide a complex legislative process for the incorporation of international texts that,
once completed, provides these international standards of constitutional hierarchy in the range of constitutional
amendments. This movement for constitutional reform was due to a severe fission in case law and dogmatic on
the scope of international standards in law, is to understand what would be its effective normative place in the
hierarchy, to be designing them in confrontation with the law than with the Constitution would not be in accordance.
Engaging understanding of the incorporation of such treaties in the midst of the Constitution and therefore hierarchically superior to all texts under-constitutionals and able to extend the original constitutional text itself, many
scholars have created a new theoretical framework which sought - and still does - new levels to discuss issues
such as sovereignty and the relationship of traditional normative sources, say, law, with those from the international agreement.
With solid arguments in the opposite direction to the current above, it must be stressed that most resistance felt
the assumption of the new paradigm occurs mainly for maintenance, in the Supreme Court4, to not conceive the
CADH5 as possessing constitutional level. The issue is known at various points, one is highlighted so paramount
in the Brazilian case, which is, the issue of civil imprisonment due a not compliance with contractual duties (cf.
judgment of Habeas Corpus n°72.131-1988).
Note, however, that with the change of the composition of the STF in recent years, significant change can be felt
at that point and, at the time when this work is produced, there is decision in drafting consolidated the understanding that accrues to the compatible constitutional text with the CADH already mentioned.
Ratified in 25.09.1992.
Since 10.12.1998
3 Hereinafter CR/88
4 Hereinafter also designed as STF
5 Human Rights Inter-American Convention
11
2
- 70 -
Brazil
The form of incorporation of international treaties in Brazilian law - and not just its legislative hierarchy - is subject
of tough discussions since the entry into force of the Constitution which, in its original wording, not expressly
provided difference between the way of entry into force of a treaty or convention, in view of the matter it contains.
Thus, both the international acts, which deal with human rights, such as those that relate to trade rules, followed
the same procedure, a priori.
Generally, in accordance with the provisions of art. 84 of the Constitution of the Republic, it privately to the President of the Republic, "VIII - conclude treaties, conventions and international acts, subject to referendum of the
National Congress", which, however, the sole responsibility of the National Congress, pursuant to art. 49, "settle
on treaties, international agreements or acts which entail charges or commitments costlier the national patrimony." The treaties and international conventions, which provide for the principle of universality, not import
charges or duties to the national patrimony, because there are concluded by the President. Dependent, however,
approval by the National Congress, by legislative decree issued by the Presidency of the Senate, so that they
can be ratified.
After ratification, a final stage: the executive, through a Presidential Decree, it ratified the text published in the
Official Journal, giving it thus publicity and effectiveness. Thus, steps can be summarized as follows: a) signing of
the treaty or convention, the President of the Republic, b) dispatch of Legislative Decree by the President of the
Senate, allowing the Executive to ratify it, c) ratification d) publication of the promulgation of Presidential Decree
on the Official Gazette, from the treaty or convention is in force, forcing the state to its compliance and embedding itself to the law.
However, if on how to introduce the road was covered as above described, authorized voices as André de Carvalho Ramos wrote down the self-versed enforceability of treaties on human rights and its insertion into the constitutional level, and supported by broad lesson doctrinaire, said that the Constitution of 1988 automatically incorporated the standards of international human rights treaties ratified by Brazil, but in view of differences with the
case law (see above topic) and the doctrine suggested the adoption of a "third way", which was, " the acceptance
of the compatibility of constitutional rules with international norms protecting human rights as absolute presumption, in the face of the principles of the 1988 Constitution. "
The self-proclaimed enforceability of treaties on human rights is, however, rejected by the constitutional necessity
of the incorporation internal upon ratification of the text in the way described above, is not enough, therefore, his
mere signature to generate effects on the national legal scene. However, once ratified, is payable immediately
without the need for regulatory standard due the nature of the form of application of fundamental rights and can
be invoked instantly for any persons who are involved in criminal prosecution, regardless of standards for integration and complementation.
Nevertheless, the discussion in the form exposed, it must be clarified that the employment of international texts
mentioned in this work still occurs residually in the practice, with rare exceptions as the contractual issue quoted
above. It is not possible, on a broad, saying that even a document with the importance of CADH is employed as
ground in judicial decisions in criminal proceedings contrasting to the overrun text of the Code of Criminal Procedure and supplementing the Constitution. If we consider such employment as a synonym of evolution of the legal
system, we can conclude that it is still slow and timid, with sporadic moments of employment. In a degree even
more distant, is the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as a parameter to be regarded.
2. What important legislative reforms were carried out in your country in the last decades in the interest
of national/global security and public safety? Are there currently any such reform plans? (brief description)
Despite the perennial talk of the impossibility of a comprehensive reform of the Criminal Procedure Code, there
were numerous Acts after 1988. At the same time as reforms to change off the Code of Criminal Procedure had
space on concern of the academic community, a new legal framework was built during the 90 years last century.
We can see now clearly that it consisted in a solid movement by which it was organized a complete system truly
parallel to the discussion of constitutional grounds, introducing a whole fate of instruments that, in despite the
absence of a specific name in the Brazilian doctrine, we opted to call it borrowing the nomenclature arising from
Italian law: the emergency system.
- 71 -
Brazil
We can identify the following Acts for the analysis of this "system": (i) Provisional Measure 111/89 and Law No.
7.960/89 available on the temporary prison, (ii) Law No. 8.072/90 heinous crimes, (iii) Law No. 8.930/94, heinous
crimes, (iv) Law No. 9.695/98 heinous crimes, (v) Law No. 9.034/95 organized crime, (vi) Law No. 9.271/96
laundering of money, (vii) Law No. 9.613/98 seizure of assets of illicit origin, (viii) Law No. 9807/99 collaboration
with justice and protection program for witnesses and victim, (ix) Law No. 10.217/01 hijacks and environmental
agents infiltrated (amended the arts. 1 and . 2 of Law no. 9.034de 3.05.1995), (x) Provisional Measure 27002 and
Law No. 10.446/02 authorizing intervention by the Federal Police in ongoing research in any State, (xi) Act 10.
792/03 created the disciplinary regime distinguished from criminal enforcement.
- Did the reforms amend the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement, or did they
elaborate an alternative track of special proceedings (military justice, police justice, administrative justice, military commissions, etc.) outside the regular criminal justice system?
This set of rules called emergency coexists in the same legal area of criminal procedure so called "ordinary".
Thus understood the term, is to escape from other usual confusion about the term emergency in the constitutional field, which is linked to the exceptions of the rule of law constitutionally provided. Canotilho indicates that
"the right of the State need only be compatible with a democratic rule of law, constitutionally formed when the law
itself is fixing the fundamental assumptions, the skills, tools, procedures and the legal consequences of the"
Constitution of exception ".6
Thus, the emergency legislation endowed with large increase of power of police, creating forms of prison before
the conviction - prisons called "procedural" or "precautionary" in the Brazilian language -, tightening of penalties
for charging into abstract of the crime and a large tolerance the production of proof even by illegal means,
whether in the daily cultural projects of the criminal proceedings.
D. The criminal Court practice played some role in the definition and implementation of the reforms?
It may not be possible to understand uniformly the role of judicial practice in the reformist movement. But much
more than the judicial practice in the strict sense, the police practice in the broad sense was crucial to some of
the reforms that culminated in the legislation, labeled emergency, which can be seen on the law governing the
“temporary detention”, which entered in force by the Provisional Measure No 111, November 24, 1989, and was
confirmed with little change in the final version by Law in 7960 of December 21 the same year. This is the formalization of a already know practice in the existing plan of the activities of police.
It must to be pointed also, that culture outcome from inquisitorial model of our Procedural Criminal Code is a
perennial reality, as observed at several opportunities by academicals segments engaged with the need of comprehensive legal reform and cultural practices on criminal proceedings. So, as the emergency framework tend to
increase the inquisitorial concept of process, the practice Court play a little innovative role to create new legal
tools in accordance with the Constitution and international standard. Can be said that the case law and the Court
cultural practices sustain the inquisitorial model in general terms.
Regarding the control of the constitutionality of the standards mentioned above there has been, in general, any
restriction imposed by the Judiciary. Alone can be relied on two issues that were analyzed by STF: one concerns
the possibility of the so called “investigate power” by the judge even during the pre-trial investigation; other, concerns the method of penalty compliance in crimes called "heinous ".
The first case was considered by STF when was claimed by the Brazilian Marshalls Association (ADEPOL) the
constitutionality control - ADIn 1517 – on a rule that allowed the judge to take investigative measures motu proprio, according to the original provision of the Act 9034-95 ( Act on organized crime). This claim has never been
judged on merit because the STF decided that the author was not part legitimacy to propose it. However, there
was a preliminary decision on which was anticipated that the rule questioned was relevant to the Constitution.
Some excerpts of that decision deserve attention of how the issue was understood by the Court:
6
CANOTILHO, J.J. Gomes. "Direito Constitucional e Teoria da Constituição", Coimbra, Almedina, 2ª ed., 1998, p. 973
- 72 -
Brazil
"In principle, it seems acceptable understanding that if certain steps, preserved by secrecy, can be made only by
prior judicial authorization, so there is no constitutional or legal impediment to the judge himself, without the aid of
the police, take care of those investigating measures as a proper act of the magistrate.
Being provided in the Constitution the Judicial protection of individual rights and guarantees, there is no way to
imagine him to be forbidden act, directly or indirectly, in search of substantial truth on the performance of the
tasks of criminal investigation, because these do not constitute monopoly the exercise of the activities of police.
Wanting to elevate the condition of inquisitorial process or innovation of the investigating judge, mere diligence to
be performed by the Judge, in the assessment of the deplorable crime, I think is going too far. It is extremism that
is not compatible with the reality of the rules challenged that only draft behavior particular to the magistrate in
exceptional situation, or gives the appropriate remedy to, without delay, to allow him immediate action in the
lifting of data and information that can become essential in combating this mode of crime today in the course."
In the other case, in 2006, after years of doctrinal and case law discussions, the STF examined the unconstitutionality of Law 8072-90 (first law governing the so-called "heinous crimes") which, in Article 2, Paragraph 1,
prevented the parole. In the trial of habeas corpus 82.959-7 decided to close by that majority rule was unconstitutional.
Were the reforms subject to political or public debate?
In general we cannot say there has been a public debate on the wider reform on emergency legal framework. Not
even the very perception of the creation of this subsystem, as described above, can be considered as perceived
by a large part of the Brazilian academics. However, it is to be highlighted the role of the media in creating those
standards and, particularly in the issue of "heinous crimes".
The alleged need for the prevision of heinous crime appeared during the drafting works of the Constitution, when
coincidently several kidnappings occurred victimizing notorious people. Obviously the media gave great importance to those facts and claimed - allegedly in name of the Brazilian society - new rules on that subject. Therefore, in its original version, Act 8.072/90 inserted three property crimes in the role of the heinous: the robbery with
murder (latrocínio), extortion through kidnapping and extortion qualified for the event death. Beside them, the act
to provoke epidemic with outcome death, the rape and violent sexual attack other than rape. Important to note
that within the legislative purposes, no crime against life – homicide as considered by the Criminal Code - was
included in the catalogue.
Later, in 1994 (Act 8930, on Sept. 6 of that year), added to that list the homicide practiced by the group of extermination, even if committed by a single person, and all forms of qualified homicide. This inclusion happened due
a case that victimized person of notoriety at the time, official of a large conglomerate of communication. It is
correct to state, before such a historical development, that the insult to life assumed prominence of heinously by
a mere coincidence.
In the same axiological context was included by the Act 9695, August 20, 1998, to be a forgery heinous crime,
corruption, tampering or alteration of products for therapeutic or medicinal purposes. This happened after the
discovery by the media of many cases of administrative irregularities in the supervision of those products, exposing the fragility - and a good dose of disinterest - of government in this activity.
As to the debate "political", this followed the pace of the media on several opportunities. Indeed, if we take as an
example the law mentioned in the paragraph above, we can see that his legislative process was really frenetic,
driven by journalistic matter conveyed by the media of larger national audience. As soon as the news was, at the
first opportunity following legislative there was a presentation of the draft law (18/06/1998) and thence to the
transformation of the project into law, which occurred on August 20, 1998, discounting the parliamentary recess
(July) there has been no more than a month of "discussions", which happened actually in one day (August 12,
1998).7
When not driven directly by the media as in the case above, the legislative process - here understood as a synonym of "political debate" - may even have been slow. This seems to have been the case with Brazilian law to
7
On this subject see http://jornalhoje.globo.com/JHoje/0,19125,VJP0-3062-90542,00.html, accessed in 09.01.08, at 11:00 h.
- 73 -
Brazil
combat organized crime (Act 9034-95), which was born as draft law 3536-1989, presented on August 24, 1989,
which was stable in the Senate, June 28, 1990 until November 3, 1994, and transformed into law only in the
following year.
3. What are the general principles of your criminal procedure (e.g., principle of legality, fair justice, equality of arms) and what is their legal source (e.g.,constitution, statute)?
From the CR and the CADH get up the entire structure of criminal procedural principles applicable in Brazilian
law, which are naturally present in a legal-political model of rule of law and understanding of the so-called "due
legal process"8, as this term is perceived by the national literature. A great source of the constitutional procedural
principles (not just criminal) is presented in the article 5, where can be found those relating to the jurisdiction, and
action process. We cannot, however, fail to consider that procedural principles can be found elsewhere in the
CR, as the exposition of the grounds of decisions.
Thus, when observed criminal procedure by the rights of the defendant, deserves highlighting human dignity as
the guiding principle of the whole of the criminal prosecution - and the entirely constitutional system, and expresses itself in rules of treatment such as failure to be subjected to torture9, the right to information10, right to not
make evidence against himself - this explicitly brought by the CADH and not by CR - particularly here highlighted
the right to remain in silence.
At this point, as largely conceived, equality11 and legality12 both composing the system, with the presumption of
innocence13, the core of the criminal proceedings. It can be concluded from the constitutional structure that freedom throughout the process are to be regarded as a general rule, meanwhile prison performed an exceptional
rule during the proceedings.
About the jurisdiction there is the principle of the “proper judge” in its two "dimensions" (forbid the “post factum”
Court, and the Court established by a previous legal framework)14 and the "undeniable control of the Court"15,
which is manifested, among other instruments, in habeas corpus, writ of mandamus and habeas data16, as well
as the right to appeal (double degree of jurisdiction), and the exposed grounds of decisions17. Must be observed
also the guarantees of organic Magistracy18 and the Prosecutor Office19 that tend to ensure the impartiality of the
functioning of Justice.
Art. 5°, LIV. no one may be deprived of his or her freedom or assets without due process of law.
Art. 5°, III. no one shall be submitted to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment;
10 Art. 5°, LXIII. the arrested person has to be informed of his or her rights, amongst which is the right to remain silent, and the
arrested person shall be assured of the assistance of his or her family and of legal counsel; LXIV. the arrested person is
entitled to identification of the persons responsible for his or her arrest or police interrogation;
11 Art. 5°, I. men and women have equal rights and duties under this Constitution
12 Art. 5°, II. no one shall be obliged to do or not to do something other than by virtue of law;
13 Art. 5°, VII. no one may be considered guilty until the criminal sentence has become final and unappealable;
14 Art. 5°, LIII. no one shall be sued or sentenced other than by the proper authority; XXXVII. there shall be no extraordinary
court or tribunal.
15 Art. 5°, XXXV. the law shall not exclude from review by the Judiciary any violation of or threat to a right
16 Art. 5°, LXVIII. the right to habeas corpus is granted whenever someone suffers or believes he or she is threatened by
violence or coercion in his or her freedom of movement, by illegal act, or abuse of power; LXIX. a writ of mandamus shall be
issued to protect a clear legal right which is not protected by habeas corpus or habeas data, when the party responsible for
the illegal act or abuse of power is a public authority or an agent of a legal entity performing government duties; LXX. a collective writ of mandamus may be filed by: a) a political party, represented in Congress;
17 Art. 93, IX. all judgements of bodies of the Judiciary Branch are public, and all decisions must be substantiated, under
penalty of being null, and the law may, if the public interest so requires, limit attendance in given acts to only the interested
parties and their attorneys, or only to the latter.
18 Art. 95: Judges enjoy the following guarantees: I. life tenure, which, at first instance, shall only be acquired after two years
in office and, during this period, loss of office is determined by the court to which they belong and, in other cases, by a final
and unappealable court decision; II. irremovability, except by reason of public interest, according to Article 93 VIII; III. irreducibility of earnings
8
9
- 74 -
Brazil
Relative the exercise of the penal action there is the principle on accusation exclusively to the public prosecutor20, preventing the exercise by Judges or administrative authorities and subject to control, when your inaction,
by the injured person21. About liability must be regarded not only the possibility of individual older than eighteen
years old22 and also the possibility of legal person be indicted so exclusively on environmental criminal actions23.
It deserves equal attention to the impossibility of submission to double trial by the same fact (double jeopardy)
and as a general rule the statute of limitations, except in specific cases for which the CR itself determines otherwise (racism affairs and crimes against national security)24.
For the regular development of the process, as principles on contradictory and full defense - understood here in
the self defense and technical defense25- publicity of procedural acts26, inability to produce unlawful evidence27,
and as a result of the system, the right to appropriate procedure is present. Explicitly inserted by Constitutional
Amendment No 45/2004 deserves particular attention the principle of reasonable delay of the procedure, despite
its existence now could be yet extracted from CADH.
It is not possible, within the limits of this study, to demonstrate how the Brazilian case law and doctrine give life to
each of those principles in specific cases and thus gives the interpretation parameters. Realizing, however, the
culture of the inquisitorial model of process, is to be punctuated that often the interpretation used not always
coincide with that expected in a model of procedural rule of law.
4. At what stage(s) of the criminal process does your legal system provide for
- the presumption of innocence?
- the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against
himself or to confess guilt?
In general this set of principles must be observed since pre-trial investigation. Both presumption of innocence
and the right to remain silent are present since a person is considered as a suspect. Following this structure the
detention in pre-trial investigation or before sentencing must be considered only as instrumental one, in the
sense that they cannot configure an anticipate penalty. As will see beneath, there must be show as evidences or
even proofs the grounds of suspicions that under the article 312 from the Criminal Procedure Code stands those
species of prison.
Regarding the right to remain in silence Brazilian legal framework, after a reform in 2003 (articles 185 and furthers from CPP) underlines that the person has the right to not speak and in this circumstance can be not used
against the suspect /defendant. In despite those provisions, there is no control when the trial by jury since the
jurors are not obliged to expose the grounds of the verdicts and a defendant that not speaks can be prejudiced.
Anyway, the nemo tenetur se detegere principle gives to the suspect/defendant the possibility not only to remain
in silent as well the right to not participate actively or passively of any proof or evidence against him/his since pretrial investigation. Those issues can be observed in any type of prosecution, no matter the crime prosecuted
since the CR cannot distinguish those situations.
Art 128 CR/88 with the same provision above.
Art.
129:
The
following
are
institutional
functions
of
the
Attorney
General's
Office;
I. to institute, with exclusivity, public criminal action, as set forth in the law;
21 Art. 5°, LIX. private prosecution against public offenses shall be admitted if public prosecution is not filed within the period
established by law;
22 Article 228: Minors under eighteen years of age may not be held criminally liable, subject to the rules of special legislation.
23 Art. 225, §3°: Conduct and activities considered harmful to the environment shall subject the individual or corporate wrongdoers to penal and administrative sanctions, in addition to the obligation to repair the damages caused.
24 Art. 5°, XLII. the practice of racism is a crime not entitled to bail or to the statute of limitations, and subject to imprisonment,
according to the law; XLIV. the acts of civilian or military armed groups, against the constitutional and democratic order, are
crimes not entitled to bail or subject to the statute of limitations;
25 Art. 5°, LV. litigants in court or administrative proceedings and defendants in general are assured of the use of the adversary system and of full defense, with the means and remedies inherent thereto;
26 Art. 5°, LX. the law may only restrict publicity of procedural acts when it is necessary to defend privacy or social interests;
27 Art. 5°, LVI. evidence obtained through unlawful means is inadmissible in the proceedings;
19
20
- 75 -
Brazil
5. Does your common criminal procedure or special proceedings provide for a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, nationals or non-nationals, or specific categories of subjects (aliens, enemies,
non-persons)?
All constitutional principles can be legally required for all people, regardless of their nationality or origin. This
stems from the writing of the Constitution of the Republic expressed in your article Art 5: "All are equal before the
law, without distinction of any kind, guaranteeing up to Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country the inviolability of the right to life, liberty, equality, security and property ...". This perception of widespread ownership of
fundamental rights is verified in several decisions of the STF.
6. Does your legal system allow for the suspension of human rights in emergency situations (including
war)?
- What safeguards may be suspended? Does your legal system distinguish between
derogable and non-derogable human rights?
- Can emergency serve as a ground to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings
(military forum, police procedure, administrative procedure, military commissions)?
The Constitution of the Republic has two possible mechanisms of supervision of the democratic state and law
namely, the rule of defense and the State of site.
The State of Defense in CR art 136 provides that "The President may, heard the Council of the Republic and the
Council of National Defense, declared state of defense to preserve or promptly reestablish, in places strict and
certain, public order or social peace threatened by grave and imminent instability institutional or affected by disasters of major proportions in nature. "
The State Defense is founded upon the idea of "institutional instability" or in the occurrence of disasters, with the
criteria defined in the occurrence of specific legislation and allows, for time, restrictions on the rights of:
A) meeting, even if exercised within the associations;
B) secrecy of correspondence;
C) secrecy of data and telephone communication;
II - temporary occupancy and use of public goods and services, in the case of public calamity, answering the
Union for damages and costs. "
The state of defense shall not exceed thirty days, may be extended once, for equal time, if they continue the
reasons that justified their existence. The procedure is scheduled for renewal in the same article.
During the occurrence of the state of defense are forecasting specific on certain regimes ordinary prison and
freedom of the content of art. 136, § 3, namely:
I - to prison for crime against the state, determined by the executor of the measure, this will be communicated
immediately to the competent Court that the released the defendant, if not legal the grounds of prison, provided
the prisoner require examination of the body of the police crime;
II - notification shall be accompanied by a statement by the authority, the state of physical and mental arrested at
the time of his detention;
III - the arrest or detention of any person shall not exceed ten days, unless authorized by the Court;
IV – is prohibited confinement of the prison. "
Overall, however, not disagree with the legislation in "normal" period, exception made to the topic III regarding
heinous crimes, when the prison could be 30 days extendible same period.
Already the "state of site" emerges as a far more onerous in the face of the inefficiency of the "state of defense"
or even when "declaration of state of war or armed response to foreign aggression", and such a measure also
initiative of the President of the Republic.
- 76 -
Brazil
In theory there is no forecast for constitutional guarantees that will be suspended, being disciplined by the decree
that set up the system of exception. However, as expressed provision (Art. 139) "In term of the state of site decreed on the basis of art. 137, I can only be taken against people the following measures: I - obligation to stay in
town determined; II - detention in building not for accused or convicted of common crimes; III - restrictions on the
inviolability of correspondence, the secrecy communications, the provision of information and freedom of press,
radio and television, in the form of law; IV - suspension of the freedom of assembly '; V - search and seizure at
home; VI - intervention in enterprises of public services; VII - requisition of property.
The affirmation of the rule of law and democratic stability make after 1988 the state of the site has not practical
application, leaving the application of the state of emergency only in cases of public calamity.
7. Does your legal system recognize special measures by which parts of the legislation and/or parts of
the criminal process may be classified (classified legislation, secret procedures, secret actors of justice,
secrecy in the administration of criminal justice)?
The concept of the "secret legislation" does not exist in Brazil. Practice this historical sense, however, are recorded mainly in civil dictatorship of Getulio Vargas government (1930-1945).
The secrecy of the investigation and criminal proceedings are, however, regulated by CR and the Code of Criminal Procedure and are, in fact, controversial issues, particularly with regard to the restriction of access to the file
for defendant attorneys in certain cases.
About this issue, in the Habeas Corpus No 82354, reported by the Justice Sepúlveda Pertence, among other
things, has left itself settler that i) is perfectly possible to manage up the habeas corpus to discuss the matter
because …, ii) despite not apply the guarantees of contradictory and the wide defense to the pre-trial investigation, there are, nevertheless, "the rights indicted in the course of the investigation, including to have the assistance of counsel, not to incriminate and to keep in silence", iii ) "plexus of rights to which the holder is indicted primary interested in the administrative procedure of the police investigation and instrument - corollary is the
prerogative of lawyers for access to their file, explicitly granted by the Statute Law (Law No. 8.906/94, art . 7,
XIV)… "
Nevertheless, later dismissed the e. STJ back drastically when surprisingly said that "It is not right amount and
right of the lawyer to file the unrestricted access of police investigation that is being conducted under secrecy, the
secrecy of the information is vital to the investigation. The principle of broad protection does not apply to the
police investigation, which is mere administrative procedure of investigation inquisitorial. As the secrecy essential
to the conduct of investigations, set up the prevalence of the public interest over the private. (STJ - - 17691 - date
of the decision: 22/02/2005 – Justice Gilson Dipp).
8. Does your legal system allow for the use of intelligence information (e.g., general police intelligence,
national or foreign intelligence services information) in criminal proceedings, such as
- evidence for probable cause for using coercive measures on goods and on
persons (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, and detention);
Brazilian Act n. 10.217, 11.04.2001, which amended the articles. 1° and 2. º of the Law no. 9,034 of 3.05.1995,
(which has on the use of resources operational for the prevention and prosecution of shares charged by criminal
organizations), introduced two innovations already verifiable in comparative law:
(I) The capture and environmental interception of electromagnetic signals, optical or acoustic, and his record and
analysis, through detailed judicial authorization;
(II) The infiltration by agents of police or intelligence, in tasks of research, consisting of the relevant specialized
bodies through detailed judicial authorization.
In both cases, the judicial order will be strictly confidential and will remain in this condition until the last infiltration.
The temporality of the measures is foreseen in the art. 2: "at any stage of criminal prosecution are allowed, sub-
- 77 -
Brazil
ject to those already provided by law, the following procedures for research and training of evidence." The use of
"infiltrated agents" is achievable by agents of police or intelligence, in any phase of the pursuit.
The use of the infiltration of agents was common during periods of exception to the rule of law in Brazil. But as
regular mechanism and supposedly compatible with the rule of law your use is unprecedented, where still be
restricted their theoretical analysis and their understanding case law. However, in general, is the wide use of any
information in the criminal investigation as support for the final judgment, provided that such information has
been obtained by lawful means. Similarly, it is common information used to the police prior to establishment and
support these investigations. This set of positions already consolidated in our practice can therefore be extracted
as parameters of understanding to the topic of "infiltrated agents."
9 a. Do intelligence forces, regular police forces, or administrative enforcement agencies (such as customs or tax agencies) have the competence in your country to use coercive powers in a pro-active way?
If yes, - under which conditions?
- must there be a suspicion based on probable cause to use these coercive powers or are indications of
dangerousness for the national security or public interest sufficient? Has the definition of suspicion
been changed for serious offences?
- can these coercive powers be used for persons other than suspects/accused of crimes (e.g., enemy
combatants, enemy aliens, persons having no right to the protection of regular criminal procedure, etc.)?
- can the information obtained through the pro-active enforcement by means of use of coercive measures
be shared between intelligence, police, administrative enforcement agencies, and judicial authorities?
Overall, acting in reaction or pro-active way, there is no possibility of coercive measures on personal freedom be
adopted without judicial authorization. This derives from the indispensability of judicial control over the private
acts of freedom. This independent of the seriousness of the crime in assessment and only include restrictions on
the rule when the states of exception mentioned (state of defense and site).
9 b. Does your legal system allow for the use of tough forms of investigation techniques (torture or cruel,
unusual, or inhuman treatment) during pro-active enforcement, and, if yes, under which conditions?
What is the practice of your country in this field?
In the constitutional structure, as already explained, there is no possibility, under any basis, employment of torture or other treatments inhuman, cruel or degrading, whatever the type of crime in assessment and in any stage
of criminal prosecution.
Despite information obtained by non-governmental organizations and even by official bodies pointing Brazil as
the systematic violator of these restrictions, under Brazilian Courts there is no possibility of these mechanisms be
tolerated and evidence obtained by such means be accepted.
- the right to habeas corpus (arrest, detention, deportation, extraordinary rendition,
etc.)?
As explained above, restrictions on individual rights are possible only within the limits of the state of site and
defense. Outside these assumptions there can be no restriction on the employment of mechanisms such as
habeas corpus and habeas data, even in cases of "serious crime".
11. Did your legal system experience an increase of - investigative powers and coercive powers (search
and seizure, bugging and tapping, freezing orders, evidence production orders, arrest and detention,
infiltration, etc.) of the investigation authorities? If yes, in which way?
- 78 -
Brazil
Brazilian legal framework has the following mechanisms of research:
A) Seizure of property;
B) Disposal of assets precautionary;
C) Search and seizure of persons and things;
D) Telephonic surveillance;
E) Imprisonment precautionary;
F) Action controlled and infiltration of agents;
G) Environmental Recording;
H) Access to information and banking, financial and tax.
Brazilian Criminal Procedure Code regulates the search and seizure of persons and things. The Law n. 9034/95,
called Organized Crime Act, which provides for addition to telephonic surveillance, recording environment, the
infiltration of agents, the seizure of assets, access to information and banking, financial and fiscal, and flagrant
delayed, but not set what comes to criminal organization. The Law n. 9296/96, called Law of telephonic surveillance, which regulates their requirements and procedures for the interception of telephone communications,
including in information technology systems and telematic.
The Law n. 9613/98, called Law on Money Laundering provides for the seizure of property, rights or values related to the crime of money laundering. The Law n. 11343/06, called the Drugs Act, provides for the sale of assets seized and injunction related to the crime of drug trafficking, the infiltration of police officers and the possibility of flagrant delayed. Finally, the prison injunction is regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law n.
7960/89, under the designation of temporary prison, designed exclusively to the criminal investigation of preprocedural nature.
Important commit that all the mechanisms cited involve a fundamental right restriction, which requires not only
the requirement to forecast into law, but mainly the requirement of prior judicial control in each of the situations.
Regarding the cooperation of the suspect, Brazilian’s system incorporated a sort of plea which is the possibility of
being recognized to collaborators benefits ranging from the reduction of punishment until the judicial mercy.
However, that plea procedure is treated by Brazilian law in a confused way and without any terminological precision. The various terms used by the various laws that address the issue are "rewarded denunciation," "winning
collaboration", "according to tolerance" among others. Among the various laws that address the issue deserve
emphasis Laws n. 8072/90, 8137/90, 9807/99, 11343/06.
The plea is not qualify as duty but as disposal activity, because the collaboration is understood as a consequence of the self-defense, which, among others, provides the defendant the right to silence. Despite the forecast of the institute in many laws, the fact is that the plea needs better regulation, especially with regard to the
term, the form of the agreement, and the consequences in relation to penal action, prescription or execution of
the sentence in the case in which the defendant proposes the plea. In the Brazilian law is still very shy employment of this kind of plea, due the lack of culture by the authorities in criminal prosecution, but also in terms of the
inability of the State offers some kind of protection, secrecy or rear whosoever cooperates.
In other hand regarding international cooperation in criminal matters, must be observed that has been increasingly frequent the signing of bilateral agreements in order to expedite the exchange of information and the production of evidence. The old mechanism of “request letter” is qualified as the traditional mechanism of international criminal cooperation by Brazilian law. In case which Brazil is requested (passive mechanism), its ruled
before the Superior Court, in accordance of art. 105 of the CR, the amendment introduced by Constitutional
Amendment No 45/2004.
Important be realized that the Superior Court of Justice, differently than occurred when the jurisdiction ruled
before Supreme Court, has adopted a stance very pro-active regarding international cooperation, with emphasis
- 79 -
Brazil
on the acceptance of precautionary measures, as telephonic surveillance or even a breach of banking secrecy
and tax.
- from the judiciary (investigation magistrates, judges for the preliminary trial
setting) to the executive dealing with investigation (police, prosecutors, intelligence forces, administrative enforcement agencies, army)? If yes, how and to which extent?
Yes. The Federal Act Supplementary n. 101/00 allowed the Federal Police, in the exercise of its activity, has
access to bank information from taxpayers in order to allow a more efficient supervision on tax collection. Indeed,
even the COAF - Board of Control of Financial Activities, created from the Law n. 9613/98, the body linked to the
Ministry of Finance, has the function to identify the transactions suspected of the crime of money laundering and
responsibility for its delivery to the organs that act in criminal prosecution. The COAF operates without prejudice
to the competence and performance of other organs. In these situations, both the Federal Revenue as COAF
have access to information protected by banking secrecy without the need of Court order.
- From the public prosecutors to police, etc.? If yes, how and to what extent?
No. The Prosecutor Office and the Police are distinct, autonomous and independent bodies. CR in the art. 129,
prescribes the external control of the police activity by the criminal public prosecutor. Both institutions have a
common area of expertise, however, without any ties or hierarchical functional.
13. Did a specialization and/or centralization of the judicial investigative authorities take place in your
country?
Brazil adopted the accusatorial system since CR entered in force, disposing that only the Criminal Prosecutor
Office can pursuit. In despite of that remain in Procedural Penal Code issues giving to the Judge power to prosecute, e.g. art. 384, "caput”. For that reason we can conclude that does not exist the French “juge d’instruction” in
our legal framework, remaining to Police (in practical terms) and Criminal Prosecutors Office the duty to investigate. The extension – and even the legal possibility – of the investigative powers for CPO is now under judgment
before STF, and there is a clear tendency for its recognition.
During the investigation the judge carries the role of “judge of guarantees”, in the sense to keep the control of the
legality of acts performed, either in relation to the commitments needed on restricting a fundamental right.
14. Were the rules in your legal system changed on - the conditions to approve coercive measures (warrants) of the judiciary? If yes, how and to what extent? Has there been a redefinition of the probable
cause for warrants?
In our system coercive measures are precautionary in nature, requiring for their acceptance of the attendance
assumptions of the "prima facie iuris" and "periculum in mora", or the reasonableness of the law said and the risk
that non-acceptance the measure represents goal of the prosecution.
The concept of "reasonable evidence" or "sufficient evidence" is open and undetermined, which enables greater
freedom learning to judge. That does not mean, however, that this freedom of valuation is unlimited, on the contrary, every Court decision should be endowed with rational objective, in order to ensure an accurate understanding of their terms and enable their control. As Brazil adopted the system of rational persuasion or belief of free
motivated, the evidence is not of value pre-established, with the judge lend the weight it considers most appropriate to the peculiarities of the case. Obviously, the adjectives "sufficient or reasonable" seek emphasize the
importance of the decision on the rational evidence, but not quantify or qualify what is worth more or less.
- The compilation of the investigative dossier or on the disclosure of evidence in order to keep part of it
ex parte, thus not available for the defense?
All the evidence collection is available for the defense, even at the pre-trial, as reiterated understanding of the
Federal Supreme Court, to ensure access of lawyers to investigate the evidence produced during the investigation. This understanding is based on the right of defense provided for in Article art.5, LV, of the Federal Constitution, as well as the Complementary Law n. 8906/94, (Attorneys Statute), which provides access to such information as necessary prerogative to free exercise of the profession, also ensured constitutionally (Article 5, XIII).
- 80 -
Brazil
- Evidence in order to include the defendant as a source of evidence?
Brazilian law recognizes the status of the defendant as a source of evidence, because there is provision in the
Criminal Procedure Code the confession as a way of proof. Indeed, although, as already said, the plea of the
defendant, which can bring benefits, also identifies itself as a hypothesis that the defendant is also the source of
that evidence. However, it is important to emphasize that the figure of the accused as a source of proof is preceded by ensuring that the accused has the self, which covers, among others, the right to silence. Moreover,
even if it recognizes the defendant as a source of evidence, in the event of the confession is a limitation in the
negative evaluation by the Court, which cannot convict based on the sole and exclusive confession. It is not a
legal restriction, but a doctrinaire and legal construction, which does not qualify the confession as the most appropriate method for the reconstruction of a true past. The same does not occur when plea is request, so in that
situation the statements made by the defendant on acts committed by another person must be qualified as evidence and no exercise of self-defense.
- The conditions for arrest and detention? Does your legal system provide for possibilities of secret
arrest and detention, deportation, and extraordinary rendition without habeas corpus?
The Brazilian criminal procedure contains the following assumptions in prison before sentencing: temporary pretrial detention; prison before sentencing; arresting in cases of murder, whose are trailed by Jury, after the Grand
Jury decides on the file; The prison in flagrant, although scholars considers that is in reality a prison precautionary, expression of the police power.
Every prison injunction requires the care of the following assumptions: fumus commissis delicti and periculum
libertatis, respectively, proof of the alleged right on fact and authors, and the risk that the liberty of the suspects
/defendant represents to prosecution. Excepting the temporary pre-trial detention, scheduled in Law n. 7950/89,
the others are regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The most recent amendment and that deserves emphasis, refers to the Law No 11340/06, which deals with
domestic violence against women, which added the item IV to the art. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
assuming the warrant in pre-trial detention for the purpose of ensuring the implementation of the measures of
protection provided for in the aforementioned law. Among these measures, highlight is the removal of the author
of the crime out the home, a ban on approaching the victim (section 22, of Law n. 11340/06). In this case the
prison injunction does not relate to the purposes of criminal proceedings in order direct, but if qualifies as a tool to
protect the victim.
There is no legal provision on precautionary secret prisons. Moreover, in matter of habeas corpus the only restrictions were in the military prison for disciplinary transgression in prison and ordered during the exceptional
situation above describe in that it is forbidden to overrule the merits of prison, but not its legality.
Finally, with regard to the deportation, extradition and deportation of foreign, in all of these procedures is guaranteed access to justice, including by means of habeas corpus, importing a little bare nationality.
15. Were specific production orders (subpoena or not) introduced in your country for stored information
at disposal of the service providers (internet providers, travel agencies, air companies, credit card companies)?
The most significant innovation was introduced by Law n. 9613/98 (Law on Money Laundering), which became
mandatory communication by financial institutions of transactions suspected of money laundering to COAF Control of Operations and Financial Activities.
16. Is pre-trial evidence, gathered by police and judicial authorities, subject to judicial control (admissibility of pre-trial evidence) in your country? Are there special measures in the field of serious offences?
The criminal proceedings Brazilian includes two distinct phases: the pre-trial, and before the Court. The first one
is considered as a “non-judicial” phase, while the second one is undoubtedly “judicial”. The evidence obtained in
the pre-trial, as an exception to those which require the restriction fundamental right, are not subject to prior
judicial control. Where is required prior judicial control, we need a cognitive limitation to the judge, under penalty
of a breach of their impartiality.
- 81 -
Brazil
Regarding the most serious crimes, the system includes differentiated means of obtaining evidence, such as
telephone surveillance, the infiltration of agents, controlled the action and recording environment. All these
mechanisms, except at the telephone surveillance, lack of a more detailed regulation on the criteria for admission
and procedures.
17. Does your country allow for the use of evidence obtained abroad (extraterritorial use of evidence)? If
yes, under which conditions?
Yes. The evidence obtained abroad, as requests for the production of evidence by another country to Brazil,
orients itself according to the procedure of the requested State, which often leads to no usefulness of the evidence because of the diversity of legal systems. However, with the signing of bilateral agreements in criminal
matters by Brazil, this cooperation has been a significant advance, inasmuch as it acknowledges the possibility of
following the procedure of the requesting State, provided that not contrary to public policy and sovereignty of the
State required.
In cases which Brazil is the state required, the resolution n.09 of the Superior Court of Justice establishes the
requirements and limitations to the processing of requests for assistance made by the foreign.
18. Have coercive measures been introduced in such a way that they could definitely preclude fair trial
norms?
No. The recognition by the state Brazilian human rights as a value to be managed not legitimizes any measure
that can mitigate the guarantee of fair trial. The security of the process and of the fair trial is based on the guarantee of due legal process, contradictory and the wide defense, and the natural judge, which represent the structure
of the ethics process criminal Brazil.
19. Were special measures introduced in your country for the protection of the secrecy of witnesses,
victims, judges, etc.?
The Law n. 9.807/99 regulates the protection of victims, witnesses and defendants collaborators in research or
criminal proceeding. There is no prediction as to the protection of judges, members of the public prosecutor and
lawyers.
Among the measures of protection provided for by law, deserves highlight the possibility of change in the name
of the person and records protected; safety in the home, including control of telecommunications, the temporary
suspension of functional activities, notwithstanding their salaries, benefits, when public or military in secrecy in
relation to acts performed on the occasion of the protection granted.
All measures, although they like the maximum term of two years, are renewable indefinitely, if necessary to ensure the safety of persons protected.
The National System of Assistance to Victims and Witnesses Endangered comprises the Federal Program of
Assistance to Victims and Witnesses Endangered, regulated by Decree n. 3.518/00 and managed by the Special
Secretariat for Human Rights, and the state programs of protection.
Currently already are 10 (ten) states which comprise the system: Bahia, Espirito Santo, Goias, Mato Grosso do
Sul, Minas Gerais, Pará, Pernambuco, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul and Sao Paulo. Such programs, implemented through agreement concluded between its Secretary of Justice and / or Public Security and the Secretary of State for Human Rights, have capacity attendance average of thirty (30) beneficiaries, among witnesses,
victims and their families or dependants. The situations of protection registered in states which have not yet
incorporated the system are met by the Federal Program.
The programs to protect the victims and witnesses have threatened its operation and operation achieved through
structures specially delineated for that purpose, as the law provides n. 9.807/99: Deliberative Council, Executor
Body, Technical Team and Solidarity Network Protection.
Each program has as a superior instance On Deliberative Council, responsible for the admission and exclusion of
people affected, and is composed of representatives of the Judiciary, the prosecutor and public and private bodies related to public safety and protection of human rights.
- 82 -
Brazil
The implementation of the activities is under the responsibility of one of the entities that comprise the Deliberative
Council, called by the Law of the Executor Service, who is to conduct the hiring of the Technical Team and to the
articulation of Solidarity Network Protection. In the Technical Team, formed by professionals specially recruited
and trained for the task, it is the effectiveness of social assistance, legal and psychological, necessary both for
the analysis of the need for protection and the adequacy of the cases to the program, and for the constant monitoring of recipients. The Solidarity Network of Protection, finally, is the number of civil associations, organizations
and other non-governmental organizations who have volunteered to receive admitted to the program, providing
them with housing and opportunities for social integration in place of habitual residence diverse.
Thus, the news that a victim or witness at risk is brought to the Deliberative Council, which decides on its inclusion in the Program for considering both the analysis of the case made by the Technical Team and the opinion of
the criminal prosecutor Office (Law No 9,807 / 99, art. 3). The Body Executor then provides the transport and
accommodation of the data confidential location within the Network Protection. In emergency situations, the
victim or witness is placed provisionally in custody by the police organs, as is the screening of the case.
Due the continental dimensions of the country, the system allows for the exchange of beneficiaries among the
various protection networks, providing the displacement of endangered person to another State, and the secrecy
of their new whereabouts is used as expedient guarantor of their security and integrity. All beneficiaries of the
programs remain available to the Justice, the police and other authorities to ensure that, where required, to attend in person to give evidence in criminal proceedings, which appear as victims or witnesses. These movements and displacements are always carried out under police escort and, as the requirements of each case are
used techniques for the screening and disguise the person at risk. The requirements for entry in the program are:
a) Location of risk. The person must be "forced or exposed to severe threat" (art. 1, caput). Obviously it is not
necessary that the coercion or threat has already have accompli, and the very existence of elements that demonstrate the likelihood that it is liable to occur. The situation of risk, however, must be current, b) List of causality.
The situation of risk to which he is the person must flow from the cooperation it provided to prosecution in attached as victim or witness (art. 1, caput). Thus, people under threat or coercion motivated by any other factors
not behave ticket in the programs, c) personality and conduct compatible. The persons to be included in the
programs must have personality and conduct consistent with the restrictions of behavior associated with them
(Article 2, § 2), failing to put at risk the other persons protected, the technical teams and the network of protection
as a whole. So why the decision to ticket only be taken after the completion of an interview conducted by a multidisciplinary team, including a psychologist, and the protected can be excluded when reveal conduct incompatible (art. 10, II, "b"), d) None limitations on freedom. It is necessary that the person is in the enjoyment of his
freedom, why are excluded "who are convicted fulfilling penalty and indicted or accused under precautionary
detention on any of its modalities" (Article 2, Paragraph 2), citizens who already are in custody of the State, e) the
concordance of the protected person. The entry into programs, the security restrictions and other measures they
have adopted will always have the science and agreement of the person to be protected, or their legal representative (Article 2, § 3), which will be expressed as in the Statement of Commitment signed moment of inclusion.
- evidence and proof at trial? Can shielded or secret evidence be used in ex parte proceedings? Is there a
public interest exception to disclosure of evidence and cross-examination? Can evidence in favour of the
suspect be deleted in special circumstances?
The first example is provided in Article 109, VA of the Federal Constitution, whose writing has been amended by
Constitutional Amendment n° 45, which establishes the jurisdiction of Federal judge to prosecutions on human
rights. Indeed it is subsidiary jurisdiction of Federal Justice, which has the assumption the inability or even the
- 83 -
Brazil
impossibility of the State jurisdiction to provide a fair trial, in the view of the interest of the victims or the accused.
The mechanism takes place at the Federal Supreme Court on the initiative of the Attorney-General of the Republic.
Another example of differentiated jurisdiction refers to crimes of money laundering and committed by criminal
organization under the Federal Justice. Such crimes, in accordance with Resolution No 314 and 517 of the Federal Council of Justice, are under the jurisdiction of federal criminal branches specializing in crimes against the
national financial system and of money laundering or concealment of property, rights and values.
The organization of the Judicial Branch and the rules regulating Court activity among their bodies are envisaged
in the Federal Constitution, the Judicial Branch Statute, the Code of Criminal Procedure, no codified criminal
Acts, states constitutions and the respective laws of Judicial Organization . This distribution is meant to meet the
content of the security of the judge in its natural broader sense, which prevents the possibility of creating special
Courts.
The Brazilian law provides for the secrecy of justice, however, emphasized that the restriction on public trial does
not reach stakeholders of the process. The possibility is justified based on the fear that a full open trial is potentially harmful to the security of the parties, victims, judges, among others. The Federal Law n. 9.807/99 provides
for the establishment of programs to protect witnesses, victims and even to the defendant cooperating with the
investigation, and this protection also covers the secrecy regarding the data of victims or witness, before the
possibility of changing the name of the person submitted to the program through judicial authorization. This law
allows each state to develop its program of protection to the witness.
It´s important to consider that the due process meanings the right of the accused to know who is accusing
him/her or stating against him/her. That is the reason because the secrecy of identity of the victim or witness
must be seen in an exceptional way, nevertheless its importance and reasonability in many prosecutions.
In order to provide a reasonable ground of secrecy, in São Paulo State there is an administrative rule issued by
Judicial Branch – Internal Affairs (Act n. 32/2000) which allows the restriction of access to the data of victims and
witnesses threatened or at risk in police investigations or prosecutions related on any of the crimes listed in Law
n° 7960/89, such as theft, murder, extortion through kidnapping, among others. To be sustainable before the CR,
this data restriction must cover only personal issue as address, occupation or relatives informs, but not the name
itself.
CR/1988 provides in Article 5, LVI to seal the evidence obtained by illegal means. This fence, by decision of the
Federal Supreme Court, extends to the evidence obtained through illegal evidence, according to the theory of the
poisoned tree fruits (fruits of poisonous tree theory).
The Federal Constitution shall also ensure the open trial and there is no secret evidence. The exclusionary rule
cannot reach the proof obtained in favor of the suspect /defendant. Moreover, if illegal, both the doctrine and the
case law stand in the direction of his admission, because the interpretation should be guided in order to promote
individual freedoms. Finally, it should be noted that if in specific cases can be stand the file secrecy, either on
behalf of the public interest or to protect the privacy of the parties (art.93, IX, CF). This exception to the principle
of open trial does not apply to the parties directly concerned.
Brazilian criminal procedure code determines that there is no pre-established value to each evidence. So it
means that the judge can – and must – analyses each evidence brought before him/her for the prosecutor and
defendant and, in a “rational” way, shows the grounds of the decision (the so called “rational persuasion” according our literature).
This freedom for analyzing evidences, however, is restricted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in the
case of crimes which must be submitted to the forensic science, except when impossible to do so. Similarly in the
crimes contained in Law 11.343/06 (Drugs Act), which requires the forensic science, both hypothesis of trace
crimes.
21. When dealing with serious offences, does your legal system fully provide for
- the right of the suspect/accused/detained person to an independent and impartial tribunal?
- 84 -
Brazil
As explained above, there is a provision in CR/88 about the impossibility to create a “post factum” Court and a
Court without pre-established jurisdiction and there is no exception for that rule.
However there are two hypotheses to change a jurisdiction: the mechanism of displacement of a prosecution to
the Federal Justice Branch in crimes involving serious violations of human rights as provided for in art. 109 of
CR/88 and in cases of murder as set out in art. 424, the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the latter case, however,
for reasons of public order, or delay in the completion of trial, need for safety of the defendant or fear of an unfair
trial, it is assumed the displacement of the trial to another judge.
- the presumption of innocence at the trial or does it foresee special rules (presumption of liability or
accountability, reverse of the burden of proof)?
Brazilian Constitution adopted the principle of presumption of innocence, under Article 5, LVII, which stipulates
that "no one shall be guilty before trial in the transit of criminal condemnatory sentence." The guarantee of the
presumption of innocence implies: a) guarantee to be treated as innocent until definitive proof of their guilt, b) the
general state of innocence can only be broken if the prosecution can demonstrate that the claims c) the sentencing Court must during the free belief of the judge, whose rationality of the decision should derive a certain standard of proof.
Therefore, the presumption of guilt or even a reversal of the burden of proof is incompatible with the principle of
presumption of innocence, no matter the seriousness of the crime. It is not correct to give the defendant nor any
burden of proof, in that entire burden assumes opposite effect to your claim if the burden is not met. And in criminal proceedings, if the defendant does not prove that the claims, it does not mean that the prosecutor is discharged to proof.
- the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined as
soon as possible (habeas corpus)?
The Constitutional Amendment No 45 introduced the item LXXVIII in art. 5 of the Federal Constitution, which
ensures a reasonable length of the process and means to ensure the speed of their processing. The guarantee
of reasonable duration of the procedure applicable not only to the accused but also to the victim and the community. The fair process requires reasonable duration. When it comes duration of the prison injunction, the requirement for speed has even more relevance, and the Federal Supreme Court has understood that there constraint
illegal by over-time when: a) is unique because of diligence raised by the performance of the accusation; b) result
the inertia of the judicial apparatus itself in response to the principle of reasonable duration of the process, c) is
incompatible with the principle of reasonableness.
The art. 5, and following item LXI, of the Federal Constitution, establish a set of guarantees that ensures the
legality of the imprisonment, prescribing, in the cases of illegal arrest, that it should be immediately dismissed.
Notwithstanding this rule, it ensured the habeas corpus as a mechanism of control over the legality of the imprisonment.
The maximum in the dubious pro reo is a logical consequence of the principle of presumption of innocence, to
the extent that the failure or inability of the prosecution to prove the facts. Similarly the maximum relates to the
principle of favor rei, or on the interpretation in favor to the accused. Article 386, items II and VI of the Code of
Criminal Procedure Brazilian expressly recognizes that maximum, in the sense that the state of doubt leads to
the acquittal of the accused.
It is important to note that the maximum in dubio pro reo manifests itself at the core sentencing, resulting in the
acquittal of the accused, as a rule. That's because at other times the tension is established, between the individual guarantees and the interest of social protection, can lead to the prevalence of one or the other, from the
peculiarities of each case.
• the right to a public trial with an audience;
• the right to an oral, fair hearing and adversarial proceedings;
- 85 -
Brazil
• the right to be present at the trial;
• the right of the counsel to have access to all criminal case records;
• the right to be informed without delay of the offence charged;
• the right to full disclosure of the state's case and to adequate time to prepare a defense;
• the right to internal (between parties involved) and external publicity of the
• proceedings;
• the right to examine the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witness on his
behalf under the same conditions as the witness against him; special measures for new cyber techniques (videoconferencing, etc.); special measures concerning shielded or protected witnesses (undercover agents, agents of
• the right to have free assistance of an interpreter;
• the right not to be a witness in proceedings against oneself;
The art. 5, LIV propositions and LV of the Federal Constitution ensures the due legal process, a broad defense
and cross-examination. This implies a guarantee of a fair trial, which requires equality of arms, mainly from the
point of view of the opportunities thus understood the right to evidence and the right to participate argumentative.
Such guarantees should be respected in any case, no matter the seriousness of the crime.
- The right to a public trial with a hearing;
The public trial is the rule, but as exposed above, there are hypothesis to restrict the general principle.
- The right to an oral, in audience with equality between the parties;
Audiences fall into three parts in ordinary procedure: hearing of the defendant, hearing prosecutor’s witnesses
and hearing defense’s witnesses. In all of the is guaranteed the cross-examination, but under the strict rule of the
judge that presides the hearing not only in order to ensure the fair trial but putting himself/herself questions previously the prosecutor or the defendant.
In other forms of proceeding (v.g. Act 9099/95 about minor offenses or the so called “summary’ procedure on not
so bigger offenses) the procedure is oral whit a single hearing, arguments and sentencing.
- The right to be present in Court;
As exposed above the right to the self-defense includes the right to silence, interview with the attorney before the
hearing, the right to be heard and to be present at the trial, that implies not only the right to be heard by the
judge. However, the right to be present presence in a broad sense suffers some mitigation. The first of them in
the case wich the presence of the defendant can interfere in the hearing of the witness or victim, in which case
the withdrawal is allowed (Art. 216, the Code of Criminal Procedure). Similarly in cases where the defendant is
behaving improperly, putting at risk the safety of people who are at the hearing. Another restriction on the right to
be present in trial deals whit the hypothesis the defendant be heard for another Brazilian judge (v.g. when he/she
is arrested in other county or state) or even in other country. However, in all these cases the presence of the
attorney is mandatory.
- The right the defense has access to all information in the file;
The right to produce evidences implies the right to have all file disclosed and to cross-examination all evidences.
- The right to be informed without delay of the alleged offence;
The right to be informed can be played under the following assumptions: a) in prison in flagrante when the prisoner must be informed the grounds of his/her prison within 24 hours, through the delivery of the note of guilt, b)
there is no prosecution in absence when the defendant is not found to be summoned to appear at the trial; c)
must be a reasonable delay between the Court summons and the hearing in order to propitiate a full defense.
- The right to full access to the case and an adequate time to prepare a defense;
- 86 -
Brazil
As already stated in previous items, this law represents yet another manifestation of the guarantee of fair trial
consequence of the parity of arms, which includes the unrestricted access to evidence and the provision of adequate time to prepare the defense. The definition of the deadlines by the Code of Criminal Procedure aims to not
only protect the reasonable duration of the process, but mainly the proper exercise by the parties of their rights.
- The right to public trial and secrecy of the files;
Guaranteeing the public trial there are Article 5, LX and art. 93, IX, the Federal Constitution, and down as a rule,
the unrestricted access of any person to a public trial with the purpose of providing oversight as to its legality.
There is the “internal” open trial that means unrestricted access of the parties to any act of the procedure, while
the “external” open trial covers the access of other people with the objective to provide regular supervision of the
acts charged. The devices mentioned constitutional impose restrictions only on “external” open trial, based on the
premise that in certain the full public trial is potentially detrimental to the public interest or the intimacy of one or
both
parties.
- The right to examine the evidence against the accused and to the presence and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions of contrary evidence; special measures for new technologies (video conferencing, etc.) Special measures to testimony secret or protected (hidden agents,
agents of the intelligence services)?
The security of the adversarial system implies the cross-examination in equal conditions to the prosecutor and
the defendant. The right to prove includes the right to produce evidence and cross-examination, participate in
obtaining proof, to request the of evidence, and the right to evaluation of the evidence by the judge as recognizes
by the Brazilian law.
As to the use of videoconferencing, the system of criminal procedure Brazil still has not provided even regulates
the institute, except made to the Decree No 5015/2004, which ratified the United Nations Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime. The Supreme Federal Court, however, not only repudiated the mechanization of
criminal justice, bearing the importance of the personal interview of the defendant to the judge, as the absence of
law and providing criteria and regulating the use of this technology, aiming to avoid trivialization of the mechanism.
As for special measures for research, such as infiltration of agent and delivery monitored, although provided for
in the Law No 9034/95, the same are little used, in view of the lack of regulation of the criteria and procedures for
their use. There is no regulation that has on the protection of the agent infiltrate regarding their identity, leaving
only the Law n. 9807/99, which is applicable to any witnesses and victims threatened.
- The right to an interpreter;
The right to an interpreter is present in Article 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But from the perspective of
the constitutional principle of full defense, the right to an interpreter is issued from constitutional principle, in that
the interpreter is the assurance that the defendant will have the exact understanding of the object of the accusation, and can thus defend up regularly and fully.
- The right not to be witness in proceedings against himself;
Ensuring that no one is required to produce evidence against himself falls within the broad content of the defense, specifically in the self, and as logical corollary of the right to silence, guaranteed in Article 5, LXII, of the
Federal Constitution.
- The right to a lawyer (required or not?), Changes in legal privilege? Free choice or appointment letter
from the state?
The full defense includes the right to self defense and technique, exercised by a lawyer. Under Article 5, LXII of
the Federal Constitution, it is guaranteed to the arrested the assistance of a lawyer from the moment they are
effective their imprisonment. The choice is made by the lawyer himself arrested, and that if it does not have to be
a financial conditions, or not wanting to do it, it will be given an advocate dative or appointed, ad hoc or appointed
for a particular act procedural, or a public defender. The technical defense in criminal proceedings is required
and will be respected regardless of the will of the accused.
- 87 -
Brazil
- The right to remain silent (there is some limitation to the obligation to tell the accused that right, there
are limits to the right to remain silent)?
The right to silence is expressly guaranteed in Article 5, LXII of the Federal Constitution. The judge is required to
inform the defendant about his right to silence. The Superior Court of Justice, even offered a guarantee to silence, in the sense that nobody is forced to self-incriminate, the witnesses, as regards what have knowledge and
can incriminating them. The silence covers only the allocation that is made or that may be made to the subject,
does not cover events related to third parties, which do not keep their relationship with the prosecution.
- Allows be obtained harmful conclusions of the fact of the accused is denied to speak?
The right to silence implies assure the defendant that such expressions of will can not be interpreted as admission of guilt. It is discussed, however, if the silence while behavior, as well as the lie and confession, can be
assessed by the judge. In criminal proceedings, in general, silence does not matter confession (Article 198 of the
CPP) and can not be interpreted to the detriment of the accused if it is the only piece of evidence (Article 186,
paragraph one of the CPP). However, if there is other evidence, silence does not prevent the conviction of the
judge by the merits of the criminal action (Article 198 of the CPP, part 2).
The Federal Constitution guarantees the double degree of jurisdiction, the right to appeal. It is contradictory and
assurance derived from the full defense, in addition to the very right of action. The only restrictions there are no
extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Federal Court, and in particular appeal to the Superior Court, where the
matter can only contested law issues, not admitting the exclusive review of the terms of fact. This right is guaranteed in any case, no any limitation on legislative serious crimes.
The rule of ne bis in idem is embedded in the content of the security of thing judged, expression of legal certainty.
In the case of acquittal this fence has absolute character, unlike the sentencing, which admits the filing of the
judicial review at any time, in order to correct the effects of any judicial error. The judicial review is scheduled in
art. 621 of CPP and following.
- 88 -
Sección III
COLOMBIA*
Fernando VELÁSQUEZ VELÁSQUEZ / Christian WOLFFHÜGEL GUTIÉRREZ∗∗
A. Introducción
Con el presente reporte, destinado al XVIII Congreso Internacional de Derecho penal —Cuestionario sección 3ª:
Derecho procesal penal: Medidas procesales especiales y respeto por los derechos humanos—, a celebrarse en
Estambul del 20 al 27 de septiembre de 2009 por parte de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Penal, se
pretende responder al interrogatorio diseñado al efecto por los organizadores de cara a un país que, como Colombia, a diferencia de las naciones del primer mundo, se inserta en condiciones muy adversas en el proceso
globalizador que hoy atraviesa el planeta, en especial en tratándose de la justicia penal que es el punto de partida para la reflexión propuesta. Desde luego, como lo muestran las respuestas dadas a las diversas cuestiones,
en el plano legislativo —así desde una perspectiva material las cosas no sean como se prescriben— se observan notables avances en el sistema nacional, sobre todo cuando se piensa en pretéritas legislaciones sobre la
materia, conquistas que se han logrado pese a que se trata de una nación asolada por graves formas de delincuencia entre las que deben mencionarse el terrorismo, los delitos contra el Derecho Internacional Humanitario,
el tráfico ilegal de drogas, la delincuencia de cuello blanco, etc.
A continuación, pues, se emprende la tarea encomendada resolviendo todas y cada una de las cuestiones propuestas, en el orden que al efecto se ha indicado.
B. Respuestas al cuestionario
I. Reforma del marco jurídico: medidas especiales con respecto a la prevención, a la investigación y al enjuiciamiento.
1. ¿En qué medida se aplican en su sistema jurídico nacional los tratados sobre Derechos humanos y los tratados sobre Derecho internacional humanitario (Convenciones de Ginebra)?
En primer lugar, de cara a la aplicación de los tratados sobre Derechos Humanos, el nuevo estatuto procesal
penal (Ley 906 de 31 de agosto de 2004, art. 3°1) establece explícitamente que los operadores jurídicos deben,
al interpretar sus disposiciones, tomar como pauta hermenéutica el bloque de constitucionalidad, lo que permite
incorporar los estándares normativos del Derecho internacional de los Derechos humanos al ordenamiento
colombiano2.
Nota importante: El texto publicado es la última versión original del Informe nacional enviado por el autor, sin que se haya
∗∗
Fernando Velásquez Velásquez: Profesor de Derecho Penal de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda y Director del Departamento de Derecho Penal de dicha Universidad; líder del Grupo de Investigación en Ciencias penales y Criminológicas “Emiro
Sandoval Huertas”, adscrito a dicha dependencia. Christian Wolffhügel Gutiérrez Profesor de Derecho Penal de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda e investigador adscrito al Departamento de Derecho Penal de dicha Universidad; miembro del Grupo de
Investigación en Ciencias penales y Criminológicas “Emiro Sandoval Huertas”.
1 El texto es del siguiente tenor: “Prelación de los tratados internacionales. En la actuación prevalecerá lo establecido en los
tratados y convenios internacionales ratificados por Colombia que traten sobre derechos humanos y que prohíban su limitación durante los estados de excepción, por formar bloque de constitucionalidad”.
2 Uprimny Yepes, “Bloque de Constitucionalidad”, p. 21.
*
- 89 -
Colombia
En segundo lugar, en relación con el Derecho internacional humanitario, debe decirse que él es válido en todo
tiempo y, además, opera una incorporación automática del mismo al ordenamiento interno nacional, lo que es
congruente con el carácter imperativo propio de los principios axiológicos que hacen que este cuerpo normativo
integre el ius cogens3.
Lo anterior, implica considerar que la influencia del bloque de constitucionalidad en la estructura jurídica del
nuevo sistema penal acusatorio, parte de la idea de que la misma obedece a la necesidad y a la obligación del
Estado colombiano, de cumplir los compromisos internaciones adquiridos cuando se incorporan determinadas
normas de naturaleza internacional al ordenamiento jurídico nacional, referidas a los derechos humanos o al
derecho internacional humanitario4.
¿Existen limitaciones en su país al uso de estos estándares internacionales?
Al respecto, la Carta Política parece no dar cobijo a ningún tipo de salvedad. En efecto: en primer lugar, el art.
53 determina que los convenios internacionales del trabajo debidamente ratificados hacen parte de la legislación
interna; en segundo lugar, el art. 93 estipula que determinadas normas atinentes a Derechos humanos prevalecen en el orden interno y que los Derechos y deberes consagrados en la misma, se interpretarán de conformidad con los tratados internacionales sobre Derechos humanos ratificados por Colombia. En tercer lugar, el canon 94 constitucional, dispone que la enunciación de los Derechos y las garantías contenidos en la Constitución
y en los convenios internacionales vigentes, no deben entenderse como negación de otros que, siendo inherentes a la persona humana, no figuren expresamente en ellos; y, por último, en cuarto lugar, el art. 214 —norma
que sistematiza los estados de excepción— señala que, ni aun en aquellas circunstancias, podrán suspenderse
los derechos humanos o las libertades fundamentales.
A este respecto, ha dicho la Corte Constitucional: “El único sentido razonable que se puede conferir a la noción
de prevalencia de los tratados de derechos humanos y de derecho internacional humanitario es que éstos forman con el resto del texto constitucional un «bloque de constitucionalidad», cuyo respeto se impone a la ley. En
efecto, de esa manera se armoniza plenamente el principio de supremacía de la Constitución, como norma de
normas, con la prevalencia de los tratados ratificados por Colombia, que reconocen los derechos humanos y
prohíben su limitación en los estados de excepción. Como es obvio, la imperatividad de las normas humanitarias
y su integración en el bloque de constitucionalidad implica que el Estado colombiano debe adaptar las normas
de inferior jerarquía del orden jurídico interno a los contenidos del derecho internacional humanitario, con el fin
de potenciar la realización material de tales valores”5.
¿Los ciudadanos (sospechosos, acusados, víctimas, testigos…) pueden alegar en su ordenamiento jurídico
nacional directamente los Derechos contenidos en estos tratados?
Sí. Efectivamente, como ya se dijo, el estatuto procesal penal prevé que quienes intervengan en la actuación
podrán invocar los Derechos contenidos en los tratados ratificados por Colombia que versen sobre derechos
humanos.
2. ¿Qué reformas legislativas importantes han sido realizadas en su país en las décadas pasadas en interés de
la seguridad nacional/global y de la seguridad pública? ¿Hay actualmente algún plan de reforma?
- ¿Modificaron tales reformas el marco jurídico común existente de la aplicación del Derecho penal, o crearon
una vía alternativa de procedimientos especiales (justicia militar, justicia policial, justicia administrativa, comisiones militares, etc.)?
- ¿Estas reformas legislativas están inspiradas por las disposiciones constitucionales sobre la emergencia
(incluida la guerra)?
- ¿La práctica judicial penal ha desempeñado un papel en la definición y realización de las reformas? ¿Han
revocado los Tribunales superiores (tribunal supremo constitucional) algún elemento de estas reformas?
Cfr. Corte Constitucional, Sent. C-225 de 1995.
Cfr. Posada Maya, “Bloque de constitucionalidad”, pp. 1 y ss.
5 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, Sent. C-225 de 1995.
3
4
- 90 -
Colombia
- ¿Han sido las reformas sometidas al debate político y público?
En relación con estos interrogantes, se resaltan las más trascendentales reformas. Así pues, se inicia con el
Decreto 3398 del 24 de Diciembre de 1965 “Por el cual se organiza la defensa nacional”, que emergió como
producto de la situación —bien particular— de orden público que atravesaba el país en ese entonces, con evidente conexión espacio-temporal con el accionar de los grupos otrora insurgentes, como el ELN y las FARC.
Esta reforma fue inspirada en normas de rango superior que, como el art. 121 de la extinta Constitución de
18866, regulaba lo concerniente al estado de sitio, declarado —en este caso— mediante el Decreto 1288 de
1965 que, a la postre, valió como basamento de la estrategia de defensa de la seguridad pública y nacional que
reglamentó el Decreto 3398 de 1965, al que ya se ha hecho referencia.
Así mismo, la aludida reforma legislativa modificó el marco jurídico común existente de aplicación del Derecho
penal; a tal efecto, en primer término, incorporó los arts. 95 del Código de Justicia Penal Militar y 121 y 122 del
Código Penal dentro de las disposiciones referentes a la defensa nacional7; y, en segundo término, instauró
procedimientos especiales, según los cuales en tiempo de guerra, conflicto armado, conmoción interior o turbación del orden público, conocería de todas las infracciones contempladas en el Decreto la Justicia Penal Militar,
por el procedimiento de los consejos de guerra verbales8.
Luego, la Ley 48 de 1968 adoptó como legislación permanente el Decreto 3398 de 1965 —de naturaleza transitoria— exceptuando los arts. 30 y 34, es decir, los que modificaban el marco de aplicación común del Derecho
Penal. Como dicha normativa autorizó que la población civil se hiciera partícipe de operaciones militares “no
agresivas”9, adquirió cuerpo la denominada autodefensa civil.
Después, entraría en escena el famoso y tristemente célebre “Estatuto de seguridad” de la época del Presidente
Turbay Ayala (Decreto Nº 1923 de 1978) que, con el pretexto de combatir graves formas de criminalidad, se
arropó en la Justicia Penal Militar a la que entonces se dieron amplias facultades para investigar y juzgar ciertas
delincuencias, pese a la protesta airada de la doctrina penal de entonces10.
Posteriormente, se expidió el Decreto 3664 del 17 de Diciembre de 1986 “Por el cual se dictan medidas conducentes al restablecimiento del orden público”, seguido por el Decreto Legislativo 0180 del 27 de Enero de 1988
“Por el cual se complementan algunas normas del Código Penal y dictan otras disposiciones conducentes al
restablecimiento del orden público” de naturaleza transitoria, convertido en permanente mediante el Decreto
2266 de 1991. En seguida, el catorce de Abril de 1988, se puso en vigencia el Decreto 0678 “Por el cual se
dictan medidas conducentes al restablecimiento del orden público en la zona del Urabá Antioqueño”.
Al tenor de lo dicho, las reformas legislativas en estas líneas citadas tienen en común el referente que las inspiró, esto es, el mencionado instituto jurídico constitucional del estado de sitio, consagrado en el art. 121 Constitución de 1886. Aunado a ello, modificaron en su momento el marco jurídico común al complementar normas del
Código Penal.
En relación con la creación de vías alternativas de procedimientos especiales, llama la atención el Decreto 0678
de 1988 citado, al establecer, en el art. cuarto literal H, la facultad de dictar —en caso de urgencia o gravedad,
con carácter de provisionales, y con vigencia de sesenta (60) días— órdenes o disposiciones administrativas o
disciplinarias que, sin ser de su incumbencia, fuesen indispensables para el mantenimiento del orden público,
6 El texto era del siguiente tenor: “En los casos de guerra exterior, o de conmoción interior, podrá el Presidente, previa audiencia del Consejo de Estado y con la firma de todos los Ministros, declarar turbado el orden público y en estado de sitio
toda la República o parte de ella. Mediante tal declaración quedará el Presidente investido de las facultades que le confieran
las leyes, y, en su defecto, de las que le da el Derecho de gentes, para defender los derechos de la Nación o reprimir el
alzamiento. Las medidas extraordinarias o decretos de carácter provisional legislativo que, dentro de dichos límites, dicte el
Presidente, serán obligatorios siempre que lleven la firma de todos los Ministros. El Gobierno declarará restablecido el orden
público luego que haya cesado la perturbación o el peligro exterior; y pasará al Congreso una exposición motivada de sus
providencias. Serán responsables cualesquiera autoridades por los abusos que hubieren cometido en el ejercicio de facultades extraordinarias”.
7 Cfr. art. 30 del Decreto 3398 de 1965.
10 Cfr. Hoyos Duque, “Los delitos políticos frente al estatuto de seguridad”, pp. 72 y ss.
- 91 -
Colombia
que se tornaban de carácter definitivo cuando eran aprobadas por el Gobernador de Antioquia, provincia para la
cual se dictó esa normativa.
A continuación, el ocho de Junio de 1989 se expidió el Decreto 1194 “por el cual se adiciona el Decreto Legislativo 0180 de 1988, para sancionar nuevas modalidades delictivas, por requerirlo el restablecimiento del orden
público” que sancionaba, entre otras conductas, las de promocionar, financiar, organizar, dirigir, fomentar y
ejecutar actos tendentes a obtener la formación o ingreso de personas a grupos armados de los denominados
comúnmente como escuadrones de la muerte, bandas de sicarios o de justicia privada. Al igual que sus predecesores, este Decreto dejó de ser transitorio para erigirse en permanente.
Luego, el Decreto 2266 de 1991 adoptó como legislación permanente una serie de disposiciones expedidas en
ejercicio de las facultades del estado de sitio, para el caso los Decretos Legislativos 3664 de 1986, 1198 de
1987, 1631 de 1987, 0180 de 1988, 2490 de 1988, 1194 de 1989, 1856 de 1989, 1857 de 1989, 1858 de 1989,
1895 de 1989, 2790 de 1990 y el 099 de 1991.
De estas últimas normatividades sobresalió el D. 2790 de 20 de noviembre de 1990 que, al amparo del Estado
de Sitio y en la presidencia del liberal César Gaviria T., implantó la “justicia sin rostro” que funcionó por un espacio de nueve años; la identidad de los jueces y de los testigos se mantenía en secreto, los funcionarios judiciales
se movilizaban en carros blindados y de vidrios polarizados, sus voces eran distorsionadas y las audiencias se
llevaban a cabo en una especie de búnkeres11. Mediante sent. C-392 de seis de abril de 2000, la Corte Constitucional declaró inexequibles las disposiciones pertinentes.
Con posterioridad y bajo el ropaje de la nueva Carta Política de 1991, se promulgó la Ley 418 de 1997 “Por la
cual se consagran unos instrumentos para la búsqueda de la convivencia, la eficacia de la justicia y se dictan
otras disposiciones”. Esta normativa, inspirada en la seguridad nacional, se afinca en la negociación con los
grupos armados ilegales de carácter político12. Igualmente, modifica en alguna medida el marco del Derecho
penal al ofrecer por esta vía la concesión —claro está, al delincuente político— del beneficio del indulto13.
De la mano de la anterior normativa, irrumpió la Ley 782 de 2002 —que prorroga la vigencia de la mayoría de
las disposiciones de la Ley 418 de 1997—; sin embargo, el destinatario de la negociación no es, en este escenario, el grupo ilegal de naturaleza política sino que la compuerta para negociar con cualquier grupo ilegal se abre
de par en par, como quiera que la Ley es meridiana al entender que sus disposiciones buscan “facilitar el diálogo
y la suscripción de acuerdos con grupos armados organizados al margen de la ley para su desmovilización,
reconciliación entre los colombianos y la convivencia pacífica”.
Además, debe citarse la muy polémica Ley 975 de 2005 que, como bien es sabido, se instituye en el marco por
excelencia del proceso de paz que actualmente adelanta el Gobierno nacional con los mal llamados “grupos
paramilitares”, a condición del cumplimiento por parte de los desmovilizados de premisas a ella vinculadas, tales
como la verdad, la justicia y la reparación.
Se trata, pues, de un paradigma independiente y coexistente con el modelo penal ordinario, entre otros, que
dispone un procedimiento especial para sentar los derroteros del desarme, la desmovilización y la reinserción de
los grupos armados ilegales, que, valga decirlo, no logrará satisfacer los fines que ex ante se pretendieron.
II. Preguntas generales sobre los procedimientos penales y medidas especiales.
3. ¿Cuáles son los principios generales de su proceso penal y cuál es su fuente legal?
El proceso penal está asentado en un abanico de axiomas de diverso cariz. Así se encuentran, en primer término, unos que rigen la iniciación del procedimiento tales como los de legalidad, investigación oficial, acusatorio y
juez natural; en segundo término, los que gobiernan el ritual del procedimiento como son los de publicidad,
Críticamente, Velásquez Velásquez, “El Estatuto para la defensa de la Justicia”, pp. 3 y ss.; Uprimny Yepes, “Las transformaciones de la Administración de Justicia”, en El Caleidoscopio, t. I, pp. 287 y ss.
12 El Capitulo I del Titulo I de la Ley 418 de 1997, hace alusión a las “disposiciones para facilitar el diálogo y la suscripción de
acuerdos con organizaciones armadas al margen de la ley, a las cuales el Gobierno Nacional les reconozca carácter político
para su desmovilización, reconciliación entre los colombianos y la convivencia pacífica” (Resaltado fuera del texto).
13 Cfr. art. 50, Ley 418 de 1997.
11
- 92 -
Colombia
oralidad, concentración y celeridad; y, finalmente, en tercer término, principios que rigen la práctica de consecución y formación de la prueba, como lo son el de contradicción y el de inmediación14.
Dichos postulados —a los cuales se suman los de dignidad humana, libertad, igualdad (dentro de ésta, la de
armas15), imparcialidad, lealtad, intimidad, presunción de inocencia, doble instancia y cosa juzgada—, se sustentan en un trípode normativo, a saber: por un lado, la preceptiva internacional de derechos humanos; por otro
lado, la norma de normas; y, en último lugar, la Ley procesal penal que los prevé en el título reservado a los
principios rectores16 de forma generosa.
4. ¿En qué etapa del proceso penal dispone su sistema legislativo:
- la presunción de inocencia?
Este principio, elevado al rango de norma rectora17 se erige en faro ineludible dentro de toda la actuación y, por
tratarse de una garantía procesal, ampara al indiciado o imputado desde que se inicia la actuación respectiva
hasta el momento en que el funcionario judicial lo declara penalmente responsable, por medio de la emisión de
una sentencia ejecutoriada18. Se trata de un auténtico fanal que ilumina todo el sendero procesal penal, por lo
que no cabe duda de su alcance y manifestaciones; el legislador, pues, es claro al indicar su presencia en estadios previos al juicio, esto es, en la misma investigación, en la medida en que —amén de lo ponderado que fue
al redactar la norma rectora aludida—, estableció como causal de preclusión de la misma la imposibilidad de
desvirtuar la presunción de inocencia19.
En torno a su naturaleza jurídica es indudable que se trata de una presunción de carácter legal que admite
prueba en contrario y corresponde al Estado allegar, legítimamente, las pruebas capaces de desvirtuarla con
total nitidez20.
- ¿el derecho del sospechoso/acusado a permanecer en silencio y el derecho a no declarar en contra de sí
mismo y a no declararse culpable?
Al respecto, se vislumbran varios escenarios: En primer lugar, el momento a partir del cual aparecen signados
en la ley estos derechos es cuando comienza la fase de indagación e investigación, anterior, en todo caso, a la
formulación de la imputación. Esta afirmación se basa en posturas para las que, como ha dicho la Corte Constitucional21, el derecho a la defensa del presunto implicado adquiere validez en estadios precedentes a la imputación; en esa medida, si una de las manifestaciones del derecho a la defensa es la de guardar silencio22, consecuencia de ello es su protección en la mencionada fase. Refuerza lo anterior, la figura del interrogatorio al indiciado que la Ley procesal prevé23 en cuyo caso —y, en presencia del defensor— el indiciado goza del derecho a
guardar silencio y, en esa misma línea de análisis, podrá o no ser interrogado.
Guerrero Peralta, Fundamentos, p. 37.
Por ello, se ha dicho: “Se refiere específicamente a dos puntos: igualdad de oportunidades para recoger evidencia, y
potestades similares”. Cfr. Bernal Cuéllar/Montealegre Lynett, El proceso penal, p. 126.
16 Estas normas están dirigidas a servir de guía y orientación, irradiando las demás disposiciones de los códigos a las que
pertenecen, al propio tiempo que señalan su sentido y alcance; cobran plena relevancia práctica cuando se las interpreta de
manera sistemática con las disposiciones especiales, que están llamadas a incidir e influenciar. Cfr. Corte Constitucional,
sent. C-775 de 2003 y art. 26 de la ley 906 de 2004.
17 Dice el art. 7o.: “Presunción de inocencia e in dubio pro reo. Toda persona se presume inocente y debe ser tratada como
tal, mientras no quede en firme decisión judicial definitiva sobre su responsabilidad penal. /En consecuencia, corresponderá
al órgano de persecución penal la carga de la prueba acerca de la responsabilidad penal. La duda que se presente se resolverá a favor del procesado. /En ningún caso podrá invertirse esta carga probatoria. /Para proferir sent. condenatoria deberá
existir convencimiento de la responsabilidad penal del acusado, más allá de toda duda”.
18 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-479 de 2007.
19 Cfr. art. 332 numeral 6, Ley 906 de 2004.
20 Barreto Ardila, “Principios del Derecho procesal penal”, p. 49.
22 Cfr. art. 333 numeral 3, Ley 906 de 2004.
23 Cfr. art. 282, Ley 906 de 2004.
14
15
- 93 -
Colombia
En segundo lugar, uno de los derechos del capturado —sea por virtud de flagrancia o por la emisión de una
orden de captura en su contra— es el de guardar silencio24 y no declarar en contra de sí mismo.
En tercer lugar, el imputado o procesado podrá renunciar al derecho a guardar silencio y al juicio oral25; dicha
abdicación envuelve la declaración de culpabilidad que, como derivado del derecho penal premial, implica una
rebaja final a la pena dependiendo, eso sí, del estanco procesal en que se haga, pudiendo ser a partir de la
imputación hasta la alegación inicial26, una vez instalado el juicio oral27.
Finalmente, en cuarto lugar, es posible que el acusado —en sede de juicio oral— declare como testigo y renuncie al derecho a guardar silencio28. En este caso, el juramento prestado no tiene efectos penales adversos respecto de la declaración sobre su propia conducta; y, así mismo, le asiste el derecho a guardar silencio y a no
autoincriminarse, de suerte que ni del silencio ni de la negativa a responder, pueden derivarse consecuencias
penales adversas al declarante29.
Sea como fuere, el derecho a guardar silencio no se elimina de manera absoluta por el solo hecho de que el
acusado irrumpa como testigo y puede callar si lo considera adecuado; de todos modos, téngase en cuenta, en
el curso de esa declaración se debe garantizar que no se le induzca o provoque a confesar30 protegiéndose, así,
el derecho a la no autoincriminación.
5. ¿Se realiza en su procedimiento común o en los procedimientos especiales una distinción entre los ciudadanos y no ciudadanos, los nacionales o no nacionales, o categorías específicas de sujetos (extranjeros, enemigos, no personas)?
En un Estado social de derecho, fundado en la dignidad humana como se supone lo es el colombiano, por lo
menos en el plano formal, es inconcebible una distinción entre ciudadanos y no ciudadanos; por ello, a partir de
la Constitución y de la ley31, no se hace ningún distingo explícito en tal sentido en el procedimiento común.
6. ¿Permite su sistema legislativo la suspensión de los Derechos humanos en situaciones de emergencia (incluida la guerra)?
En Colombia existen tres situaciones de emergencia, a saber: la conmoción interior, la emergencia económica y
la declaración de guerra exterior, bajo la inscripción de “Estados de Excepción”. Al respecto, el Presidente de la
República está facultado, al tenor de los arts. 212 y siguientes del Texto Superior, para declarar los mismos,
ceñido a los derroteros que para ello señala la Norma de Normas.
Ahora bien, en relación con la suspensión de los Derechos humanos en dichos escenarios, el num. 2° del art.
214 de la Constitución es claro al sostener que “No podrán suspenderse los derechos humanos ni las libertades
fundamentales”. A su vez, la Ley Estatutaria 137 de 1994, por medio de la cual se reglamentan los Estados de
Excepción, reitera en su art. 4°32 esa proscripción, al enunciar un conjunto de derechos intangibles que no pueCfr. art. 8 literal c), Ley 906 de 2004.
Cfr. art. 131, Ley 906 de 2004.
26 Cfr. art. 367, Ley 906 de 2004.
27 Cfr. Velásquez Velásquez, Manual, p. 593.
28 Cfr. art. 394 Ley 906 de 2004.
30 Cfr. Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Penal, Radicado: 27608 del 26 de octubre de 2007.
31 Cfr. art. 1º Constitución Nacional y art. 1º Ley 906 de 2004.
32 Dice, así, el art. 4º: “Derechos intangibles. De conformidad con el art. 27 de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, y los demás tratados sobre la materia ratificados por Colombia, durante los estados de excepción serán intangibles: el
derecho a la vida y a la integridad personal; el derecho a no ser sometido a desaparición forzada, a torturas, ni a tratos o
penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes; el derecho al reconocimiento de la personalidad jurídica; la prohibición de la esclavitud, la servidumbre y la trata de seres humanos; la prohibición de las penas de destierro, prisión perpetua y confiscación; la
libertad de conciencia; la libertad de religión; el principio de legalidad, de favorabilidad y de irretroactividad de la ley penal; el
derecho a elegir y ser elegido; el derecho a contraer matrimonio y a la protección de la familia, los derechos del niño, a la
protección por parte de su familia, de la sociedad y del Estado; el derecho a no ser condenado a prisión por deudas civiles; el
derecho al habeas corpus y el derecho de los colombianos por nacimiento a no ser extraditados. /Tampoco podrán ser
suspendidas las garantías judiciales indispensables para la protección de tales derechos. /De conformidad con el literal b) del
24
25
- 94 -
Colombia
den ser objeto de suspensión o restricción alguna por parte del legislador extraordinario, toda vez que se consideran como bienes imprescindibles para la dignidad de la persona humana33. Sin embargo, lo que sí es posible
al tenor de su clausulado34 es la limitación de garantías de otros derechos, siempre y cuando no impliquen la
negación de la dignidad humana, la intimidad, la libertad de asociación, el derecho al trabajo, el derecho a la
educación y la libertad de expresión, es decir, que ni siquiera “en aquéllos derechos cuya restricción está permitida, se vulnere su núcleo esencial”35.
- ¿Quién es competente para adoptar esta decisión y qué mecanismos de control se aplican?
Como se indicó, no es posible suspender los Derechos humanos en situaciones de emergencia. No obstante, la
declaratoria de los Estados de Excepción, como facultad en cabeza del Presidente, está sometida a un control
político y a otro de naturaleza jurídica36. El primero, por parte del Congreso de la República37; y, el segundo, a
través de la Corte Constitucional que tiene como guía o referente la Carta Política.
Adicional a lo anterior, de acuerdo con el art. 27 de la Convención Americana de los Derechos Humanos y el art.
4º del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos —ambos incorporados al ordenamiento mediante
leyes de la República—, al día siguiente de la declaratoria del estado de excepción, el Gobierno debe enviar al
Secretario General de la Organización de Estados Americanos y al Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas,
una comunicación en la que dé aviso a los Estados Partes de los tratados citados, en torno a la declaratoria del
estado de excepción y señale los motivos que condujeron a ella.
- ¿Qué garantías pueden ser suspendidas? ¿Su sistema legislativo distingue entre derechos humanos derogables y no derogables?
La Constitución y la Ley Estatutaria de los Estados de Excepción son categóricas al prohibir la suspensión de los
Derechos Humanos y las libertades fundamentales en situaciones de emergencia. Al respecto, la jurisprudencia
ha dicho lo siguiente: “si bien es cierto que durante los estados de excepción, el legislador extraordinario está
facultado para restringir o limitar determinados derechos o libertades fundamentales, no lo es menos que el
constituyente le ha negado, en todo caso, la posibilidad de suspenderlos; pues las garantías constitucionales en
los períodos excepcionales no se extinguen, a pesar de que algunas de ellas sean objeto de restricciones o
limitaciones”38.
Ahora bien, en cuanto a la distinción entre derechos humanos derogables y no derogables, el sistema legislativo
patrio no conoce ese distingo; no obstante, lo que sí es admisible es la restricción o limitación temporal de algunos derechos humanos a condición, como se advirtió, de que no se afecte su núcleo esencial.
- ¿Puede servir la emergencia como fundamento para cambiar de procedimientos penales comunes a procedimientos especiales (foro militar, procedimiento policial, procedimiento administrativo, comisiones militares?
art. 29 de la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, ninguna disposición de la Convención, puede ser interpretada
en el sentido de limitar el goce y ejercicio de cualquier derecho o libertad que pueda estar reconocido de acuerdo con las
leyes de cualquiera de los Estados partes o de acuerdo con otra Convención en que sea parte uno de estos Estados”.
34 El art. 8º sostiene que “Los decretos de excepción deberán señalar los motivos por los cuales se imponen cada una de las
limitaciones de los derechos constitucionales de tal manera que permitan demostrar la relación de conexidad con las causas
de la perturbación y los motivos por las cuales se hacen necesarias”.
36 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-802 del 2002.
37 El art. 39 de la Ley Estatutaria de los Estados de Excepción, señala: “Si dentro de los tres días siguientes a la declaratoria
del Estado de Conmoción Interior, el Congreso no se halla reunido, lo hará por derecho propio y el Gobierno le rendirá inmediatamente un informe sobre las razones que determinaron la declaración. /También deberá presentarle un informe cuando
sea necesario prorrogar el Estado de Conmoción Interior. /Cada una de las Cámaras dispondrá de un plazo máximo de 15
días para pronunciarse sobre los informes de que trata el presente art.. /Mientras subsista la Conmoción Interior, el Gobierno
enviará cada treinta días un informe sobre la evolución de los acontecimientos, las medidas adoptadas, su evaluación, así
como de las investigaciones en curso sobre eventuales abusos en el uso de las facultades. /Cuando haya lugar, las Comisiones de Derechos Humanos y Audiencias, presentarán ante la respectiva Cámara las recomendaciones que juzguen
convenientes y necesarias”.
- 95 -
Colombia
De conformidad con la mencionada Ley39 no se pueden suspender las garantías judiciales40 indispensables para
la protección de tales derechos, acorde con el art. 29 de la Carta Política; de esta manera, no es permitido41 ni
interrumpir el normal funcionamiento de las ramas del poder público ni suprimir o modificar los organismos y las
funciones básicas de acusación y juzgamiento. No obstante, el Acto legislativo N° 2 del 2003 pretendió, en
vano42, introducir reformas al texto constitucional tendentes a realizar detenciones, allanamientos y registros
domiciliarios, sin previa orden judicial, siempre que existieran serios motivos para prevenir la comisión de actos
terroristas.
7. ¿Se prevén en su sistema legislativo medidas especiales por las cuales se puedan clasificar partes de la
legislación y/o partes del proceso penal (legislación clasificada, procedimientos secretos, agentes secretos de
justicia, secreto en la administración de justicia penal)?
El sistema legislativo vigente no consagra, como ya se reseñó, procedimientos secretos; así mismo, como quiera que una de las características inherentes al juicio oral es el ser público, el secreto en la administración de
justicia no es de recibo. No obstante, la legislación establece la figura del agente encubierto43 —diferente, en
todo caso, del agente provocador44— “que hace relación a un medio de control extraordinario para enfrentar la
criminalidad organizada mediante el cual un agente de la administración de justicia penal, con una identidad
alterada, obtiene información útil para la consecución de pruebas”45. En otras palabras, este último instituto es
una técnica que permite penetrar la organización criminal, asegurar elementos materiales de prueba y desvertebrar bandas delictivas46.
8. ¿Permite su sistema jurídico el uso de información de inteligencia (por ejemplo, inteligencia policial general,
información de los servicios de inteligencia nacionales o extranjeros) en procedimientos penales, por ejemplo
- Como información preliminar para abrir una investigación penal?;
- Como prueba de la existencia de indicios racionales para el empleo de medidas coactivas sobre bienes y
sobre personas (por ejemplo, embargo y comiso, detención, prisión preventiva);
- Como prueba de la responsabilidad/culpabilidad en procedimientos penales?
La Corte Constitucional ha sostenido que cuando el Fiscal General o su delegado ordena a un funcionario judicial o de policía judicial realizar labores de inteligencia encuentra una finalidad constitucionalmente válida que
es, entre otras, la de buscar pruebas con fines judiciales o la de prevenir la comisión de delitos47.
En tal sentido, la Ley procesal penal instituye diferentes actos de investigación vinculados con la inteligencia48;
para el caso, se trata de la vigilancia y el seguimiento de personas49, la vigilancia de cosas50, el análisis e infiltración en organización criminal51, la actuación de agentes encubiertos, las entregas vigiladas52, el manejo de
informantes53, la penetración y el uso de fachadas.
Ver arts. 4° y 5° de la Ley Estatutaria 137 de 1994.
respecto, la Corte Constitucional, en sent. C-200 de 2002, en relación con el principio de Juez Natural puntualizó que
este principio implica específicamente la prohibición de crear Tribunales de excepción.
41 Ver art. 15 de la Ley Estatutaria 137 de 1994.
42 Mediante la sent. C-816 de 2004, la Corte Constitucional declaró inexequible dicho acto legislativo por vicios de procedimiento.
43 Cfr. art. 242 Ley 906 de 2004.
44 Por éste se entiende aquel funcionario de policía judicial o el particular que provoca en otro la comisión de un delito. Cfr.
Arciniégas Martínez, Policía judicial y sistema acusatorio, p. 321.
45 Cfr. Guerrero Peralta, Fundamentos, p. 393.
46 Cfr. Arciniégas Martínez, Policía judicial y sistema acusatorio, p. 317.
47 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, senr. C-431 de 2003.
48 Arciniégas Martínez, Policía judicial y sistema acusatorio, Ibíd., p. 316.
49 Cfr. art. 239, Ley 906 de 2004.
50 Cfr. art. 240, Ley 906 de 2004.
51 Cfr. art. 241, Ley 906 de 2004.
52 Cfr. art. 243, Ley 906 de 2004.
53 Cfr. art. 221, Ley 906 de 2004.
39
40Al
- 96 -
Colombia
Ahora bien, la vocación de los anteriores actos de investigación, es la de buscar el aseguramiento de elementos
materiales probatorios y la obtención de información54.
III. Aplicación proactiva (procedimientos policiales comunes o procedimientos penales comunes, procedimientos
especiales)
9. En su país los servicios de inteligencia, las fuerzas regulares de la policía o las agencias administrativas de la
aplicación de la ley (tales como las agencias de aduanas o tributarias)¿son competentes para utilizar medidas
coactivas de manera proactiva?
En primer lugar, en cuanto a los servicios de inteligencia, el Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS)
tiene como principal función producir inteligencia. Igualmente, es un órgano de policía judicial permanente55,
respecto de algunos delitos en particular56, como por ejemplo, aquellos que atentan contra la seguridad nacional,
la existencia y seguridad del Estado y el régimen constitucional, entre otros. En materia de sus competencias, el
Decreto 643 de 2004 —que decanta las funciones del DAS— no enuncia ninguna por cuya virtud se pueda
inferir, en el plano formal, la posibilidad de utilizar de medidas coactivas de manera proactiva.
En segundo lugar, en relación con la Policía, hay que advertir que su significado es polivalente al tenor del régimen constitucional colombiano. Así, en primer término, se encuentra la policía administrativa que denota modalidades de la actividad del Estado ligadas con la preservación y restablecimiento del orden público; en segundo
término, las autoridades administrativas de policía —que se refiere a las autoridades encargadas de desarrollar
tales formas de actividad—; en tercer término, la Policía Nacional, entendida como un cuerpo civil de funcionarios armados; y, por último, en cuarto término, la policía judicial que alude a la colaboración que pueden prestar
ciertos cuerpos a las autoridades judiciales para el esclarecimiento de los delitos57.
De cara a la pregunta formulada, que se refiere expresamente a “las fuerzas regulares de la policía”, el punto
para analizar será el de la Policía Nacional. Al respecto, debe decirse que la actividad de ésta es de naturaleza
predominantemente preventiva58, pues supone la intervención de la autoridad antes de que se viole el derecho,
con el fin de impedir —en lo posible— el acto que consume la violación59. En cuanto a las medidas coactivas
que pueda adoptar, el Código Nacional de Policía determina las pautas para el uso de las mismas60.
III. Aplicación proactiva (procedimientos policiales comunes o procedimientos penales comunes, procedimientos
especiales)
10. ¿Permite su sistema legislativo el uso de medios violentos en las técnicas de investigación (tortura o tratos
crueles inhumanos o degradantes) durante la aplicación proactiva, y en caso afirmativo en qué condiciones, cuál
es la práctica de su país en este campo?
Por ser la dignidad humana la piedra angular del Derecho penal61 y habida cuenta de su expresa consagración
en la Constitución Nacional62, es necesario aseverar que —por lo menos en un plano teórico— está proscrito el
Cfr. Arciniégas Martínez, Policía judicial y sistema acusatorio, p. 316.
Cfr. art. 201, Ley 906 de 2004.
56 Cfr. Arciniégas Martínez, Policía judicial y sistema acusatorio, p. 145.
57 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-404 de 2003.
58 Cfr. art. 5 del Código Nacional de Policía.
59 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sen. C-789 de 2006.
60 Dice el art. 29: “Sólo cuando sea estrictamente necesario, la policía puede emplear la fuerza para impedir la perturbación
del orden público y para restablecerlo. Así, podrán los funcionarios de policía utilizar la fuerza: a) Para hacer cumplir las
decisiones y las órdenes de los jueces y demás autoridades; b) Para impedir la inminente o actual comisión de infracciones
penales o de policía; c) Para asegurar la captura del que debe ser conducido ante la autoridad; d) Para vencer la resistencia
del que se oponga a orden policial que deba cumplirse inmediatamente; e) Para evitar mayores peligros y perjuicios en caso
de calamidad pública; f) Para defenderse o defender a otro de una violencia actual e injusta contra la persona, su honor y sus
bienes; g) Para proteger a las personas contra peligros inminentes y graves”.
61 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-038 de 1995; también, Velásquez Velásquez, Manual, ob. cit., p. 31.
62 La Carta Superior consagra como elemento fundante del Estado el respeto de la dignidad humana (art. 1º); así mismo, el
art. 12 prevé que nadie será sometido a desaparición forzada, a torturas ni a tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes.
54
55
- 97 -
Colombia
uso de medios violentos en las técnicas de investigación; en el mismo sentido, el Código de Procedimiento
Penal63 señala que en el desarrollo de la investigación y en el proceso penal los servidores públicos se ceñirán a
criterios de necesidad, ponderación y legalidad, para evitar excesos contrarios a la función pública, especialmente a la justicia. Corolario de lo afirmado, es que el uso de medios violentos —verbigracia, la tortura—, es insostenible, ab initio, en nuestro sistema legislativo.
11. ¿En caso de delitos graves, permite su sistema legislativo limitar el Derecho al habeas data y al habeas
corpus?
En primer lugar, respecto del Habeas Data64, previsto en el inc. 3° del art. 15 del Texto Superior, la correspondencia y las demás formas de comunicación privada son inviolables, y solo pueden ser interceptadas o registradas mediante orden judicial, en los casos y con las formalidades que establezca la Ley. De esta forma, el Código
de Procedimiento Penal faculta a la Fiscalía —que al tenor del art. 116 de la Carta Política hace parte del poder
judicial— para interceptar comunicaciones65 que, para el caso colombiano, no hace ninguna diferencia entre
delitos graves y menos graves66; igualmente, está acreditada para retener correspondencia67, siempre y cuando
tenga motivos suficientemente fundados para inferir que existe información útil para la investigación68. Finalmente, se le arrogó la facultad de recuperar información dejada al navegar por internet u otros medios tecnológicos
que produzcan efectos equivalentes69.
En todo caso, tal injerencia debe someterse a un control de legalidad posterior —dentro de las 24 horas— ante
un Juez de Control de Garantías70, sin que se formule ritual diferente cuando se trate de delitos graves.
En segundo lugar, en relación con el Habeas Corpus, la Constitución Política71 consagra este nuclear derecho
sin distingos de ninguna índole, lo que conduce a sostener que esta prerrogativa no se limita en tratándose de
delitos de mayor o menor gravedad. Al respecto, la Corte Constitucional ha dicho que, conforme al art. 93 de la
Carta y a la jurisprudencia sobre esta figura, se tiene que es de aquellos derechos que prevalecen en el orden
interno colombiano, toda vez que hacen parte de un tratado ratificado por Colombia y no pueden ser limitados en
los estados de excepción72. A su turno, la Ley 1095 de 2006, por la cual se reglamenta el art. 30 de la Carta,
establece en el art. 1º que no se suspenden aun en los estados de excepción73.
12. ¿Ha experimentado su sistema legislativo un aumento de
- Los poderes de investigación y coactivos de las autoridades encargadas de la investigación (embargo y comiso, intervenciones y grabaciones, órdenes de congelación, órdenes de producción de prueba, detenciones y
prisión preventiva, infiltración etc.)?
Cfr. art. 27, Ley 906 de 2004.
Consiste en la posibilidad que tiene cada persona de conocer, actualizar y rectificar las informaciones contenidas sobre sí
en las bases de datos, Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-687 de 2002.
65 Cfr. art. 235 de la Ley 906 de 2004.
66 Guerrero Peralta, Fundamentos, p. 370.
68 Guerrero Peralta, Fundamentos, p.366.
70 Cfr. art. 237 de la Ley 906 de 2004. Sin embargo, debe advertirse, cuando se tratare de búsquedas selectivas en bases de
datos (cfr. art. 244 de la Ley 906) se requiere orden judicial previa cuando se trata de los datos personales, organizados con
fines legales y recogidos por instituciones o entidades públicas o privadas debidamente facultadas para ello; sobre ello, sent.
C-336 de 2007.
71 En efecto, dice el art. 30: “Quien estuviere privado de su libertad, y creyere estarlo ilegalmente, tiene derecho a invocar
ante cualquier autoridad judicial, en todo tiempo, por sí o por interpuesta persona, el Habeas Corpus, el cual debe resolverse
en el término de treinta y seis horas”.
73 Mediante la sent. C-187 de 2006, la Corte Constitucional efectuó la revisión previa del Proyecto de Ley Estatutaria No.
284/05 Senado y No. 229/04 Cámara, “Por medio de la cual se reglamenta el art. 30 de la Constitución Política”, que declara
exequible el mismo por carecer de vicios de procedimiento.
63
64
- 98 -
Colombia
No, al contrario. A partir del acto Legislativo Nº 03 de 2002, que modificó el Art. 250 de la Constitución, las autoridades encargadas de la investigación —La Fiscalía General de la Nación— han disminuido las atribuciones
que en sentido antes desplegaban74; así, entonces, deben solicitar al juez que ejerza las funciones de control de
garantías las medidas necesarias que aseguren la comparecencia de los imputados al proceso penal, la conservación de la prueba y la protección de la comunidad, en especial, de las víctimas; así mismo, para adelantar
registros, allanamientos, incautaciones e interceptaciones de comunicaciones requieren del control posterior
respectivo, a más tardar dentro de las treinta y seis (36) horas siguientes, al solo efecto de determinar su validez.
- Los deberes de cooperación de las personas investigadas? En caso afirmativo ¿de qué manera? ¿se prevén nuevos deberes de cooperación en procesos transnacionales (por ejemplo, órdenes de producción transnacional de información?
13. ¿Se ha producido una transferencia de poderes en su país
- del poder judicial (jueces de instrucción, etc.) al ejecutivo en relación con la investigación (policía, fiscales,
servicios de inteligencia, servicios especiales de aplicación, ejército)? En caso afirmativo ¿cómo y hasta qué
punto?
La Fiscalía en Colombia pertenece a la rama judicial75 y, como tal, es la encargada de adelantar la investigación,
sin que se haya producido, en los últimos años, una transferencia de poderes en ese sentido.
- De los fiscales a la policía etc.? caso afirmativo ¿cómo y en qué medida?
Con la entrada en vigor de la Ley 1153 de 2007 se produjo, de manera indudable, una transferencia de los
poderes de investigación de la Fiscalía General de la Nación a la Policía Nacional. Dicha ley —por medio de la
cual se establece el tratamiento de las pequeñas causas en materia penal— instituye, de forma palmaria76, que
las funciones de indagación e investigación le corresponden a la Policía Nacional.
14. ¿Se ha producido en su país una especialización y/o centralización de las autoridades de judiciales de investigación?
Como ya se advirtió, las funciones de investigación le competen, de manera general, a la Fiscalía General de la
Nación y ésta, a su vez, hace parte de la rama judicial77; por virtud de lo anterior, dicha tarea está centralizada
en una autoridad de estirpe judicial.
15. En su sistema jurídico ¿se han modificado las reglas sobre
‐ las condiciones para aprobar medidas coactivas (autorizaciones) por parte de la autoridad judicial? En caso
afirmativo ¿Cómo y en que medida? ¿Se ha producido una redefinición de los indicios racionales de criminalidad
para las autorizaciones?
Para dar respuesta a este interrogante, es menester acudir a los últimos dos paradigmas de enjuiciamiento
criminal —Ley 600 de 2000 y Ley 906 de 2004— de manera que, a partir de su confrontación, irrumpa la conclusión adecuada.
El Estatuto procesal de 2000 —que se aplica ahora sólo para la investigación y el juzgamiento de ciertas personalidades, básicamente aforados—, en relación con las medidas coactivas, concedía la facultad de ordenar la
captura a los funcionarios que adelantaban investigaciones78; lo concerniente a otro tipo de actos procesales,
como la retención de correspondencia79 y la interceptación de comunicaciones80, las podía ordenar el funciona-
Cfr. Ley 600 de 2000.
Buitrago Ruiz/Monroy Victoria, “Igualdad en el acceso a medios técnicos”, p. 248.
76 Cfr. art. 36, Ley 1153 de 2007.
77 Cfr. art. 116 de la Constitución Nacional.
78 Martínez Rave, Procedimiento penal, p. 448.
79 Cfr. art. 297, Ley 600 de 2000.
80 Cfr. art. 301, Ley 600 de 2000.
74
75
- 99 -
Colombia
rio instructor o el competente81. El registro de personas lo disponía el funcionario instructor cuando tenía fundamento para inferir que una persona ocultaba objetos, documentos o elementos que tengan interés en un proceso
penal82. Lo relativo a los allanamientos y registros podía ser adelantado por los funcionarios que adelantaban la
investigación83.
En relación con las medidas coactivas por parte de la autoridad judicial, la Ley 906 de 2004 prevé dos situaciones, a saber: en primer lugar, las medidas que son sometidas a un control ex post a cargo del Juez de Control
de Garantías84, tales como el comiso85, el registro y allanamiento de un inmueble86, la retención de correspondencia87, la interceptación de comunicaciones88, la recuperación de información dejada al navegar por internet u
otros medios tecnológicos que produzcan efectos equivalentes89, la utilización de agentes encubiertos90 y la
captura excepcional91, entre otras.
En segundo término, aquellas actividades —diferentes de las anteriores— que impliquen afectación de derechos
y garantías fundamentales se pueden realizar siempre que haya autorización ex ante por parte el Juez de Control de Garantías92; entre ellas están: la captura93, la inspección corporal94, el registro corporal95, la obtención de
muestras para examen grafotécnico, el cotejo de fluidos corporales, la identificación de voz y la impresión dental
y de pisadas96. Ahora, frente a la práctica de reconocimiento y exámenes físicos de las víctimas, se requiere el
consentimiento escrito de la misma, no obstante, si la víctima manifiesta su negativa, el Juez de Control de
Garantías puede autorizar o negar la medida; la negativa de la víctima prevalece salvo cuando el juez, después
de ponderar si la medida es idónea, necesaria y proporcionada en las circunstancias del caso, concluye que el
delito investigado reviste extrema gravedad y dicha medida es la única forma de obtener una evidencia física
para la determinación de la responsabilidad penal del procesado o de su inocencia97.
De lo consignado en líneas anteriores se deduce, entonces, que ha habido un viraje en relación con la aprobación de medidas coactivas por parte de la autoridad judicial, derivado del cambio de paradigma de enjuiciamiento, en la medida en que de un proceso de carácter mixto se ha transitado hacia otro de tendencia acusatoria.
Así, pues, bajo el ropaje de la Ley 600 de 2000, el funcionario instructor tenía la potestad de erigir determinadas
medidas coactivas sin que operara, ex ante o ex post, ningún control por parte de los Jueces; a la inversa, la Ley
906 de 2004, con base en el art. 250 numeral 3 de la Constitución Nacional, establece que corresponde al Juez
de Control de Garantías autorizar medidas adicionales que impliquen afectación de derechos fundamentales con
Martínez Rave, Procedimiento penal, pp. 353 y 354.
Ibíd., p. 358.
83 Cfr. art. 294, Ley 600 de 2000.
84 Cfr. art. 237, Ley 906 de 2004.
85 Cfr. art. 82 y ss., Ley 906 de 2004.
86 Cfr. art. 219, Ley 906 de 2004.
87 Cfr. art. 233, Ley 906 de 2004.
88 Cfr. art. 235, Ley 906 de 2004.
89 Cfr. art. 236, Ley 906 de 2004.
90 Cfr. art. 242, Ley 906 de 2004.
91 Cfr. art. 300, Ley 906 de 2004.
92 Cfr. art. 246, Ley 906 de 2004.
93 Cfr. art. 297, Ley 906 de 2004.
94 La inspección corporal requiere autorización previa del juez de control de garantías, el cual ponderará la solicitud del fiscal,
o de la policía judicial en circunstancias excepcionales que ameriten extrema urgencia, para determinar si la medida específica es o no pertinente y, de serlo, si también es idónea, necesaria y proporcionada en las condiciones particulares del caso.
Cfr. Corte Constitucional sent. C-822 de 2005.
95 El registro corporal requiere autorización previa del juez de control de garantías, el cual ponderará la solicitud del fiscal, o
de la policía judicial en circunstancias excepcionales que ameriten extrema urgencia, para determinar si la medida específica
es o no pertinente y, de serlo, si también es idónea, necesaria y proporcionada en las condiciones particulares del caso. Cfr.
Corte Constitucional sent. C-822 de 2005.
96 Cfr. art. 249, Ley 906 de 2004.
81
82
- 100 -
Colombia
soporte en los pautas hermenéuticas de la adecuación, la necesidad y la proporcionalidad98; en cuanto a las
medidas de carácter posterior, el Juez debe examinar la motivación de la diligencia, la pertinencia y la verificación de respecto a los derechos fundamentales99.
‐ La formación del sumario o el acceso a la prueba, para mantenerla ex parte, de manera que no esté disponible para la defensa?
Para absolver este interrogante es indispensable referirse, nuevamente, a los dos últimos modelos de procesamiento penal.
Con el fin de evitar las pruebas secretas y la utilización de mecanismos indebidos, la Ley 600 de 2000 estableció
como norma general la publicidad del proceso, salvo en las diligencias previas y en la instrucción del proceso100.
Ahora, si bien es cierto que se consideraba reservada la investigación previa101, no lo era ni para el defensor ni
para el imputado; al respecto, la Corte Constitucional afirmó que antes de la recepción de la versión preliminar
debía informarse al investigado sobre el delito que se le atribuía, así como permitirle conocer los fundamentos
probatorios de dicha imputación específica102. En el mismo sentido, la investigación, amén de que era reservada103, otorgaba la facultad a quienes intervienen en el proceso de que se les expidiera copia de la actuación para
su uso exclusivo y el ejercicio de sus derechos. No obstante, el art. 293 del C.P.P. establecía que “Las providencias motivadas mediante las cuales se disponga el allanamiento y el registro, la retención de correspondencia
postal o telegráfica o la interceptación de comunicaciones telefónicas, no se darán a conocer a las partes mientras el funcionario considere que ello puede interferir en el desarrollo de la respectiva diligencia”, lo que implicaba una clara reserva de índole temporal.
En lo que concierne a la Ley 906 de 2004 este modelo se estructura sobre la base de la ausencia de contradicción probatoria durante la investigación104, como quiera que en este estadio se recopilan la evidencia y los elementos materiales probatorios que serán controvertidos en curso del juicio oral105 o, excepcionalmente, a través
de la prueba anticipada106. Ahora bien, el hecho de que la contradicción sólo se produzca en el juicio oral no
implica que la evidencia sea secreta para la defensa107, en la medida en que dentro de la audiencia de formulación de la acusación “se cumplirá lo relacionado con el descubrimiento de la prueba108”; de esta forma, en el
escrito de acusación, el Fiscal debe descubrir las pruebas de cargo, incluyendo los elementos favorables al
acusado109. Se pretende, así, que la defensa conozca los elementos materiales probatorios y la evidencia física
que se debatirá en el juicio oral; a contrario sensu, los elementos materiales que no sean descubiertos, ya sea
con o sin orden específica del Juez, no podrán ser aducidos al proceso ni convertirse en prueba del mismo, ni
practicarse durante el juicio110.
Guerrero Peralta, El Juez de Control de Garantías, p. 171.
Ibíd., pp. 176 y 177.
100 Martínez Rave, Procedimiento penal, p. 21.
101 Art. 323. “Reserva de las diligencias. Durante la investigación previa las diligencias son reservadas, pero el defensor del
imputado que rindió versión preliminar, tiene derecho a conocerlas y a que se le expidan copias”.
103 Cfr. art. 330, Ley 600 de 2000.
104 En efecto, durante la etapa preprocesal de indagación, al igual que en el curso de la investigación, no se practican realmente “pruebas”, salvo las anticipadas de manera excepcional, sino que se recaudan, tanto por la Fiscalía como por el
indiciado o imputado, elementos materiales probatorios, evidencia física e información, tales como las huellas, los rastros, las
armas, los efectos provenientes del delito, y los mensajes de datos, entre otros. Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-1154 de
2005.
105 Art. 15. “Contradicción. Las partes tendrán derecho a conocer y controvertir las pruebas, así como a intervenir en su
formación, tanto las que sean producidas o incorporadas en el juicio oral y en el incidente de reparación integral, como las
que se practiquen en forma anticipada”.
106 Cfr. art. 274, Ley 906 de 2004.
107 Bernal Cuéllar/Montealegre Lynett, El Proceso penal, p. 206.
108 Cfr. art. 344, Ley 906 de 2004.
110 Cfr. art. 346, Ley 906 de 2004.
98
99
- 101 -
Colombia
- La prueba con el fin de incluir al acusado como una fuente de prueba?
La ley procesal prevé la posibilidad de que el acusado actúe como testigo111 renunciando, de manera voluntaria,
al derecho constitucional a guardar silencio, “...en el entendido que el juramento prestado por el acusado o
coacusado declarante no tendrá efectos penales adversos respecto de la declaración sobre su propia conducta;
y que, en todo caso, de ello se le informará previamente por el juez, así como del derecho que le asiste a guardar silencio y a no autoincriminarse. Ni del silencio, ni de la negativa a responder, pueden derivarse consecuencias penales adversas al declarante”112.
Así mismo, es posible la obtención de muestras que involucren al imputado113, si a juicio del Fiscal resulta imperioso, a condición de que éste dé su consentimiento; sin embargo, de no proporcionar su aquiescencia, se debe
solicitar audiencia ante el Juez de Control de Garantías para tal menester. De ser esta la vía —sostiene la Corte
Constitucional— se deben observar las siguientes pautas: en primer lugar, que no se someta innecesariamente
al imputado a la repetición de la inspección corporal; en segundo lugar, que cuando se trate de inspecciones que
involucren las cavidades vaginales, genitales o anales, o que requieran el empleo de instrumentos que deban
ser introducidos en el cuerpo del imputado, esta diligencia sea adelantada por personal médico; en tercer lugar,
que la inspección corporal no implique el empleo de procedimientos que causen dolores innecesarios, o que
puedan poner en riesgo la salud del imputado; en cuarto lugar, que durante la práctica de la misma se observe
el mayor decoro y respeto por la persona del imputado; y, finalmente, en quinto lugar, que la medida se realice
en condiciones de seguridad, higiene, confiabilidad y humanidad para el imputado114. Teniendo en cuenta estos
principios, el Juez de Control de Garantías puede negar la solicitud cuando la misma no sea idónea para alcanzar los fines específicos de la investigación115.
- Las condiciones para la detención y la prisión preventiva?
¿Prevé su sistema legislativo posibilidades de detención y de prisión preventiva secretas, deportación, y entrega
extraordinaria sin habeas corpus?
El sistema legislativo no consagra ninguna posibilidad de detención preventiva secreta; al respecto, el inciso final
de art. 2º de la Ley 906, sostiene que “En todos los casos se solicitará el control de legalidad de la captura al
juez de garantías, en el menor tiempo posible, sin superar las treinta y seis (36) horas siguientes”116 (resaltado
fuera del texto).
16. ¿Se han introducido en su país órdenes específicas (judiciales o no) para el almacenamiento de información
a disposición de los proveedores de servicios (proveedores de internet, agencias de viajes, compañías aéreas,
compañías de tarjetas de crédito)?
La Ley procesal penal, en el art. 244, consagra la posibilidad de que la policía judicial, en desarrollo de su actividad investigativa, obtenga información, a través de lo que denominó la “búsqueda selectiva en bases de datos”.
Al respecto debe tenerse en cuenta que si dicha averiguación comprende información confidencial referida al
indiciado o imputado, constituye una invasión a la intimidad personal o familiar del mismo; por tal virtud, se requiere de orden judicial previa117 por tratarse, como se dijo, de datos personales organizados con fines legales y
Cfr. art. 394, Ley 906 de 2004.
Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C- 782 de 2005.
113 Cfr. art. 249, Ley 906 de 2004.
115 Véase Guerrero Peralta, Fundamentos, p. 417.
116 Este inciso fue declarado condicionalmente exequible por la Corte Constitucional, mediante Sent. C-163 de 2008, según
Comunicado de Prensa de la Sala Plena de 20 y 21 de febrero de 2008, “en el entendido que dentro del término de treinta y
seis (36) horas posteriores a la captura, previsto en la norma, se debe realizar el control efectivo a la restricción de la libertad
por parte del juez de garantías, o la autoridad judicial competente”.
117 El juez de control de garantías, para la adopción de la autorización correspondiente, tendrá en cuenta la legitimidad de la
medida atendiendo a su finalidad, así como los criterios de pertinencia, idoneidad y necesidad de la misma que determinen
su proporcionalidad en el caso concreto. Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-336 de 2007.
111
112
- 102 -
Colombia
recogidos por instituciones o entidades públicas o privadas debidamente autorizadas para ello, por estar de por
medio el derecho fundamental al habeas data118.
17. ¿En su país la prueba previa al juicio obtenida por la policía y las autoridades judiciales está sometida al
control judicial (admisibilidad de la prueba previa al juicio), existen medidas especiales respecto de los delitos
graves?
Con total claridad el legislador patrio dispuso el control judicial anterior al juicio de toda la prueba que se pretenda debatir en el mismo. De este modo, la Ley procesal determina, en el marco de la audiencia preparatoria119,
que el juez debe decretar la práctica de las pruebas solicitadas cuando ellas se refieran a los hechos de la acusación que requieran prueba, de acuerdo con las reglas de pertinencia120 y admisibilidad121. Es más, el juez
debe excluir la práctica o aducción de medios de prueba ilegales, además de los que se han practicado, aducido
o conseguido con violación de los requisitos formales previstos en la Ley122. Estas reglas se observan también
en relación con los delitos más graves.
18. ¿Su país permite el uso de la prueba obtenida en el extranjero (uso extraterritorial de la prueba), en caso
afirmativo en qué condiciones?
A tenor de lo consagrado en el art. 281 de la Ley 906 de 2004, el uso de los elementos materiales probatorios y
la evidencia física obtenidos en el extranjero, es viable a condición de que se configuren los siguientes presupuestos: a) Petición a cargo de la autoridad penal nacional del elemento material probatorio y/o evidencia física;
y, b) Existencia de un convenio bilateral o multilateral de cooperación judicial penal recíproca123.
En relación con este tópico ha dicho, con razón, la Corte Constitucional que la agilización de los trámites para el
suministro de pruebas e información dentro de los procesos penales que pretenden los tratados de asistencia,
permite realizar el principio de eficiencia en la administración de justicia. Así mismo, el acceso a las pruebas
necesarias dentro de un proceso permite a la Fiscalía ejercer su función de investigar la comisión de delitos
garantizando, a su vez, el derecho al debido proceso de las personas. En efecto, el acceso a pruebas que se
encuentren fuera del territorio nacional constituye un mecanismo que permite aumentar el conjunto de garantías
de que dispone el procesado para su defensa124.
19. ¿Se han introducido medidas coactivas de forma que dejen en papel mojado las reglas sobre el juicio justo?
Desde el prisma legal y constitucional están vertidas todas las pautas que soportan —en el plano teórico de la
justicia ordinaria— un juicio justo.
20. ¿Se han introducido en su país medidas especiales para la protección del secreto de testigos, víctimas,
jueces, etc.?
Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-336 de 2007.
Cfr. art. 357, Ley 906 de 2004.
120 El elemento material probatorio, la evidencia física y el medio de prueba deberán referirse, directa o indirectamente, a los
hechos o circunstancias relativos a la comisión de la conducta delictiva y sus consecuencias, así como a la identidad o a la
responsabilidad penal del acusado. También es pertinente cuando sólo sirve para hacer más probable o menos probable uno
de los hechos o circunstancias mencionados, o se refiere a la credibilidad de un testigo o de un perito. Cfr. art. 375, Ley 906
de 2004.
121 Toda prueba pertinente es admisible, salvo en alguno de los siguientes casos: a) Que exista peligro de causar grave
perjuicio indebido; b) Probabilidad de que genere confusión en lugar de mayor claridad al asunto, o exhiba escaso valor
probatorio, y c) Que sea injustamente dilatoria del procedimiento. Cfr. art. 376, Ley 906 de 2004.
122 Cfr. art. 360, Ley 906 de 2004.
123 Por ejemplo: Ley 761 de 2002 ‘Por medio de la cual se aprueba el tratado entre la República de Colombia y la República
Popular China sobre asistencia judicial en materia penal” firmado en Beijing, el catorce (14) de mayo de mil novecientos
noventa y nueve (1999); la Ley 470 del 5 de agosto de 1998, “Por medio de la cual se aprueba la Convención Interamericana
Sobre Trafico Internacional de Menores”, hecha en México, D.F., el dieciocho (18) de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y
cuatro (1994).
124 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-291A de 2003.
118
119
- 103 -
Colombia
En la otrora legislación existían normas125 que permitían ocultar la identidad —en relación con delitos de suma
gravedad— no sólo de algunos servidores públicos, sino también de los testigos, con el fin de proteger su integridad, como ya se dijo.
En relación con el actual ritual, se impone la regla por cuya virtud no hay ni testigos, ni fiscales, ni jueces cuya
identidad sea secreta. No obstante, en las audiencias en que se juzguen delitos cuya víctima sea un menor de
18 años, la Ley señala126 que no se podrá exponer a la víctima frente a su agresor y, si se realiza un interrogatorio o contrainterrogatorio, un profesional especializado será el que ajuste las preguntas a un lenguaje comprensible a la edad del menor.
En esta línea de razonamiento, si bien no se instituye el secreto de los testigos o de las víctimas en el plexo
normativo, sí se asigna a la Fiscalía General de la Nación —a tenor del art. 250 del Texto Superior— la obligación de “velar por la protección de las víctimas, testigos e intervinientes en el proceso”; en frente a la protección
de los testigos de la defensa, ésta está a cargo de la Defensoría del Pueblo; y, la de los jueces, por parte del
Consejo Superior de la Judicatura127. Así, entonces, la Ley procesal penal establece a lo largo de su estructura
normas claras concernientes a la intervención de víctimas128 y a la protección de testigos129.
Aunado a lo dicho, el art. 11 de la Ley 938 de 2004 dispone que corresponda al Fiscal General de la Nación
“establecer las directrices del Programa de Protección y Asistencia a Víctimas, Testigos e Intervinientes de la
Fiscalía General de la Nación”. En el mismo orden de ideas, el art. 67 de la Ley 418 de 1997, prorrogada y modificada por las Leyes 548 de 1999, 782 de 2002 y 1106 del 22 de diciembre de 2006, creó con “cargo al Estado y
bajo la dirección y coordinación de la Fiscalía General de la Nación”, el “Programa de Protección a Testigos,
Víctimas, Intervinientes en el Proceso y Funcionarios de la Fiscalía”.
21. Cuando se trata de delitos graves, ¿prevé su sistema legislativo reglas especiales relativas a
- la competencia jurisdiccional? En caso afirmativo, cuál es la competencia jurisdiccional rationae materiae?
Si bien el sistema legislativo vigente no establece procesos diferentes en tratándose de delitos graves —debido
a que son tramitados por la misma ruta procesal que los demás— lo que sí determina, por virtud de la competencia ratione materiae, es que las conductas de mayor gravedad son de competencia de los Jueces Penales
del Circuito Especializados130.
- la organización del juicio, incluida la creación de tribunales especiales?
De cara al paradigma de procedimiento penal que rige en la actualidad, Ley 906 de 2004, concretamente el
Libro III, no consagra reglas disímiles a las que contiene el Juicio de manera general, e igualmente no erige
tribunales de excepción para el juzgamiento de los delitos más graves.
Lo anterior es evidente en la medida en que uno de los postulados rectores de esa normativa establece que
nadie podrá ser juzgado por juez o tribunal ad hoc o especial, instituido con posterioridad a la comisión de un
delito, por fuera de la estructura judicial ordinaria131. Lo anterior, supone la institucionalización del juez, antepuesto al hecho que luego ha de ser investigado, desterrando —en todo caso— la integración de tribunales
especiales para el juzgamiento132.
- la protección del secreto de los testigos, víctimas, jueces, etc.?
Tal y como se anotó al responder la pregunta número 20, el modelo de tendencia acusatoria vigente, no establece el secreto de testigos víctimas o jueces.
- la evidencia y la prueba en el juicio?
Cfr. arts. 158 y 293 del Decreto 2700 de 1991.
Cfr. art. 194, Ley 1098 de 2006.
127 Cfr. numeral 6º, art. 114, Ley 906 de 2004.
128 Cfr. art. 137, Ley 906 de 2004.
129 Cfr. art. 154 y 342 Ley 906 de 2004.
130 Cfr. art. 35, Ley 906 de 2004.
131 Cfr. art. 19, Ley 906 de 2004.
132 Barreto Ardila, “Principios del Derecho procesal penal”, p. 49.
125
126
- 104 -
Colombia
No, las reglas alusivas a la evidencia y la prueba en el juicio son las mismas para todos los delitos.
- ¿Se puede utilizar la prueba blindada o secreta en procedimientos ex parte?
No, de ninguna manera. Uno de los baluartes rectores del proceso penal es el principio de publicidad, por cuya
virtud la prueba no puede ser practicada de manera secreta u oculta, sino de cara al imputado y a la sociedad133;
se trata, pues, de una garantía a favor del imputado, en virtud de la cual la sentencia tiene que ser —sin perjuicio de los avatares del juicio— un acto jurídico congruente con lo sucedido en el debate probatorio134.
- ¿Existe una excepción relativa al interés público para acceder a la prueba y al interrogatorio cruzado?
En relación con este interrogante la Ley procesal penal no establece ningún tipo de excepción en tratándose de
los delitos más graves; lo que sí advierte el plexo normativo, en cuanto a la admisibilidad135 de las pruebas, es
que serán inadmisibles, a pesar de su pertinencia, en tres casos: En primer lugar, si existe peligro de causar
grave perjuicio indebido; en segundo lugar, en caso de que genere confusión en lugar de mayor claridad al
asunto, o exhiba escaso valor probatorio; y, en tercer lugar, que la prueba sea injustamente dilatoria del procedimiento.
- ¿Se puede suprimir la prueba favorable al sospechoso en circunstancias especiales?
No. Al respecto ninguna norma de la Ley procesal penal consagra está posibilidad.
- la valoración de la prueba?
Son las mismas reglas que rigen de manera general para todas las actuaciones136.
22. Cuando se trata de delitos graves, ¿prevé su sistema legislativo de forma completa
- El derecho de la persona sospechosa/acusada/detenida a un tribunal independiente e imparcial?
Sí, efectivamente, como ha dicho la Corte Constitucional, “el derecho a un juez imparcial, resulta ser una garantía esencial para la existencia de un Estado Derecho y un bien imprescindible en todo Estado democrático, toda
vez que garantiza al ciudadano un juicio justo y con respeto al debido proceso. En efecto, la imparcialidad e
independencia judicial son elementos imprescindibles de la legalidad del procedimiento, que no sólo comporta el
interés individual, sino que se constituye como un pilar y valor superior del ordenamiento jurídico”137.
- La presunción de inocencia en el juicio o se prevén reglas especiales (presunción de culpabilidad o responsabilidad, inversión de la carga de la prueba)?
El art. 7º de la Ley 906 de 2004, consagra este importante bastión, que se mantiene incólume mientras no quede
en firme decisión judicial definitiva sobre la responsabilidad penal de quien es investigado. Así mismo, reza la
citada norma, que en ningún caso podrá invertirse esta carga probatoria.
- El derecho a ser juzgado sin dilaciones indebidas y el derecho a que se determine la legalidad de la detención
lo antes posible (habeas corpus)?
Sí. En primer lugar, la Ley procesal penal establece138 el derecho a tener un juicio sin dilaciones injustificadas,
garantía que es reiterada en varias disposiciones del mismo texto legal139; en segundo lugar, instaura de manera
explícita el derecho a que se determine la legalidad de la detención dentro de las 36 horas siguientes al acto de
aprehensión140.
- La máxima in dubio pro reo?
Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. C-1154 de 2005.
Cfr. Vecchionacce Iglesias, El juicio oral y la posición jurídica del imputado, p. 60.
135 Cfr. art. 376, Ley 906 de 2004.
136 Cfr. art. 380: “Criterios de valoración. Los medios de prueba, los elementos materiales probatorios y la evidencia física, se
apreciarán en conjunto. Los criterios para apreciar cada uno de ellos serán señalados en el respectivo capítulo”.
137 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, Auto 318 de 2006.
138 Cfr. art. 7, literal K, Ley 906 de 2004.
139 Cfr. arts. 157 y 488, Ley 906 de 2004.
140 Cfr. art. 3, Ley 906 de 2004.
133
134
- 105 -
Colombia
Sí, el art. 7º de la Ley 906 de 2004, acoge de manera nítida este axioma, al afirmar que toda duda que se presente se debe resolver a favor del procesado.
- Los derechos procesales de las partes (igualdad de armas, juicio justo)?
Sí, como se había anotado, la defensa puede ejercer todos los derechos y facultades que los Tratados Internacionales relativos a Derechos Humanos que forman parte del bloque de constitucionalidad y de la Constitución
Política reconocen en favor del imputado141; además, puede invocar los deberes y atribuciones contenidos en la
Ley142.
-el derecho a un juicio público con una audiencia?
Sí, el art. 8º de la Ley 906 de 2004, establece el derecho a un juicio oral, aunado a la previsión legal143 en virtud
de la cual durante la actuación procesal la práctica de pruebas y el debate deben realizarse de manera continua,
con preferencia en un mismo día.
-el derecho a un proceso oral en audiencia equitativa y adversarial?
La oralidad fue consagrada en la Ley procesal penal al establecer que todas las actuaciones se realizarán en
audiencia144 y de manera oral145.
Así pues, para que el proceso, además de oral, sea equitativo, debe obedecer al principio de igualdad de armas,
que está orientado a que haya equilibrio argumentativo, locativo y técnico científico entre quien acusa y quien
defiende146.
-el derecho a estar presente en el juicio;
Es la regla general, que no se pueden adelantar investigaciones o juicios en ausencia; tanto menos en el marco
de un sistema procesal penal de tendencia acusatoria caracterizado por la realización de un juicio oral, público,
con inmediación de las pruebas, contradictorio, concentrado y con todas las garantías147.
Sin embargo, existen dos situaciones148 en las que es posible que el imputado no esté presente en juicio: En
primer lugar, en eventos de contumacia —cuya declaratoria se da antes del juicio—, caso en el cual el procesado se rehúsa a comparecer a la audiencia de imputación, por lo que parte del conocimiento de que va a ser
imputado; por ello, dice la Corte Constitucional149, no se está frente a una situación de juicio in absentia, sino
frente a la ausencia del investigado en una etapa precisa del procedimiento penal conocida por él y por su abogado. En segundo lugar, la situación derivada de la imposibilidad de informar al acusado, a pesar de que el
Estado ha realizado todos los esfuerzos para dar con el paradero del mismo, a cuyo efecto la Ley prevé150 la
figura de la declaratoria de persona ausente, precedida por la solicitud de la Fiscalía ante el juez de control de
garantías.
- el derecho al total acceso al estado del caso y a un tiempo adecuado para preparar la defensa;
Cfr. art. 124, Ley 906 de 2004.
Cfr. art. 125, Ley 906 de 2004.
143 Cfr. art. 17, Ley 906 de 2004.
144 Cfr. Solórzano Gravito, Sistema Acusatorio y técnicas del juicio oral, p. 121.
145 Cfr. arts. 9 y 145, Ley 906 de 2004.
146 Pérez Pinzón, “Principios generales de la ley procesal”, p. 29.
147 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. 591 de 2005.
148 Solo de manera excepcional, y con el único propósito de dar continuidad y eficacia a la administración de justicia en tanto
que servicio público esencial, la Constitución y los tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos, pueden admitirse las
figuras de la declaratoria de persona ausente y la contumacia, casos en los cuales la audiencia respectiva se realizará con el
defensor que haya designado para su representación, o con el defensor que le designe el juez, de la lista suministrada por el
sistema nacional de defensoría pública, según el caso. Adicionalmente, la persona puede renunciar a su derecho a hallarse
presente durante la audiencia de formulación de la acusación. Con todo, siendo mecanismos de carácter excepcional, su
ejecución debe estar rodeada de un conjunto de garantías y controles judiciales. Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. 591 de 2005.
149 Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. 1154 de 2005.
150 Cfr. art. 127, Ley 906 de 2004.
141
142
- 106 -
Colombia
En primer lugar, art. 250 de la Constitución Política establece que “[e]n el evento de presentarse escrito de acusación, el Fiscal General o sus delegados deberán suministrar, por conducto del juez de conocimiento, todos los
elementos probatorios e informaciones de que tenga noticia incluidos los que le sean favorables al procesado”.
En esa misma línea, la Ley procesal penal prevé151 el descubrimiento probatorio por parte de la Fiscalía.
Por ello, con el fin de hacer realidad el principio de la igualdad de armas, la defensa debe estar en posibilidad de
conocer los elementos de juicio que se encuentren a disposición de la Fiscalía, pues de ellos depende el diseño
de su estrategia defensiva152 y, por ende, de la confección de su teoría del caso.
En segundo lugar, la Ley establece153 como una de las garantías derivadas del derecho a la defensa, la de
disponer de tiempo razonable y de medios adecuados para la preparación de la misma.
- el derecho a ser informado sin retraso del delito imputado;
El principio acusatorio contiene como una de las garantías básicas para el acusado, la posibilidad de conocer
previamente la acusación, con la correlativa obligación de estado de comunicarla154. En virtud de este derecho,
resulta obligatorio para el ente acusador informar de manera oportuna la imputación155.
-el derecho a la publicidad interna y externa de los procedimientos;
El código de Procedimiento penal prevé156 la publicidad de la actuación procesal, a la cual tienen acceso, además de los intervinientes, los medios de comunicación y la comunidad en general. No obstante, dice la norma
que se exceptúan los casos en los cuales el juez considere que la publicidad de los procedimientos pone en
peligro a las víctimas, jurados, testigos, peritos y demás intervinientes; así mismo, si se afecta la seguridad
nacional, se expone a un daño psicológico a los menores de edad que deban intervenir, se menoscabe el derecho del acusado a un juicio justo, o se comprometa seriamente el éxito de la investigación.
-el derecho a examinar los testigos contrarios al acusado y a obtener la presencia y el examen de testigos en su
favor de las mismas condiciones que los testigos en su contra; medidas especiales para las nuevas tecnologías
(videoconferencia, etc.) medidas especiales relativas a los testigos blindados o protegidos (agentes encubiertos,
agentes de los servicios de inteligencia)?
El art. 229 de la Constitución Política consagra expresamente el derecho de acceso a la administración de justicia, también llamado derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva, el cual se traduce en la posibilidad reconocida a todas
las personas residentes en Colombia de poder acudir en condiciones de igualdad ante los jueces y tribunales de
justicia, para propugnar por la integridad del orden jurídico y por la debida protección o el restablecimiento de
sus derechos e intereses legítimos, con estricta sujeción a los procedimientos previamente establecidos y con
plena observancia de las garantías sustanciales y procedimentales previstas en las leyes157.
De la misma forma, como lo ha dicho la Corte Constitucional158, la normativa internacional sobre derechos
humanos —que hace parte del bloque de constitucionalidad— establece como garantía fundamental del derecho
al debido proceso penal, la facultad de que dispone el procesado para interrogar a los testigos presentes en el
tribunal y de obtener la comparecencia, como testigos o peritos, de otras personas que puedan arrojar luz sobre
los hechos159; así mismo, durante el proceso, tendrá derecho, en plena igualdad, a interrogar o hacer interrogar
a los testigos de cargo y a obtener la comparecencia de los testigos de descargo y que éstos sean interrogados
en las mismas condiciones que los testigos de cargo160.
Cfr. art. 344, Ley 906 de 2004.
Cfr. Corte Constitucional, sent. 1194 de 2005.
153 Cfr. art. 8 literal i) Ley 906 de 2004.
154 Guerrero Peralta, Fundamentos, p. 210.
155 Cfr. Bernal Cuéllar/Montealegre Lynett, El proceso penal, p. 145.
156 Cfr. art. 18, Ley 906 de 2004.
159 Cfr. art. 8º, inc. 2º, literal f, Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.
160 Cfr. art. 14.2., Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos.
151
152
- 107 -
Colombia
En esa línea de análisis es meridiana la Ley procesal penal al señalar161 el derecho que le asiste a todo imputado, por sí mismo o por conducto de su defensor, a interrogar en sede de audiencia a los testigos de cargo y a
obtener la comparecencia, de ser necesario aun por medios coercitivos, de los testigos o peritos que puedan
arrojar luz sobre los hechos objeto del debate.
- el derecho a un intérprete;
La Ley procesal penal establece162 el derecho a ser asistido gratuitamente por un traductor debidamente acreditado o reconocido por el juez, en el caso de no poder entender o expresarse en el idioma oficial; igualmente, de
un intérprete, en el evento de no poder percibir el idioma por los órganos de los sentidos o hacerse entender
oralmente; lo anterior, en todo caso, sin perjuicio de que el indiciado pueda estar acompañado por uno designado por él.
-el derecho a no ser testigo en procedimientos en contra de uno mismo;
Desde el prisma constitucional163 y legal164 el indiciado tiene la plena garantía de no ser obligado a declarar en
contra de sí mismo. Por ello, la Constitución le asegura que no puede ser obligado a hablar si al hacerlo puede
verse personalmente comprometido165.
-el derecho a un abogado;
Como principalísima garantía de quien es investigado, dimana la de designar a un abogado de confianza166.
Ahora bien, en caso de no contar con los recursos para tal efecto, se le designa —sin importar la gravedad del
delito— un abogado defensor adscrito al Sistema Nacional de Defensoría Pública.
-el derecho a guardar silencio.
Por supuesto. Se trata de una garantía de rango constitucional.
¿Se permite obtener consecuencias perjudiciales del hecho de que el acusado se niegue a declarar?
Se irrogaría una afrenta a los principios generales, a la Constitución y a la ley167 que tutelan este derecho, inferir
consecuencias perjudiciales tales como indicios de culpabilidad o agravantes de la conducta168a quienes, amparados en el derecho fundamental a guardar silencio, se nieguen a declarar. Corolario de tal aseveración es que,
en definitiva, ni del silencio ni de la negativa a responder, pueden derivarse consecuencias penales adversas al
declarante169.
23. En relación con los delitos de terrorismo y los delitos graves ¿modifica su sistema legislativo
- el derecho a que la sentencia pueda ser objeto de recurso ante un tribunal superior (recurso de súplica, de
casación, constitucional)
De cara al Texto Superior170, toda sentencia judicial puede ser apelada o consultada, salvo las excepciones que
consagre la ley (por ejemplo: el juzgamiento de los congresistas171); en relación con el enjuiciamiento ordinario
—en cuyo seno se debaten delitos como el terrorismo y otros tantos de suma gravedad— no hay ninguna norma
que exceptúe esta garantía cuando se trate de dichas delincuencias.
Cfr. art. 8 literal f), Ley 906 de 2004.
Cfr. arts. 8 literal k) y 144 Ley 906 de 2004.
163 Cfr. art. 33, Constitución Política.
164 Cfr. art. 8 literal a), Ley 906 de 2004.
166 Cfr. art. 29 Constitución Política y art. 8 literal e) Ley 906 de 2004.
167 Cfr. Art. 8 literal c) Ley 906 de 2004
168 Cfr. Londoño Jiménez, Tratado, t. I, p. 285.
170 Cfr. Art. 31 Constitución Nacional.
171 Al respecto, sin embargo, la Corte Constitucional entiende ahora que ese tipo de excepciones no es admisible constitucionalmente y ordena al legislador llenar los vacíos. Cfr. sent. C-545/08 (29 de mayo).
161
162
- 108 -
Colombia
- la prohibición del doble proceso (ne bis in idem) cuando se produzca una absolución o se declare la culpabilidad y se imponga una pena?
El legislador ordinario no establece ninguna modificación en tratándose de delitos como los mencionados; esta
garantía es para todos los procesados y opera en relación con sentencias definitivas, amparadas por la cosa
juzgada172. En todo caso, el principio del ne bis in idem, resulta no ser absoluto por virtud de la acción de revisión, en la medida en que afecta la certeza brindada por la cosa juzgada, por las causales taxativamente señaladas en la ley173.
C. Bibliografía
Arciniégas Martínez, Augusto: Policía judicial y sistema acusatorio, 3ª edición, Bogotá, Ediciones nueva jurídica,
2007.
Bernal Cuéllar, Jaime/Montealegre Lynett, Eduardo: El proceso penal, Fundamentos constitucionales del nuevo
sistema acusatorio, Bogotá, 5ª Edición, Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2004.
Barreto Ardila, Hernando: “Principios del Derecho procesal penal en el sistema acusatorio para Colombia. Estado actual de la justicia colombiana”, en Bases para la discusión del nuevo sistema procesal penal colombiano,
Bogotá, Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2003.
Buitrago Ruiz, Angela/Monroy Victoria, William: “Igualdad en el acceso a medios técnicos. Estado actual de la
justicia colombiana”, en Bases para la discusión del nuevo sistema procesal penal colombiano, Bogotá, Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2003.
Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-179 de 1994
Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-496 de 1994.
Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-802 del 2002.
Corte Constitucional, Sent. C-004 de 2003.
Corte Constitucional, Sentencia C-291A de 2003.
Corte Constitucional, Sentencia 591 de 2005.
172
Cfr. Corte Constitucional, Sent. C-047 de 2006.
173Cfr.
- 109 -
Colombia
Corte Constitucional, Sentencia 1194 de 2005
Corte Constitucional, Auto 318 de 2006.
Corte Suprema de Justicia, Sala de Casación Penal, Radicado: 27608 del 26 de octubre de 2007.
De Sousa Santos, Boaventura/García Villegas, Mauricio: El Caleidoscopio de las justicias en Colombia, 2 tomos,
Bogotá, Siglo del Hombre Editores, 2001.
Guerrero Peralta, Oscar J.: El Juez de Control de Garantías. Reflexiones sobre el nuevo sistema procesal penal,
Bogotá, Instituto de Estudios del Ministerio Público, Procuraduría General de la Nación, 2006.
Guerrero Peralta, Oscar J.: Fundamentos teórico constitucionales del nuevo proceso penal, 2ª edición, Bogotá,
Ediciones nueva jurídica, 2007.
Hoyos Duque, Ricardo: “Los delitos políticos frente al Estatuto de seguridad”, en Revista Nuevo Foro Penal, Nº
2, Medellín, Editorial Acosta, 1979, pp. 72 y ss.
Londoño Jiménez, Hernando: Tratado de Derecho Procesal Penal, Tomo I, Bogotá, Editorial Temis, 1989.
Martínez Rave, Gilberto: Procedimiento penal colombiano, Bogotá, duodécima edición, Editorial Temis, 2002.
Pérez Pinzón, Álvaro: “Principios del Derecho procesal penal en el sistema acusatorio para Colombia. Estado
actual de la justicia colombiana”, en Bases para la discusión del nuevo sistema procesal penal colombiano,
Bogotá, Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2003.
Posada Maya, Ricardo: “Bloque de constitucionalidad y sistema acusatorio. A propósito de la jurisprudencia de
la Corte Constitucional”, Bogotá, Manuscrito, 2007.
Solórzano Gravito, Carlos R.: Sistema Acusatorio y técnicas del juicio oral, 2ª edición, Bogotá, Ediciones nueva
jurídica, 2008.
Uprimny Yepes, Rodrigo: “Bloque de Constitucionalidad, Derechos humanos y nuevo procedimiento penal”, en
Reflexiones Sobre el nuevo sistema procesal penal. Bogotá, Instituto de Estudios del Ministerio Público, 2005.
Vecchionacce Iglesias, Frank: El juicio oral y la posición jurídica del imputado. Sistema Acusatorio y juicio oral,
Bogotá, Editora jurídica de Colombia, 2004.
Velásquez Velásquez, Fernando: “El Estatuto para la defensa de la Justicia: ¡Un retorno a la inquisición!”, en
Revista Nuevo Foro Penal N° 51, Bogotá, Temis, 1991, pp. 3 y ss.
— Manual de Derecho Penal, Parte General, 3ª ed., Medellín, Comlibros, 2007.
LEYES Y DECRETOS
Ley 48 de 1968.
Ley Estatutaria 137 de 1994.
Ley 418 de 1997.
Ley 470 de 1998.
Ley 600 de 2000.
- 110 -
Colombia
Ley 761 de 2002.
Ley 906 de 2004.
Ley 938 de 2004.
Ley 975 de 2005.
Ley 1098 de 2006.
Ley 1153 de 2007.
Decreto 1288 de 1965.
Decreto 1355 de 1970 (Código Nacional de Policía).
Decreto Legislativo 0180 de 1988.
- 111 -
Section III
CROATIA*
Zlata ĐURĐEVIĆ**
I. Reform of legal framework: special measures with regard to prevention, investigation, and prosecution
1. International law is a source of law in the Republic of Croatia. Pursuant to Article 140 of the Croatian Constitution, international agreements which are concluded and ratified in accordance with the Constitution, made
public, and in force, shall become part of the internal legal order of the Republic of Croatia and have supremacy
over law in terms of legal effects. Therefore, “the complete, constitutionally established scale of the legal acts
within the legal order of the Republic of Croatia shall constitute: the Constitution, international agreement, law
and other legal acts.”1 Accordingly, international law in the Croatian legal system ranks below the Constitution but
above domestic law. Croatia is a party to international human rights treaties (European Convention of Human
Rights2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights3) and international humanitarian law treaties such as
the Geneva Conventions.4 All these international treaties have been ratified and published in the Official Gazette
of the Republic of Croatia, and the Act on Conclusion and Execution of International Treaties5 does not envisage
any implementing domestic legislation. Therefore, these treaties are self-executing international law provisions
that can be applied directly if they are not contrary to the Constitution.
2. The only theoretical limitation to the application of an international treaty provision is the Constitution. International law which is not in line with the Constitution can be implemented only by enacting provisions at the constitutional level i.e. by modifying the Constitution. However, there is no practical possibility that any of the human
rights or humanitarian law treaties would be contrary to the Croatian Constitution. Besides, as concerns the
European Convention of Human Rights, the Croatian Constitutional Court has proclaimed that its provisions have
constitutional rank, as the violations of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights are not just breaches of the international obligation which Croatia assumed as state party but also
constitute a “breach of the rule of law principle from Article 3 of the Constitution, as the highest value of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia”.6 The Constitutional Court has also established its autonomous jurisdiction to decide on the conformity of Croatian laws with international treaties as that involves a decision on the
conformity of the lower-rank act with the higher-rank act.7
3. International treaties can directly create subjective rights for individuals, including the rights of individuals in
criminal proceedings in the Croatian legal order. That is founded on the Article 17 of the Croatian Constitution
and Article 5 of the Act on Courts which state that “the courts are judging on the ground of the international treaImportant notice: this text is the last original version of the national report sent by the author. The Review has not assured
** Associated Professor of Criminal Procedural Law, Faculty of Law University of Zagreb, Croatia
1 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia No U-I-754/1999 from November 8, 2000.
2 The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols were ratified on October 22,
1997 (Official Gazette, International Agreements No. 18 from March 22, 1997)
3 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was ratified by ex-Yugoslavia (Official Gazette SFRY No. 7, 1997).
4 Official Gazette, International Agreements No 5/1994.
5 Official Gazette, 28/96.
6 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia U-I-920/1995 and U-I-950/1996 from March 11, 1998.
7 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia U-I-754/1999 from November 8, 2000.
*
- 113 -
Croatia
ties that are part of the Croatian legal order.” Therefore, the courts have duty not to apply the domestic provision
which is not in line with the international treaty but to directly apply the self-executing provision of the international treaty. However, until now, Croatian judges have not been ready to directly apply international provisions
instead of the domestic ones. Therefore, the usual procedure in the situation where international law obligations
cannot be fulfilled by domestic provisions is the enactment of a new domestic law in order to implement international law.
4. With respect to reforms amending the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement in order to
combat serious crime, the most important change happened in 2001 with the establishment of the Office for
Combating of Corruption and Organised Crime (so called USKOK). This Office was set up by a special legislative
Act as an organisational unit of the State Attorney’s Office with jurisdiction to prosecute all offences of corruption,
organised crime and international terrorism. The Act on the Office for Combating of Corruption and Organised
Crime (AOCCOC)8 regulates not only organisational structure, jurisdiction and cooperation of the Office but also
the competence and composition of the courts as well as use of particular coercive measures which are in most
cases more severe than the coercive measures regulated by the Criminal Procedural Act (CPA). The amendment
of the AOCCOC from 2005 prescribed a special rule of evidence relating to the measure prescribed by the Criminal Procedural Act that was contrary to the provision of the CPA (see § 33)9 Until than the rules on evaluation
and production of evidence were laid down only by the Criminal Procedural Act and the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Croatia. The jurisdiction of the Office has been expanded with almost each amendment. Initially, in
2001, jurisdiction was established for over 12 offences; in 2005 it was expanded to 29 offences and in 2007 to 30
offences.10 Additionally, the Office is competent for all offences committed by a criminal organisation and offences committed in connection with its activity punishable by more than three years, as well as for offences
committed abroad.
Official Gazette 88/2001, 12/2002, 33/2005, 48/05, 76/07.
The instruction “(see § 5)“ relates to paragraph 5 of this report.
10 Under Article 21 of the Act on the Office for the Combating of Corruption and Organized Crime: (1) The Office performs
duties of the State Attorney's Office in cases of criminal offences of:
1. misuse in bankruptcy proceedings (Art. 283 § 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code), unfair competition in foreign trade operations
(Art. 289 § 2 CC), misuse in performing government duties (Art. 338 CC), illegal intercession (Art. 343 CC), accepting bribes
(Art. 347 CC), accepting a bribe in economic business operations (Art. 294a CC), offering bribes (Art. 348 CC) and offering
bribes in economic business operations (Art. 294b CC);
2. The abuse of power or position (Art. 337 CC), if such an offence is committed by an official person referred to in Art. 89 § 3
CC.
3. unlawful deprivation of freedom (Art. 124 § 3 CC), kidnapping (Art. 125 § 2 CC), coercion (Art. 128 § 2 CC), trafficking in
human beings and slavery (Art. 175 § 3 CC), illegal transfer of persons across the state border (Art. 177 § 3 CC), robbery
(Art. 218 § 2 CC), extortion (Art. 234 § 2 CC), blackmail (Art. 235 § 2 CC), money laundering (Art. 279 § 3 CC) and illegal debt
collection (Art. 330 § 4 and 5 CC), if those criminal offences were committed as a member of a group (Art. 89 § 22 CC) or a
criminal organization.
4. abuse of narcotic drugs from Art. 173 § 3 of the CC,
5. association for the purpose of committing criminal offences from Art. 333 of the CC, including all criminal offences committed by the group or criminal organisation, except for the criminal offences against the Republic of Croatia and the Armed
Forces,
6. committed in connection with the activity of a group or a criminal organisation for which prison sentence in excess of three
years is provided, and the offence was committed in two or more states or a significant part of its preparation or planning was
performed in another state.
(2) The Office is also competent for conducting criminal procedures against the organizer of a group or criminal organization
for the perpetration of the criminal offence of pandering (Art. 195 § 2 CC), illicit trade in gold (Art. 290 § 2 CC), and avoiding
customs control (Art. 298 § 2 and 3 CC).
(3) The Office is also competent for the criminal offences of money laundering (Art. 279 § 1 and 2 CC), obstruction of evidence (Art. 304 § 1 and 2 CC), duress against officials engaged in the administration of justice (Art. 309 CC), obstructing an
official in the performance of duty (Art. 317 CC), and attacking an official (Art. 318 CC), if such offences have been committed
in connection with the perpetration of criminal offences from § 1 above.
8
9
- 114 -
Croatia
5. The most important legislative reform of criminal procedural law in Croatia is actually under way. A thorough
change of criminal proceedings has been prepared for several years and it is expected that until the end of this
year not only an amendment of the present CPA but an entirely new Criminal Procedural Act shall be passed. It
is likely that vacatio legis shall be several years. The draft of the proposal is still not available to the public but its
basic principles were elaborated at the beginning of year 2007. The main task of reform is the introduction of
prosecutorial investigation instead of the judicial one. At present, the investigation in Croatian criminal procedure
is conducted by the juge d’instruction and all investigatory measures are ordered and mostly carried out by
him/her. Under the new Act, the State Attorney shall be entitled to conduct criminal prosecution and to carry out
investigatory measures. The judge of freedoms, a new established judicial body, shall decide on investigatory
measures encroaching upon basic human rights such as detention. However, search, seizure, freezing of assets
and surveillance measures (interception of communications, covert investigation, controlled deliveries etc, see §
30) according to the proposal, could be ordered by the State Attorney and subsequently approved or reviewed by
the judge of freedoms. The second main task of reform is the introduction of new speedy forms of dealing with
less serious offences such as summary proceedings, consensual proceedings, reconciliation or settlement. It is
announced that summary proceedings could be provided even for offences punishable by twelve years imprisonment.
6. The reform envisages also the change of the court system in criminal proceedings by introduction of the High
Criminal Court as an appellate court for the county courts and municipal courts thus releasing the Supreme Court
from appellate jurisdiction. The new Act shall not provide for an alternative track of special proceedings outside
the regular criminal justice system.
7. Beside politicians, criminal justice practice is playing a crucial role in defining and carrying out the reform.
Beside one professor of law, eight other members of the working group who prepared the final draft are practitioners. Despite fundamental change in the Croatian criminal procedural law, it is not expected that this reform shall
be subject to broad political or public debate but that the proposal shall in a short time come before the Parliament. Although the reform of criminal procedural law is not required by the European Commission in the accession process of Croatia to the European Union, the Croatian government is seeing it as an important step in
adjusting the Croatian criminal justice system to the acquis communautaire. Thus, the political aims play a crucial
role in this reform, particularly as regards its hastiness and customary legislative procedure.
8. The general principles of Croatian criminal procedure, as well as the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings, are guaranteed by the Croatian Constitution. It contains detailed provisions for the protection of basic human rights from coercive measures related to criminal proceedings such as arrest and detention (Articles 24 and
25), search (Art. 34), and restriction on freedom and privacy of all forms of communications (Art. 36). The constitutional provisions on a fair trial (Art. 29) are conceived according to article 6 of the European Convention of
Human Rights and contain basic defendant’s rights such as the right to an independent and impartial court,
equality of arms, basic defence rights (to be informed, to defend him/herself in person, to a defence counsel, to
an interpreter, to be tried within a reasonable time), and the exclusionary rule. Besides the provisions for the
protection of basic individual and defence rights, the Constitution provides for the accusatorial principle prescribing that the criminal proceedings shall be instituted before the court upon request of the authorized prosecutor
(nemo judex sine actore)11 and for the ne bis in idem rule.12 Other principles relevant for the commencement and
conducting of the criminal proceedings, such as the principle of legality of criminal prosecution13 and its excep-
Art. 29 § 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. In cases involving offences subject to public prosecution the
authorized prosecutor shall be the State Attorney, and in cases involving offences subject to private charge, the authorized
prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor (Art. 2 § 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedural Act - CPA).
12 Art. 31 § 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia.
13 Principle of legality of criminal prosecution - the State Attorney shall be bound to institute the prosecution when there is
reasonable suspicion that a certain person committed an offence which is subject to public prosecution and when there are no
legal obstacles to the prosecution of that person. (Art. 2 § 3 CPA).
11
- 115 -
Croatia
tions ruled by the principle of opportunity, and the inquisitorial maxim14 are prescribed by the Criminal Procedural
Act.15 The Criminal Procedural Act is a source for the principles which govern the trial such as the principle of
public hearing (Art. 292 CPA), the principle of the oral production of evidence, the principle of direct production of
evidence before the court (Art. 351 §1 CPA) and the principle of the free assessment of evidence (Art. 8 § 2
CPA).16
9. The presumption of innocence and the right not to incriminate oneself (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare), a
part of which is the right to remain silent, are in Croatia constitutional rights. The presumption of innocence (Art.
28 of the Constitution) is a normative standard which consists of two rules: 1. the burden of proof is on the prosecution, 2. any doubt as regards factual establishment of guilt should benefit the accused (in dubio pro reo). These
procedural consequences of the presumption of innocence exist in all stages of Croatian criminal proceedings
where applicable. As concerns the privilege against self-incrimination (Art. 29 § 3 of the Constitution), it encompasses the right to remain silent and the right not to provide evidence against oneself. The right to remain silent
is one of three defence rights to which the defendant has to be informed at the first interrogation,17 as well as at
any subsequent interrogation. As concerns the legal consequences of the defendant’s silence, it has no adverse
effect for the defendant. No adverse inferences may be drawn from the defendant’s silence, neither from silence
at the police station nor from silence at the trial, and it cannot be taken at the trial as evidence.18
10. However, the right to warnings relates to the judicial interrogation by the investigative judge. In the preinvestigatory stage, there is a distinction between police informal questioning and formal interrogation of the
suspect. The police can interrogate a suspect formally by giving him/her warnings, and if the defence lawyer was
present the record of the interrogation is admissible as evidence at the trial (Art. 177 § 5 CPA). However, the
informal questioning of the suspect by the police is the most common form of general police inquiries into a
criminal offence (Art. 177 § 5 CPA). The police authorities may seek information from citizens including suspects
without giving them any warning. The police have discretionary power to decide, mostly depending on the strategy in the concrete case, whether to use formal or informal questioning of the suspect. A level of suspicion that
the questioned person has committed a crime is not relevant. The right against self-incrimination and the right to
silence are guaranteed if a person has to be informed about them. As the use of these rights depends on the
decision of the state body, it can be concluded that they are not provided for in the pre-investigatory stage of the
Croatian criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, the consequence of denying defence rights is that the results of
informal questioning cannot be used as evidence at the trial. The result of informal police questioning is so-called
official notes that the investigating judge has a duty to exclude from the file at the end of the investigation. The
excluded official notes, as well as possible illegal evidence, are sealed in a separate cover, and they may not be
examined or used in the proceedings (Art. 78 CPA). These apply to all offences notwithstanding their seriousness.
11. The Croatian common criminal procedure does not provide for a distinction between citizens and noncitizens, nationals or non-nationals or any other specific categories of subjects (aliens, enemies, non-persons).
Also there are no special criminal proceedings for any of the mentioned categories of individuals.
12. The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia in Article 17 provides for the suspension of constitutional freedoms and rights of individuals during a state of war or an immediate threat to the independence and unity of the
The court and other authorities participating in the criminal proceedings shall with equal solicitude examine and determine
facts tending to incriminate the defendant, as well as those favourable to him. (Art. 8 § 2 CPA).
15 Principle of opportunity of criminal prosecution - the exceptions to the principle of legality are permitted in the following
cases: minor defendants, offences punishable by a term of less than three years of imprisonment (Art 175 CPA), crown
witness (Art 176 CPA), immunity and prosecution of a foreigner.
16 The right of the court and other authorities participating in the criminal proceedings to assess the existence or nonexistence of facts shall not be bound or restricted by rules of legal proof (rules regulating the weighing or credibility of evidence).
17 The defendant shall be informed of the charges placed against him/her, as well as of the main grounds for suspicion
against him/her and the defendant shall be instructed that he need not present his defence or answer any questions (Art. 225
§ 2 CPA).
18 VSRH II Kž 461/1997; VSHR II Kž 128/203-3.
14
- 116 -
Croatia
State and in the event of severe natural disasters. The extent of such restrictions shall be adequate to the nature
of the danger. The power to make a decision on the restriction of certain constitutional rights has to pass the
Croatian Parliament by a two-thirds majority of all members. If the Croatian Parliament is unable to meet, at the
proposal of the Government and upon the counter-signature of the Prime Minister, the decision can be taken by
the President of the Republic. There is no special legal control mechanism for these constitutional restrictions,
yet according to the article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of Croatian
legal order, the state that introduces the restriction of civil rights is obliged to officially proclaim it and to notify the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
13. However, the Constitution protects certain rights as ius cogens or non-derogable human rights that cannot
be suspended or limited in any situations. Not even in the case of an immediate threat to the existence of the
State can the right to life, prohibition of torture, cruel and degrading treatment or punishment, legality of penal
offences and punishment, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion be suspended (Art. 17 § 3 of the
Constitution). Also, the prohibition of discrimination is considered as a non-derogable right during the suspension
of human rights in emergency situations, as the suspension of rights may not result in the inequality of persons in
respect of race, colour, gender, language, religion, national or social origin (Art. 17 § 2 of the Constitution).
14. In emergency situations envisaged by the Constitution, it is possible to establish military courts and special
proceedings in which protective procedural forms are abolished. That had happened during the war against
Croatia in 1991 when the Croatian President passed several regulations in order to establish and broaden jurisdiction of the military judicial bodies and to speed up criminal proceedings. The Regulation on the organisation,
functioning and jurisdiction of a judicial authority in the state of war19 established the military prosecution office
and extended the jurisdiction of the military courts in criminal proceedings. The Regulation amended criminal
proceedings20 by restricting some procedural guarantees such as introduction of the wide possibility to direct an
indictment without conducting investigation, abolition of judicial control of the indictment, wide admissibility of
written evidence, abolishment of the contradictory elements of appellate procedure. These Regulations have
been implemented not only to the regions in a state of war but to the whole territory of the Republic of Croatia,
and as regards jurisdiction ad personam not only to the military personal but to civil individuals for offences related to military activities. The Regulations have been vacated in 1996 and, in the same year, Croatia has abolished the military courts.21
15. In the Croatian criminal justice system there are not any special measures by which parts of the legislation
or the parts of the criminal process may be classified such as classified legislation, secret procedures, and secret
actors of justice or secrecy in the administration of criminal justice.
16. With respect to the use of intelligence information in criminal proceedings, under the 2006 Act on the Security-Intelligence System of the Republic of Croatia,22 if gathered data indicates the preparation or commission of a
criminal offence subject to public prosecution, the security-intelligence services shall report that to the State
Attorney Office.23 Until 2006, it was forbidden by law that this report include data on secret surveillance measures
or the results of those measures.24 According to the new 2006 Act, exceptionally the intelligence data can include
data on the measure applied.25 There are no further provisions regarding the clarification of that exception.
17. The principal rule regarding the use of intelligence information in criminal proceedings is that it is not admissible as evidence at the trial. As concerns its use in the pre-trial stage of proceedings and for opening a criminal
investigation there is a difference between the normative regulation and the practical use. Legally, intelligence
The Regulation on the organisation, functioning and jurisdiction of a judicial authority in a state of war or an immediate
threat to the independence and unity of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette 67/1991, 25/1992, 81/1992).
20 The Regulation on the implementation of the Criminal Procedural Act in a state of war or an immediate threat to the independents and unity of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette 73/1991, 25/1992).
21 Act on the Amendment of the Act on Courts (Official Gazette 100/1996).
22 Zakon o sigurnosno-obavještajnom sustavu Republike Hrvatske (Official Gazette 79/2006).
23 Article 56 § 1 of the Act on the security-intelligence system of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette 79/2006).
24 Article 21 § 2 of the Act on the Security Services of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette 32/2002).
25 Article 56 § 2 of the Act on the security-intelligence system of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette 79/2006).
19
- 117 -
Croatia
information has the same legal effect as the records or official notes of the informal activities of the police and
other administrative bodies. That means that it can be used in the pre-investigative stage by the police and the
State Attorney in order to establish the reasonable suspicion needed for the commencement of formal criminal
proceedings i.e. for the submission of the request for an investigation to the investigating judge. Intelligence data
may also substantiate the lower degree of suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed, so-called
grounds for suspicion (see § 40) which are required for the execution of some coercive procedural measures,
such as search and seizure, arrest and secret surveillance measures of collecting evidence.26 It is not possible to
order detention on the basis of intelligence information.
18. However, these legal possibilities are never used. In practice the intelligence services rarely, if ever, file a
formal report to the State Attorney Office due to the fact that their information is regularly classified. As a rule,
they give informal information to the State Attorney Office and then the criminal police and the State Attorney
collect this data by themselves. Intelligence information is only initial data that is subsequently confirmed by the
activities of the police and the State Attorney. Therefore, it is never a legal basis for the institution of criminal
proceedings, search and seizure or arrest. It is openly or legally not even utilised as grounds for suspicion to use
secret surveillance measures in accordance with the Criminal Procedural Act.
19. It can be concluded that in Croatian criminal proceedings intelligence information has only cognitive value.
Although intelligence information legally can be used as preliminary information for opening a criminal investigation, as well as a basis for using some coercive measures on goods and on persons, in practice it is only a cognitive base for further police and state attorney inquiries.
20. In Croatia intelligence forces, as well as police forces and customs, have the competence to use coercive
powers in a pro-active way. Pro-active powers of intelligence forces are significantly wider than that of police and
custom authorities.
21. Under the Act on the Security-Intelligence System of the Republic of Croatia, which was passed in 2006,
there are two intelligence agencies: the Security-Intelligence Agency (SOA)27 and the Military SecurityIntelligence Agency (VSOA). The last one has jurisdiction over the employees of the Ministry of Defence and
Armed forces. The 2006 Act, for the first time, introduced that the task of the Security-Intelligence Agency, besides the protection of national security, is to prevent crimes such as terrorism, other forms of organise violence,
and organised and economic crime.28 That implies that the Croatian intelligence agency to a certain extent has
been transformed from an intelligence service to a criminal law enforcement body whose function is the prevention of serious crime.
22. The Security-Intelligence Agency can use the following measures for secret collection of data: secret surveillance of telecommunication (wiretapping), secret surveillance of postal and other shipments, secret electronic
surveillance of premises and objects, secret surveillance and video and audio technical recording of persons and
their conversation in public places (eavesdropping), and secret purchase of documents and objects such as a
new measure (Art. 33 § 3). The intelligence agencies are not authorised to search apartments or persons. Substantive conditions for the use of secret surveillance measures are a legitimate aim and the principle of subsidiarity, which limits their use only to situations when the information cannot be gathered in another way or their gathering would be accompanied by great difficulties. Also if there is a possibility to use several measures, the less
intrusive one shall be used (Art. 33 § 2).
23. A secret surveillance measure can be ordered only by a written warrant with a statement of reasons issued
by the Supreme Court judge at the proposal of the director of the intelligence agency. Exceptionally, if there is a
danger in delay which would make it impossible to attain aim of a measure, it can be ordered by the director of
the Intelligence agency who has to inform a Supreme Court judge immediately. The judge shall within 24 hours
26 Special Inquiries into Criminal Offences Applying Temporary Restriction of Constitutional Rights and Freedoms (Art. 180183 CPA).
27 The Croatian name of the agency is: Sigurnosno-obavještajna agencija.
28 Art. 23 § 1 of the Act on the Security-Intelligence System of the Republic of Croatia (Official Gazette 79/2006).
- 118 -
Croatia
issue a warrant of approval, if not, the measure has to be interrupted, all produced documents and materials
have to be destroyed and the record on that procedure has to be given to the Supreme Court judge (Art. 36). The
measures may last up to four months, and the panel of three Supreme Court judges may prolong the duration of
such measures for a term of another three months.29
24. The definition of suspicion has not been changed for serious offences. However, the standards for the use
of secret surveillance measures by the intelligence agencies are much lower than the standards for their use in
criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedural Act requires the grounds for suspicion (see § 40) while the Act on
the Security-Intelligence System does not prescribe any kind of suspicion as a condition for their use. However,
the proposal to order the measure has to identify a measure, a natural or legal person who is to be surveyed, and
to state the reasons regarding its aim and necessity from the aspect of subsidiarity.
25. The only coercive measure which police authorities and customs may use in a pro-active way is search and
seizure. The protection of the home is constitutionally guaranteed; therefore the Constitution lays down exceptions when the police authorities may enter a person’s home and carry out a search without a court warrant or
consent of the tenant. This is permissible if it is indispensable to enforce an arrest warrant or to apprehend the
offender,30 or to prevent serious danger to the life and health of people or major property (Art. 34 § 4 of the Constitution).
26. The Police Act31 empowers police authorities to carry out certain search activities if it is necessary in order
to find objects which are suitable for attack of self-injury. These are: to get insight into the content of the clothes
and footwear (Art. 49 § 2), inspection of the enclosed space of means of transportation and carried objects (Art.
49 § 3), and forced opening of the closed means of transportation or object which is carried by a person (Art. 49
§ 7). The provisions on these police measures were constitutionally challenged, and the Croatian Constitutional
Court decided that they do not violate the Constitution because they have a legitimate aim and are in line with the
principle of proportionality. These measures can be used only in some potentially dangerous situations when
naturally it is not reasonable to expect adherence to strict formal procedure (danger from attack or self-injury) and
where they are proportional as regards the restriction of individual rights and the nature of the need for that restriction.32
27. Under the Act on Customs Service,33 customs officers have competence to perform search activities in order
to prevent and detect customs and excise duty misdemeanours and criminal offences. They are: inspection and
search of goods, means of transport,34 luggage, business premises, search of persons in border passenger traffic
(Art. 24), and check of computer data base (Art. 27 § 4). These activities can be carried out on the whole territory
of the Republic of Croatia. Their result can serve as evidence in misdemeanour proceedings as well as in criminal proceedings for offences violating custom regulations.35 If there is a reasonable doubt that an offence has
been committed but not by violation of custom and excise provisions, custom officers are obliged to promptly
notify competent police authorities thereof, who will then take over inquiries and continue or begin the search with
the court warrant according to the Criminal Procedural Act.
By the law there is no limitation of prolongation, but the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia has taken a stance to
apply terms for the use of secret surveillance measures from the Criminal Procedural Act, according to which they can last
four months and be prolonged for another three months (Art. 182 § 2 CPA). This Supreme Court opinion was not published,
and the source of this information was the interview with the judges who are dealing with proposals from Intelligence agencies.
30 The CPA has specified that it has to be a perpetrator of an offence punishable for not less than three years (Art. 216 § 1
CPA).
31 The Police Act (Official Gazette 129/2000).
32 Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia U-I-266/2003 from April 14, 2006.
33 Zakon o carinskoj službi (NN 67/2001).
34 The right to inspection and search include the power to dismantle certain parts of a motor vehicle (Art. 24 § 6 of the Act on
Custom Service (Official Gazette 67/2001).
35 Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, I Kž-366/04-3 from April 22, 2004 and Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia U-III/2102/2005 from July 6, 2006.
29
- 119 -
Croatia
28. The use of tough forms of investigation techniques is in Croatia generally prohibited and incriminated by
several criminal offences prescribed in the Criminal Code, such as Extortion of Statements by Coercion (Art.
126), Maltreatment in the Execution of Service or Public Authority (Art. 127) and Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (Art. 176). In the nine years from the year 1998 until 2006, the statistics of
these offences is quite different. As regards the offence of Extortion of Statements by Coercions,36 157 crime
reports were filed, 61 persons were accused and 19 judgements of conviction were rendered. For the offence of
Maltreatment in the Execution of Service or Public Authority,37 726 crime reports were filed, 380 persons were
accused and 105 judgements of conviction were rendered. The offence of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment38 was reported 17 times, but all of the crime reports were rejected by the State Attorney
and there was no formal institution of the proceedings.
29. Pro-active enforcement measures cannot be used for persons other than a suspect of crime. The Croatian
legal order does not recognize a category of persons which do not have right to the protection of regular criminal
procedure such as e.g. enemy combatants, enemy aliens. Also there are no provisions on special limitation of the
right to habeas data and right to habeas corpus in the case of serious offences.
30. In the last decades Croatia has not experienced a large or disproportionate increase of investigative powers
and coercive powers of the investigative authorities. The introduction of new coercive measures, due to the overall technological progress, certainly can be perceived, but the traditional investigative powers have not been
substantially enhanced.
31. A major increase in investigative powers has occurred as a result of the new Criminal Procedural Act
passed in 1997, which for the first time introduced secret surveillance measures in criminal proceedings. Since
then criminal law enforcement bodies can use so-called special inquiry measures which temporarily limit certain
constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens related to their privacy, such as the right to the respect of personal
and family life and the freedom and privacy of correspondence and all other forms of communication, for the
purpose of criminal proceedings.
32. The criteria for their use are as follows. If a criminal investigation cannot be conducted in any other manner
or would encounter significant difficulties, upon request of the public prosecutor, an investigating judge may order
special inquiry measures if there are grounds of suspicion that a person has committed certain serious offences.39 These measures are (Art. 180 CPA): surveillance and technical recording of telephone conversations
and other means for technical communication at a distance; entry into premises in order to conduct supervision
and technical recording of premises; secret surveillance and technical recording of persons and objects; use of
undercover investigators and confidants; simulated purchase of objects and simulated giving of a bribe and simulated receipt of a bribe; supervised transport and delivery of objects related to a criminal offence. The Act on the
Office for the Combating of Corruption and Organized Crime (AOCCOC) has in 2001 additionally introduced
measures of supplying simulated business services and concluding simulated legal transactions (Art. 41 § 1).
33. All these measures may last up to four months and the investigative judge can prolong them for a term of
another three months. They can be ordered against the suspect; the person suspected of delivering or receiving
from the perpetrator information in relation to offences or that the perpetrator uses his/her telephone, telex, fax or
similar device; and to the means, premises and objects which are property of the injured person if s/he agrees.
The result of these measures can be used as evidence at the trial, and an undercover investigator and confidant
may be examined as witnesses on the course of the measures. Until 2005 it was forbidden by the Criminal ProExtortion of Statements by Coercions: whoever who during an examination, uses force, a threat or other illicit means of
examination with an aim to extort a statement or some other declaration from the suspect, defendant, witness, expert-witness
or other person shall be punished by imprisonment for three months to five years.
37 Maltreatment in the Execution of Service or Public Authority: An official person who, in the execution of his service or public
authority, maltreats, insults or generally treats another in a manner offensive to human dignity shall be punished by imprisonment for three months to three years.
38 Data is from the Yearly Statistical Reports of the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Croatia.
39 The catalogue of these offences is regulated by Article 181 of the CPA.
36
- 120 -
Croatia
cedural Act as well as by the decision of the Supreme Court40 to examine an undercover investigator and confident on the content of the conversation with the suspect. The rationale was that the conversation between a
police officer and a suspect without presence of a defence lawyer and without warnings cannot be used as evidence at the trial. However, by the amendment of the AOCCOC in 200541 proposed by the State Attorney Office,
the decision of the Supreme Court was reversed as it expressly provided that an undercover investigator may be
examined as a witness on the content of the conversation with the persons against whom the measure was
ordered, if there is concern that those persons will not give statements at the trial for legal or factual reasons.42
The result is that there are two opposite rules on the production of evidence related to the same measure.
34. In the case of serious offences committed by a criminal organization the measures of secret surveillance
can be used for monitoring conversations between a defendant and a defence counsel. The investigating judge
may decide by a reasoned ruling to monitor letters, messages and conversation between a defence counsel and
a defendant who is in detention (Art. 69 § 2 CPA), and if the defendant is at liberty to use measures of secret
surveillance and technical recording of the telephone conversation, of persons and premises, including a defence
lawyer’s office (Art. 182 § 5 CPA). These measures may last up to two months. In 2002 it was introduced that
before the use of these measures, the ruling on surveillance shall be served to the defendant and the defence
counsel (Art. 69 § 3 CPA). Despite very strict procedural requirements for the use of these measures, they encroach to a great extent not only on the right to privacy but also on a defendant’s defence rights, such as the right
to unrestricted communication with a defence counsel and the right to silence (Art. 29. § 2/3 and § 3 of the Constitution).
35. As concerns other coercive powers of the investigation authorities they are under the jurisdiction of the
investigating judge. Exception is search and seizure carried out by the police, which was already explained, and
arrest by the police which can last up to 24 hours.
36. Concerning the cooperation duties of the investigated persons they are in line with the principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare as elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights. A defendant has no duty to handover to the state authorities self-incriminating evidence, and the state authorities may not use any kind of force,
sanction or measure in order to force a defendant to deliver a document, recording or any object. However, the
coercive measures may be used against a defendant in order to collect evidence which exists independently of
his/her will. So, a physical examination, taking blood samples, urine, saliva, hair or confidential medical samples
for an analysis of the basic genetic material may be carried out without the consent of a defendant (Art. 179 § 2
and 265 CPA).43
37. With respect to cooperation duties in transnational settings, Croatia has an obligation to fully cooperate with
the International Criminal Tribunals. According to the Constitutional Act on the Cooperation of the Republic of
Croatia with the International Criminal Tribunal44 for ex-Yugoslavia,45 as well as the Act implementing the Statute
of the International Criminal Court and Prosecution for Crimes against International War and Humanitarian Law,46
Croatia has a duty to give effect to orders issued by these international courts, which include production orders.
As Croatia is not a member of the European Union, there are no new cooperation duties within the area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union.
38. Until now, a shift of powers from the judiciary to the executive authorities such as police, prosecutors or
intelligence forces in Croatia has not occurred. All coercive measures may be ordered, except in an emergency
VSRH, I Kz 529/2004 of June 24, 2004.
Official Gazette 33/05.
42 Art. 42.b of the Act on the Office for the Combating of Corruption and Organized Crime.
43 Compliance of these measures with the European Convention of Human Rights was confirmed by the European Court of
Human Rights in the judgement of Saunders v. the United Kingdom, December 17, 1996, § 69.
44 Official Gazette no. 32/1996.
45 International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, U.N. Doc. S/25704 at 36, annex (1993) and S/25704/Add.1
(1993), adopted by Security Council on 25 May 1993.
40
41
- 121 -
Croatia
situation, only by the judiciary. If there is a danger in delay, a measure taken by the executive authorities has to
be approved in a short time by a judge.47 The investigation is conducted by the investigating judge. However, that
is the major task of the new proposal of the Criminal Procedural Act (see § 5)
39. The specialization and centralization of the judicial investigative authorities has taken place in Croatia with
regard to offences under the jurisdiction of the State Attorney Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime and offences under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In both cases the jurisdiction is given to the county courts in the four biggest cities in Croatia: Osijek, Rijeka, Split and Zagreb. Under
AOCCOS, in remand centres of four county Courts, the special Investigation Departments have to be established
in order to investigate these two categories of criminal offences. The departments are composed of investigating
judges with the experience and pronounced capabilities for investigating the most severe and complex forms of
criminal offences along with forensic science graduates.48 However, in practice, there are no special investigation
departments, but this jurisdiction is assigned to the particular investigative judges.
40. With regard to the conditions for using coersive measures in Croatia, there are two levels of probability that
an offence has been committed. These two different legal standards justify different measures and legal acts in
criminal proceedings. The lower one is called “grounds for suspicion” and the higher one “reasonable suspicion”.
Grounds for suspicion are information about the commission of an offence which appeared before a measure has
been carried out; they have to indicate that a concrete criminal offence has been committed and have to be
rational, logical and clearly articulated. Grounds for suspicion are a legal basis for the execution of certain measures in the pre-investigative part of proceedings such as:
a) police arrest (Art. 95 § 2/2 CPA),
b) provisional confinement up to 72 hours (Art. 98 § 1 and Art. 100 CPA),
c) police inquiries such as to seek information from citizens, apply polygraph tests, voice analyses, carry out the
necessary inspection49 of the means of transportation, passengers and luggage, restrict movement in a certain
territory for an absolutely necessary time (surveillance, observation, blockade, raid, ambush, entrapment, surveillance of the transport of objects, etc.) establishment of the identities of persons and objects, order pursuit for a
person or an object, carry out in the presence of the authorized person an inspection of certain objects and premises of state authorities, legal entities and other business premises and review their documentation and data,
collect information concealing the purpose of the collection or concealing the capacity of a police officer, use an
undercover agent, request a call list with telecommunication addresses establishing connections during a certain
period of time from the telecommunication services, as well as undertake other necessary measures and actions
(Art. 177 § 2 CPA);
d) police interrogation of the suspect (Art. 177 § 5 CPA);
e) special inquiries by secret surveillance measures (Art. 180 § 1 CPA);
f) search (Art. 211 § 1 CPA).50
See Art. 36 of the Act on the security-intelligence system of the Republic of Croatia (see § 23).
Art. 24 and 25 of the Act on the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized Crime and Art. 13 of the Act Implementing the Statute of the International Criminal Court and Prosecution for Crimes against International War and Humanitarian Law.
49 The Croatian criminal procedural law differentiates between the measures of search and inspection. The measure of search
involves a higher lever of invasion in the privacy of citizens than inspection. The inspection means visual inspection and touch
inspection. Any further search, especially the opening of closed spaces represents a deep invasion of a person’s privacy and
has to be carried out as the investigatory action of search. See. VSRH I Kž-808/00 from February 24, 2000; VSRH, I Kž182/01-3 from March 15, 2001; VSRH, I Kž-225/2002 from November 18, 2003; VSRH, I Kž-317/02 from January 14, 2003;
VSRH, I Kž-260/01 from April 11, 2001; VSRH, I Kž-693/01 from July 10, 2002).
50 Due to the constitutional protection of a home, the CPA provides that a legal standard for search is “probability” that the
offender or search objects are situated on certain premises or with a certain person. It is considered that this standard is a
higher level of probability than grounds of suspicion. See Krapac, Davor (2007) Kazneno procesno pravo, Zagreb: Narodne
novine, 269-271. However, it is not equal to reasonable suspicion.
47
48
- 122 -
Croatia
41. Reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence is a higher level of probability that should be
based on evidence. It is legal basis for the following measures and procedural acts:
a) precautionary measures (Art. 90 § 2 CPA),51
b) detention (Art. 102 § 1 CPA);
c) institution of the investigation (Art. 187 § 1 CPA);
d) other ways of the commencement of criminal proceedings (Art. 164 § 1 CPA).
42. These rules, specifying the conditions to approve coercive measures of the judiciary, have not been
changed, and there was no redefinition of the probable cause for warrants.
43. In Croatia there is no investigative dossier, evidence or part of the file which is kept ex parte or which is not
available for the defence. However, the reason for this is that the investigation is run by the investigative judge
who compiles the official file with all documents and evidence relevant for the judgement or legality of evidence.
The defence counsel has the right to inspect the files after the institution of criminal proceedings or after the
investigating judge undertakes urgent investigatory actions before the opening of the investigation (Art. 68 CPA).
An exception to the rule that the whole investigative dossier is available for the defence is data of witnesses to
which measures for the protection of secrecy have been applied (see § 50). This data is likewise not available to
the trial court.
44. However, the State Attorney has its own prosecutorial dossier which contains all informal information and
copies of records of formal procedural measures and acts undertaken in the pre-investigative stage which are
relevant for the institution of the investigation. Informal information contains all police official notes (see § 10) but
also secret documents on secret surveillance measures undertaken by intelligence services. The prosecutorial
dossier is considered as a private file of the prosecutor, and it is not available either to the defence or to the
court. Although Art. 188 § 5 of the CPA provides that the State Attorney shall deliver to the investigating judge
the crime report and all documents and records concerning the actions undertaken in the pre-investigatory stage,
in practice the State Attorney makes selection and withholds some documents due to their secrecy or irrelevancy
or lack of evidential value. The possible problem with a secret prosecutorial dossier from the perspective of the
defence is the inability to control the legality of the primary collection of information about the commission of the
offence, such as intelligence data. On the other hand, this data is collected in a separate procedure which has its
own judicial control mechanisms (see § 23).
45. Police authorities are entitled to arrest a person against whom they execute a ruling for compulsory appearance or a ruling on detention. Without a judicial decision the police can arrest a person if s/he is caught in flagranti or if there are grounds for suspicion of having committed an offence and any grounds for ordering detention (Art. 95 CPA). Detention can be ordered only by the court if there exists reasonable suspicion and one of
causa arresti (danger of flight; danger of destroying evidence or impeding the investigation; danger to repeat the
offence; if it is justifiable because of the specially grave circumstances of the offence which is punished by imprisonment for a term of twelve years or more) (Art. 102 CPA). The Croatian legal system does not provide for
possibilities of secret arrest and detention, deportation or extraordinary rendition without habeas corpus.
46. With respect to specific production orders for stored information at the disposal of service providers such as
internet providers, travel agencies, air companies and credit card companies, they are carried out in Croatia as
an investigative measure of temporary seizure of an object. Whoever is in possession of objects which may be
used to determine facts in proceedings is bound to surrender them upon the court’s request. A person who refuses to surrender them may be fined to an amount not exceeding 2700 Euro (20,000.00 Kuna), and in the case
of further refusal may be imprisoned. Imprisonment shall last until the object is surrendered or until the conclusion of criminal proceedings, but not longer than one month. It shall be proceeded in the same way against an
official or responsible person in a state authority or legal entity (Art. 218 § 2 CPA). These provisions also apply to
Precautionary measures are: prohibition to leave a residence, prohibition to visit a certain place or a territory, obligation of
the defendant to call periodically a certain person or authority, prohibition to approach a certain person and prohibition to
establish or maintain contacts with a certain person, prohibition to engage in a certain business activity, temporary seizure of
a passport or other document which serves to cross the state border, temporary seizure of a license to drive a motor vehicle.
51
- 123 -
Croatia
data stored. So the service providers, upon the official request have to submit them to judicial authorities in a
legible and comprehensible form. The judicial authority has to proceed pursuant to the law on confidentiality of
certain data (Art. 218 § 6 CPA). Beside the court, the police may request from the telecommunication services a
call list with telecommunication addresses establishing connections during a certain period of time (Art. 177 § 2
CPA).
47. All pre-trial evidence which collection involves encroachment on basic human rights and rights of defence is
gathered or ordered by the judicial authorities. These apply to all offences notwithstanding their seriousness. No
coercive measures have been introduced in the Croatian criminal proceedings in such a way that they could
definitely preclude fair trial principle.
48. Extraterritorial use of evidence is run in Croatia by the rules of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
Judicial cooperation between Croatia and other countries currently is based on the conventional approach to
judicial cooperation. The concept of mutual recognition introduced in the legal order of the European Union is not
recognised and accepted. However, Croatia is in the period of the accession to the EU, and the principle of mutual recognition of evidences will be introduced in the next several years to the extent that it is introduced in the
EU. Under the Act on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (AILAC)52 the Croatian judicial authorities
transmit the requests for mutual assistance (letters rogatory), such as the request for obtaining evidence to foreign competent authorities through the Ministry of Justice or exceptionally, directly to foreign judicial authorities.
The basic rule is that the requested state shall collect evidence in the manner provided for by its own law (locus
regit actum), but the requesting state may ask that the action be undertaken pursuant to its law. If the action of
obtaining evidence by the foreign authority has been undertaken pursuant to the formalities and procedures
expressly indicated in the request as necessary pursuant to the law of Croatia, in the criminal proceedings it shall
be equal to the corresponding investigative action pursuant to the Croatian law (Art. 68 AILAC). If that is not a
case, evidence shall be admissible if it is admissible in the legal order of the requested state and if it is not contrary to the principles of the Croatian legal order. Evidence will not be admissible if the omission of certain formalities would always in Croatia lead to the exclusion of such evidence as illegal. E.g. if in the case of mandatory
defence a defendant has been interrogated abroad without a defence lawyer or if so-called privileged witnesses
who are the ones that are exempted from the duty to testify (e.g. relatives) were not reminded of their right to
exemption from testifying.53
49. An exception to the explained rules of extraterritorial use of evidence is envisaged in case of the cooperation
with international criminal courts. Under the Act Implementing the Statute of the International Criminal Court and
Prosecution for Crimes against International War and Humanitarian Law54 in the case where Croatia is taking
over criminal proceedings from the International Criminal Court, meaning ICC and ICTY, evidence collected by
the authorities of the international courts is admissible in criminal proceedings in Croatia if it is produced pursuant
to the Statute and the Rules on Procedure and Evidence of the ICC and ICTY and if it is admissible before that
Court (Art. 28 § 4). So, in this case, domestic rules on evidence will not be relevant and evidence is automatically
admissible.
50. Concerning special measures for the protection of secrecy, in Croatia they exist in respect of the endangered witnesses and undercover investigators. Both of them can under certain circumstances anonymously
participate in proceedings. Undercover investigators are police officers or other officials that have carried out
special inquiry measures and have infiltrated in a criminal group. The reasons for covering their identity are twofold. On the one hand, if discovered they can be endangered by revenge from the members of the criminal group,
on the other hand they are professionals, and revealing their identity would make impossible their future engagement. Therefore, the State Attorney Service and the investigating judge shall prevent in the appropriate
manner (a transcript of the record or official notes without personal data therein, excluding the official note from
the file etc.) unauthorized persons as well as the suspect and his/her defence counsel from establishing the
Official Gazette 178/2004.
See in detail Mrčela, Marin (2000) Validity of Evidence Obtained Abroad, Croatian Annual of Criminal Law and Practice, no
1, 83-108.
52
53
- 124 -
Croatia
identity of the undercover investigator (Art. 182 § 7 CPA). If these persons are interrogated as witnesses, the
court may apply the procedure for endangered witnesses.
51. From 2002 there are special measures for the protection of endangered witnesses (Art. 238.a-e CPA, Witness Protection Act). These are witnesses for whom it is likely that by giving a testimony or by answering any
individual question, they might expose themselves or any other person close to them to a serious danger to life,
health, physical integrity, freedom or property of considerable volume (Art. 238.a § 1 CPA). Witness protection
measures which are applied to them are anonymous participation in proceedings according to the Criminal Procedural Act and if needed entering in the Witness protection program pursuant to the Witness Protection Act. A
decision on applying the special manner of examining a witness or other protection measures is rendered by the
investigating judge or the judicial panel. Data about the endangered witness shall be put by the investigating
judge into a special and sealed cover and submitted for safeguarding to an authority carrying out the witness
protection program. The sealed cover containing data on the witness can exceptionally be requested and opened
only by an appellate court (Art. 238.c § 6 CPA).
52. There are three levels of protections. Firstly, if it is needed only not to disclose the identity data of a witness,
the regular examination shall be carried out under a pseudonym (witness anonymisation, Art. 238.d § 1 CPA).
Secondly, if the special manner of examination and participation of a witness in a proceeding refers not only to
non-disclosure of identity but also to the concealing of the witness’s appearance, the examination shall be carried
out by using technical devices for video and audio taping. In that case the appearance and the voice of the witness shall be changed during the examination, the witness shall be situated in a room separated from the room
in which the investigating judge and other persons attending the examination are situated (Art. 238.d § 2 CPA).
The highest level of protection is provided for by entering in the witness protection program regulated by the Act
on Witness Protection55 which provides for the change of the identity of an endangered witness.
53. One of the main principles in Croatian criminal proceedings is the principle of the free evaluation of evidence. The right of the court to evaluate evidence and to assess the existence or non-existence of facts is not
bound or restricted by the rules of legal proof i.e. the rules regulating the weighing or credibility of evidence (Art.
238.a § 1 CPA). There is only one exception related to the testimony of an anonymous witness. Under the Criminal Procedural Act the verdict and the establishment of the illegality of evidence cannot be based only on the
testimony of such a witness (Art. 238.e CPA).
54. One of the most profound changes in Croatian criminal proceedings in the last decade is the rules on subject matter jurisdiction and court composition. There are two developments. One relates to the limitation to the
use of lay judges, and other relates to the widening of the jurisdiction rationae materiae of the judge sitting alone.
55. The Act on the Office for the Combating of Corruption and Organized Crime (AOCCOC) provides since
2001 that the court panels when trying offences under jurisdiction of that Office are composed of three professional judges (Art. 27). Until then the first instance county court for these offences sat in mixed panels of one
judge and two lay judges, or of two judges and three lay judges. As jurisdiction of the Office for the Combating of
Corruption and Organized Crime is extending with every amendment, a large number of accused are now tried
before professional judges (see § 4).
56. Until the year 1998, one professional judge had jurisdiction to try only offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to one year. Under the 1997 CPA, the jurisdiction of a single judge has been extended to offences
punishable by imprisonment up to three years. Under the 2002 CPA the jurisdiction of a single judge was further
extended to offences punishable by imprisonment up to five years, with the exception of some serious offences.56
Besides, it is provided that the parties may agree before the commencement of the trial that the trial for criminal
offences punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years shall be conducted by the president of the
Official Gazette no 163/03
Under Article 18 § 2 CPA these offences are murder, impulsive and negligent bodily injury with death consequence, some
offences against values protected by international law, sexual intercourse by duress and abuse of position and causing a
traffic accident with death consequence.
55
56
- 125 -
Croatia
panel as a judge sitting alone who shall have the powers of the panel. That consent may not be later revoked by
the parties (Art. 18 § 3 CPA). Under the unofficial draft of the 2008 Act on Criminal Procedure (see § 5) the single
judge should have jurisdiction for all offences punishable by imprisonment up to eight years except for some
serious offences, and the parties may agree to extend the jurisdiction of the single judge to offences punishable
by imprisonment up to twelve years.
57. Combining these two developments it can be concluded that the procedural guarantees of defendants accused of offences related to corruption and organised crime have been enhanced and the procedural guarantees
of other defendants lowered.
58. The right to be tried by a competent court is an element of a fair trial. The rapid expansion of the jurisdiction
of a single judge in last ten years from offences punishable by up to one year of imprisonment to the proposed
possibility of offences punishable by up to twelve years of imprisonment certainly raises two questions. One
relates to the question of whether the fair trial standard of a competent court is satisfied in the proceedings where
a single judge can render a judgement of such severe punishment as imprisonment of ten years or more. The
other issue concerns the difference of the fair trial guarantee related to a competent court between the defendant
who is tried for offences within the jurisdiction of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organized
Crime and the one prosecuted by the regular State Attorney Office. Although they both can be sentenced to
imprisonment possibly to twelve years, the one accused for common offences could be tried by a single judge
and the one accused for offences under the jurisdiction of the special State Attorney Office by the panel of three
professional judges. The composition of the court is so disproportionate relating to its competence and quality
that the principle of prohibition of discrimination of defendants in criminal proceedings can be invoked.
59. The burden of proof in Croatia can be reversed only in a proceeding for the confiscation of illegally acquired
pecuniary gain. There are two such procedures, one within criminal proceedings and another prior or apart from
criminal proceedings pursuant to distraint law. In 2006 in the Croatian Criminal Code was introduced so-called
“extended” confiscation, which allows the confiscation not only of pecuniary gain resulting from a specific criminal
offence but also of the gain acquired by a criminal organization in connection with that criminal offence if it is
impossible to establish its legal origin.57 This provision provides for reduction of the standard of evidence and
reverses the burden of proof in a way that the burden of proving that the property is legally acquired is placed on
the defendant. However, for the time being this provision is not implemented in practice.58 Apart from that, the Act
on the Office for the Combating of Corruption and Organised Crime provides for the confiscation of proceeds,
instrumentalities, and property acquired by a criminal offence prior to the institution of the criminal proceedings or
apart from it according to a provision of distraint law. In this procedure, the court shall, at the proposal of the
Office, order the securing measure of confiscation if there is ground for suspicion that the means, proceeds or
assets of the value of 13000 Euros results from the criminal offence under the jurisdiction of the Office and if
there is a probability that it shall be difficult to carry out this measure in the criminal proceedings (Art. 50 § 1
AOCCOC). Once the measure has been ordered, the burden of proof is placed on a defendant, and it shall be
repealed only if s/he proves by virtue of authentic documents that the sources of his/her property are legal or that
other conditions do not exist (Art. 52 § 3 AOCCOC).
60. For all serious offences there is a mandatory defence. That means that if the defendant fails to retain a
defence counsel of his/her own choice, the president of the court shall, by virtue of the office, appoint a defence
counsel. For an offence punishable by long-term imprisonment, the defendant must have a defence counsel at
the first interrogation, and for an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to eight years after the indictment has
been referred (Art. 65 CPA).
57 Under Article 82 § 2 of the Criminal Code the pecuniary gain acquired as a result of a criminal offence also denotes the
gain acquired by a group of people or criminal organization which is in temporal connection with the committed criminal offence and for which there is ground to believe that it was acquired by the criminal offence in question, for it is impossible to
establish its legal origin.
58 See in detail Ivičević Karas, Elizabeta (2007) Confiscation of illegally acquired pecuniary gain, Croatian Annual of Criminal
Law and Practice, vol. 14, no 2, 673-694, 688.
- 126 -
Croatia
61. As concerns other procedural rights at the trial, besides the ones already mentioned, there is no lowering of
standards or any other limitation as concerns the offenders of serious offences.
VI. Post-trial setting (criminal proceedings, special proceedings)
62. There was no modification with regard to terrorism and serious offences of the right of a higher court to
review the sentence on appeal or on extraordinary judicial remedies.
63. At last, terrorism and related offences are considered as offences against the essential interest of the Republic of Croatia for which, according to the so-called real or protective principle of the application of the Croatian
criminal law, the principle ne bis in idem does not apply. The offences against the essential interest of Croatia are
all offences against the Republic of Croatia and offences which Croatia is bound to punish according to international law, which include Assassination and Kidnapping of Highest State Officials, Anti-State Terrorism, Act of
Sabotage, International Terrorism, Taking of Hostages, Endangering the Safety of Internationally Protected Persons, Trafficking in Human Beings and Slavery, Endangering the Safety of International Air Traffic and Maritime
Navigation, Espionage, etc. For these offences prosecution and the institution of criminal proceedings in Croatia
is obligatory, and it is irrelevant whether the criminal proceedings in another country resulted in a final judgement
of acquittal or conviction or the sentence had been fully served.
- 127 -
Sección III
ESPAÑA*
Juan-Luis GÓMEZ COLOMER**
I. Reforma del marco jurídico: medidas especiales con respecto a la prevención, a la investigación y al
enjuiciamiento
Antes de responder a las 23 cuestiones que se formulan dentro de los seis grandes apartados del cuestionario,
con muchas subcuestiones dentro de cada una de ellas, debo advertir que no entraré ni en el concepto de terrorismo, ni tampoco en el concepto de crimen organizado, por ser ambas cuestiones propias del Derecho Penal
material, indicando al relator general que ambos conceptos son poco claros para la doctrina española, que critica con fundamento las normas internacionales (por ejemplo, el concepto de terrorismo del art. 1.1 Decisión
marco del Consejo de 13 de junio de 2002 sobre la lucha contra el terrorismo, DOCE núm. L 164/2002, de 22 de
junio de 2002), y nacionales (por ejemplo, el concepto de crimen organizado del art. 282 bis.4 de la Ley de
Enjuiciamiento Criminal de 1882), que han intentado definir dogmáticamente tanto lo que es terrorismo, como lo
que es crimen organizado, probablemente por ser conceptos más criminológicos que jurídicos. Tampoco consideraré aquí las particularidades españolas del Derecho Penitenciario en materia de crimen organizado, y en
particular de terrorismo, salvo algún apunte debido a su importancia, por ser analizadas generalmente en España por la doctrina que cultiva el Derecho Penal sustantivo.
1. España ha ratificado todas las normas internacionales aprobadas en materia de derechos humanos, tanto a
nivel europeo, como internacional y supranacional. Los tratados internacionales tienen plena vigencia y su valor
jerárquico se corresponde con el segundo escalón, entre la Constitución y las leyes orgánicas y ordinarias. El
art. 10.2 de la Constitución española (abreviada a partir de ahora CE) obliga a interpretar las normas relativas a
los derechos fundamentales y a las libertades que reconoce, de conformidad con la Declaracion Universal de
Derechos Humanos y los tratados y acuerdos internacionales sobre las mismas materias ratificados por España.
Esto significa que siendo leyes vigentes en España, cualquier sospechoso, sin importar ni de qué delito se trate,
ni qué nacionalidad tenga, puede alegar en su defensa estas normas y los derechos en su favor que contienen,
y las autoridades públicas están obligadas a respetarlas y a hacerlas cumplir. Lo mismo cuando se trate de
testigos o peritos en estas causas, así como de las víctimas en los casos, como ocurre en España, en que puedan ser parte acusadora y parte civil en el proceso penal. Y así ocurre en nuestra práctica diraria ante el cosmopolitismo de mi país (somos más de 45 millones de españoles y nos visitan anualmente casi 60 millones de
turistas, trabajando legalmente entre nosotros unos 2.000.000 de extranjeros emigrantes, principalmente de
América Latina, norte y centro de África y Europa del este).
2. Para entender el movimiento de reforma legislativa penal y procesal penal en España hay que partir de la
base de que sólo somos una verdadera democracia desde finales de 1978. Por tanto, las reformas de esta
naturaleza más importantes han consistido desde entonces fundamentalmente en reforzar el régimen de garantías del imputado y en adecuar nuestro proceso penal a los postulados del proceso penal acusatorio, sobre todo
en la fase de instrucción. Pero no han sido suficientes. Es necesaria una Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (abreNota importante: El texto publicado es la última versión original del Informe nacional enviado por el autor, sin que se haya
** Catedrático de Derecho Procesal. Universidad Jaume I Castellón (España)
*
- 129 -
España
viada a partir de ahora LECRIM) totalmente nueva que sustituya a la vetusta de 1882, heredera del Code
d’instruction criminelle napoleónico de 1808, que articula por tanto un sistema acusatorio mixto (o, como dicen
los alemanes, un proceso penal reformado), y que sea digna del Código Penal (abreviado a partir de ahora CP)
de 1995. El Gobierno tiene previsto presentar el correspondiente proyecto de ley en la legislatura que acaba de
empezar (2008-2012). Un problema específico será regular la lucha procesal penal contra el terrorismo dentro
de un modelo de enjuiciamiento criminal netamente acusatorio, lo que no es nada fácil como se verá en las
páginas que siguen.
Los grandes delitos considerados en este informe que afectan principalmente al crimen organizado, y en particular al terrorismo, son competencia exclusiva en España de la jurisdicción penal ordinaria, por tanto no hay procedimiento alguno de naturaleza administrativa (sancionadora) o militar en el que se puedan exigir responsabilidades por dichos hechos.
Pero la primera ley antiterrorista española, de 1968 aunque con algún precedente anterior, por tanto aprobada
en la época de Franco, atribuyó el conocimiento de los delitos de bandidaje y terrorismo a la jurisdicción militar.
La última ley antiterrorista de Franco, de agosto de 1975, tres meses antes de morir, castigó con pena de muerte
varios delitos de terrorismo, todos ellos de por sí con penas muy severas, pero ya no eran enjuiciados todos los
delitos por la jurisdicción militar, algunos lo eran por la jurisdicción especial del tristemente famoso Tribunal de
Orden Público. Una de las primeras leyes aprobadas con la Monarquía, en febrero de 1976, desactivó las consecuencias más importantes de la legislación franquista en esta materia, siendo bajo el Presidente Suárez
cuando en enero de 1977 se transfirió a la jurisdicción ordinaria prácticamente el enjuiciamiento de todos los
delitos de terrorismo. Hubo legislación importante sobre la materia en 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984 y 1988, los
peores años desde el punto de vista de la escalada terrorista en la naciente democracia, y luego en 1995, 1998,
2000, 2002, 2003 y 2005, por diferentes razones pero en un ambiente algo más “relajado”. Hoy no se enjuicia en
España ni uno solo de estos delitos por la jurisdicción militar.
En consecuencia, las reformas habidas no han establecido ninguna vía alternativa de procedimientos especiales
fuera del sistema penal ordinario, salvo que se entienda como tal la reinstauración del Tribunal del Jurado, que
tiene competencia para conocer de unos pocos delitos a través de un proceso penal especial creado en 1995,
pero ninguno de ellos pertenece al crimen organizado, aunque algún homicidio o asesinato cometido por algún
narcotraficante o algún simpatizante de grupos terroristas podría ser competencia suya, como ya ha sucedido en
España en este último caso (Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo español, abreviado a partir de ahora TS, núm.
364/1998, de 11 marzo, RA 2355, caso Mikel Otegi).
Para que el relator mundial tenga una idea exacta de las reformas procesales penales desde la reinstauración
de la democracia en España, diré que éstas, al menos las más importantes, han afectado no sólo a la fase
sumarial del proceso penal español, sino también al proceso ordinario y al derecho de defensa. Recogeré un
amplio listado porque, al ser España el país europeo en donde el terrorismo lamentablemente sigue aún muy
activo, el conocimiento de las más importantes reformas ayuda a comprender mejor nuestra particular situación:
A. Modificaciones que afectan a los procesos ordinarios y especiales:
a) Conflictos de jurisdicción: La Ley Orgánica (abreviada a partir de ahora LO) 2/1987, de 18 de mayo suprimió
los arts. 48 a 50 LECRIM, a la vista de la nueva legislación sobre la materia.
b) Creación de la Audiencia Nacional: Casi dos años anterior a la Constitución es la creación legal de un tribunal
para conocer específicamente, dentro de su competencia penal, de determinados delitos especialmente graves,
como los de terrorismo, la Audiencia Nacional (en adelante abreviada AN). Su existencia está hoy sancionada
por los arts. 62 y ss. de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (abreviada a partir de ahora LOPJ). Más adelante me
referiré a él.
c) Modificaciones de competencias objetivas penales: Hechas por la LO 4/1988, de 25 de mayo, de reforma de
la LECRIM; por la LO 7/1988, de 28 de diciembre, de los juzgados de lo penal y por la que se modifican diversos
preceptos de las LOPJ y LECRIM; y por la Ley 36/1998, de 10 de noviembre, de modificación del artículo 14,
apartados primero y tercero, de la LECRIM.
- 130 -
España
d) Nuevos procesos penales abreviados: Muy importantes porque son los adecuados para el enjuiciamiento de
la criminalidad mediana y menos grave, es decir, la más numerosa, introducido uno por LO 7/1988, de 28 de
diciembre, y el otro por Ley 10/1992, de 30 de abril; y reformados por la LO 2/1998, de 15 de junio, por la que se
modifican el CP y la LECRIM; y por la LO 7/2002, de 5 de julio, de reforma parcial de la LECRIM, entre otras
normas.
e) Juicio de faltas: La Ley 10/1992, de 30 de abril ha reformado profundamente este proceso ordinario, uno de
los dos originariamente contemplados por la LECRIM.
f) Recurso de casación: A efectos de igualar la situación de los motivos de casación en todos los procesos civiles y penales se aprobaron la Ley 6/1985, de 27 de marzo, y la Ley 21/1988, de 19 de julio, que han reformado
las causas de inadmisión del recurso. La Ley 21/1988, de 19 de julio, reformó los articulos 855, 876, 882 bis,
884, 885, 893 bis, a), y 898 LECRIM.
g) Revisión penal: La Ley 10/1992, de 30 de abril, ha reformado la revisión penal, adaptándola a nuevas exigencias impuestas por el Tribunal Constitucional español (abreviado a partir de ahora TC).
h) Proceso penal para el enjuiciamiento rápido de determinados delitos: La Ley 38/2002, de 24 de octubre, creó,
entre otras reformas, un proceso penal nuevo, el proceso para el enjuiciamiento rápido e inmediato de determinados delitos y faltas.
i) Tutela de los derechos fundamentales reconocidos por la Constitución: Prevista inicialmente en cuanto al
ámbito penal en los art. 1 a 5 de la Ley 62/1978, de 26 de diciembre, reguladora de la protección jurisdiccional
de los derechos fundamentales de la persona, fueron derogados por la Ley 38/2002, de 24 de octubre, de manera que no existe hoy especialidad alguna en esta materia.
j) Protección de víctimas: La LO 14/1999, de 9 de junio, modifica el CP de 1995, en materia de protección a las
víctimas de malos tratos y la LECRIM.
k) Nuevas disposiciones en el enjuiciamiento de terroristas: De acuerdo con el art. 55.2 CE, la legislación antiterrorista, si es necesario aprobarla, requiere que lo sea mediante ley orgánica, debe regular necesariamente la
intervención judicial en los actos de investigación y medidas cautelares que regule en tanto sean actos de injerencia en los derechos del inculpado o imputado, debe contemplar los casos en que se aplica y de qué forma, y
su aplicación debe ser controlada parlamentariamente, pudiendo si se dan estos requisitos limitar o suspender
los derechos reconocidos en los arts. 17.2 (plazo de la detención), 18.2 (inviolabilidad del domicilio) y 18.3 (secreto de las comunicaciones) CE para determinadas personas sospechosas de ser miembros de bandas armadas o terroristas. Obsérvese que sólo pueden ser limitados o suspendidos esos derechos fundamentales del
imputado. De conformidad con ello se han aprobado las siguientes normas:
1) Dos leyes antiterroristas importantísimas, las Leyes Orgánicas 3 y 4/1988, de 25 de mayo, que han significado formalmente la derogación de la legislación antiterrorista, pero no materialmente. Son consecuencia de la S
TC 199/1987, de 16 de diciembre, que declaró aquella ley parcialmente anticonstitucional. La doctrina, tanto
penal como procesal penal española, ha considerado no sin faltarle la razón que esta legislación se extralimitó
respecto al mandato del art. 55.2 CE, convirtiéndose en una verdadera legislación de emergencia o de excepción. Haremos las oportunas anotaciones en esta ponencia al respecto.
2) Aunque no específicamente prevista para la lucha antiterrorista, pero sí aplicable a determinados ámbitos de
la lucha legal contra este pernicioso fenómeno, además de en casos de tráfico de drogas, debe citarse la LO
1/1992, de 21 de febrero, sobre Protección de la Seguridad Ciudadana.
3) A ello hay que añadir las normas aprobadas para prevenir y bloquear la financiación del terrorismo (LO
4/2003, de 21 de mayo; y Ley 12/2003, de 21 de mayo), siguiendo la tendencia internacional en la materia.
4) También el CP de 1995, dejando de lado lo relativo a los delitos de terrorismo (arts. 571 a 580), contiene
disposiciones de importancia procesal en la lucha antiterrorista, particularmente las relativas a los “arrepentidos”,
es decir, a los miembros de bandas del crimen organizado que deciden colaborar con la investigación y obtienen
por ello beneficios sustantivos o procesales siempre que cumplan los estrictos requisitos legales que se exigen
(arts. 90.1, 376 y 579 CP, debiendo añadirse el art. 72 de la LO 1/1979, de 26 de septiembre, General Penitenciaria, teniendo en cuenta la importante reforma de 2003). Este delicado tema no es nuevo en nuestro Derecho,
- 131 -
España
pero ha obtenido en los últimos tiempos un mayor desarrollo legal y jurisprudencial, aunque su aceptación doctrinal sigue siendo discutible porque no está resultando eficaz en la práctica.
5) Así como los convenios internacionales ratificados por España en la lucha antiterrorista: Estrasburgo de 1977,
Nueva York de 1999, Prüm de 2005, y Nueva York de 2005.
l) Supresión de penas: La Ley 6/1984, de 31 de marzo, surpimió el art. 995 LECRIM, sobre la pena de interdicción.
m) Elevación de cuantías de multa: Efectuada por la LO 8/1983, de 25 de junio, que reformó el art. 14 LECRIM,
y por la Ley 10/1992, de 30 de abril, que ha reformado los arts. 175-5º, 420. 684 y 716 LECRIM.
B. Modificaciones que afectan a la fase sumarial: El proceso penal ordinario español por delitos más graves, el
otro proceso originariamente contemplado por la LECRIM de 1882, está dividido legalmente en dos fases distintas. Pues bien, es en la primera fase de investigación del crimen, llamada sumario, aunque extendibles a los
demás procesos, en donde se han producido las reformas de más trascendencia tras la aprobación de la CE de
1978:
a) Principio de publicidad del sumario: El derecho a la publicidad del proceso, consagrado en los arts. 24.2,
120.1 y 120.3 de la Constitución, ha sido desarrollado por la Ley 53/1978, de 4 de diciembre, aprobada pocos
días antes que la Constitución, pero con base sin duda en su texto definitivo.
b) Reforma de la obligación de denunciar: Ha sido realizada, para los casos de seguimiento internacional de
narcotráfico, por la LO 8/1992, de 23 de diciembre, que ha introducido el art. 263 bis LECRIM (v. infra).
c) Nueva regulación de los instrumentos y efectos del delito: Efectuada por la Ley 4/1984, de 9 de marzo, que
modificó el art. 338 LECRIM.
d) Modificación de la diligencia y pruebas testificales: Ley Orgánica 12/1991, de 10 de julio, que reforma los arts.
411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 702 y 703 LECRIM.
e) Modificación de la diligencia de registro: Efectuada por la Ley 10/1992, de 30 de abril, que ha dado nueva
redacción al art. 569 LECRIM.
f) Reformas relacionadas con la detención ilegal: Desarrollando el art. 17.4 CE, la LO 6/1984, de 24 de mayo ha
regulado en España la institución del "habeas corpus".
g) Las reformas de la prisión provisional: El derecho a la libertad personal del art. 17.1 CE ha sido desarrollado a
nivel ordinario por lo que afecta al proceso penal, entre otras razones porque la propia CE en su art. 17.4 exigía
que se regulara el plazo máximo de duración de la prisión provisional, en más de una ocasión, sin duda, por la
especial conflictividad del tema. Así, antes de la actual redacción de los arts. 503, 504 y 529 LECRIM, entre
otros, dada por la LO 13/2003, de 24 de octubre, de reforma de la LECRIM en materia de prisión provisional, se
aprobaron la Ley 16/1980, de 22 de abril; la LO 7/1983, de 23 de abril; y la LO 10/1984, de 26 de diciembre.
h) Investigación del narcotráfico y demás crimen organizado: Citemos la LO 8/1992, de 23 de diciembre, de
modificacion del CP y de la LECRIM en materia de tráfico de drogas; la Ley 21/1994, de 6 de julio, por la que se
modifica el art. 338 LECRIM sobre la destruccion de la droga decomisada; y la LO 5/1999, de 13 de enero, de
modificación de la LECRIM en materia de perfeccionamiento de la acción investigadora relacionada con el tráfico ilegal de drogas y otras actividades ilícitas graves, que reconoce una modalidad de la llamada investigación
proactiva, la del policía infiltrado, introduciendo el agente encubierto o V-Mann en el Derecho español (art. 282
bis LECRIM).
i) La obtención de pruebas de ADN en un proceso penal: Arts. 326 y 363 LECRIM, reformados por la LO
15/2003, de 25 de noviembre.
C. Modificaciones que afectan al derecho de defensa técnico, que ubicamos en un apartado propio por la gran
importancia de este derecho constitucional (regulado en los arts. 17.3, 24.1 y 24.2 CE). En este sentido son de
citar la Ley 53/1978, de 4 de diciembre, que modificó, entre otros, los arts. 520 y 522 LECRIM, y la LO 14/1983,
de 12 de diciembre, que modificó los arts. 520 y 527 LECRIM, artículo este último de gran importancia en la
lucha antiterrorista (v. infra), declarado ajustado a la Constitución por nuestro TC (S 196/1987, de 11 de diciembre).
- 132 -
España
Tampoco se puede decir que hoy exista en esta materia legislación de emergencia, al menos con carácter general, aunque las reformas de 1988, debido a los momentos difíciles que se han pasado en España, sobre todo
después del 23 de febrero de 1981 con el intento de golpe de estado del coronel Tejero et alt., y de la cadena de
atentados mortales a finales de la década de los 80, inclinan a sectores importantes de nuestra doctrina a pensar en ello afirmativamente, porque en verdad determinados derechos fundamentales del imputado se han limitado. Que no se haya ahondado en este tipo de legislación hoy, después de lo sucedido en Madrid el 11 de
marzo de 2004 con el atentado múltiple del terrorismo islámico que causó 191 muertos, es señal inequívoca del
deseo político-legislativo de reaccionar con templanza frente a esta provocación.
Muchos aspectos de las reformas legales han sido analizados por nuestros más altos tribunales, sobre todo por
el TC, que ha declarado inconstitucionales algunas normas que afectan al cuestionario, en concreto:
1.- S TC 10/2002, de 17 de enero, que declara inconstitucional el art. 557 LECRIM, que se refería a la entrada y
registro en las habitaciones de hoteles.
2.- S TC 71/1994, de 3 de marzo, que declara inconstitucional el art. 504 bis LECRIM, que se refería a determinadas prerrogativas del fiscal a la hora de impugnar la puesta en libertad de determinados presos provisionales
por delitos del crimen organizado.
Pero en otras ocasiones se han analizado normas que afectan a este informe que han sido declaradas constitucionales, que o ya hemos citado o que iremos citando oportunamente. Destaco ahora la S TC 48/2003, de 12 de
marzo, que declaró constitucional la Ley Orgánica 6/2002, de 27 de junio, de Partidos Políticos, que se aplicó
para declarar ilegal a la formación política independentista vasca Herri Batasuma.
Es de resaltar igualmente que existen cientos de sentencias dictadas por el TC español en recursos de amparo
promovidos por condenados por delito de terrorismo, algunas de ellas estimatorias, pero que no consideraré al
tratarse de derechos fundamentales particulares de los condenados que la parte recurrente aducía en el recurso
que habían sido vulnerados.
En general puede decirse que la inmensa mayoría de preceptos aprobados después de la reinstauración de la
democracia en 1978 en España, han servido para la lucha antiterrorista, siendo aplicados correctamente por los
dos únicos tribunales que tienen competencia para ello, la Audiencia Nacional en instancia, y el Tribunal Supremo en casación.
Todas las reformas antedichas han sido discutidas artículo por artículo durante su tramitación parlamentaria, de
acuerdo con nuestras normas políticas, y han sido objeto además de análisis especial por la doctrina en publicaciones y en congresos o jornadas de trabajo con esos objetos específicos.
II. Preguntas generales sobre los procedimientos penales y medidas especiales
3. Varias cuestiones deben indicarse aquí para que el relator mundial tome conocimiento de inmediato de las
directrices básicas de nuestro proceso penal:
A. Resumidamente, los principios generales que rigen en el proceso penal son los propios del Estado de Derecho adaptados a esta materia. Así, clasificados sistemáticamente y con referencia normativa a la CE, he de decir
que nuestra norma fundamental ha consagrado los siguientes principios:
1) Relativos a la organización y funcionamiento de los tribunales penales (Jurisdicción): a) El principio de su unidad
(art. 117.5 CE); b) El principio de la exclusividad de la Jurisdicción (art. 117.3 CE); c) El principio de la independencia
judicial (art. 117.1 CE); d) El principio del Juez legal (art. 24.2 CE); y e) El Jurado (art. 125), reinstaurado en 1995.
2) Relativos al derecho de acceso de las personas al proceso penal (derecho de acción): a) Derecho al libre acceso a
los tribunales de Justicia (art. 24.1 CE, para las personas sin recursos, art. 119 CE); y b) Prohibición de las dilaciones
indebidas del proceso (art. 24.2).
3) Por último, los principios relativos al proceso y al procedimiento son: Igualdad; contradicción o audiencia; principio
de observancia de las garantías procesales debidas (art. 24.2), que significa además de la constitucionalización
general en nuestro país del principio del due process of law, la máxima que pueda cubrir omisiones constitucionales
respecto a otros principios procesales igualmente fundamentales; principio de la presunción de inocencia,
- 133 -
España
consagrado también en el art. 24.2 CE, de contenido fundamentalmente penal; oralidad; publicidad; y el principio de
prohibición de la duplicidad de sanciones; entre otros.
Es importante destacar que el principio acusatorio no se reconoce expresamente en la CE, pero el TC ha dicho
reiteradamente que está presente e influye en las normas constitucionales que disciplinan nuestro proceso penal,
formando parte del derecho al proceso con todas las garantías del art. 24.2 CE.
Todos estos principios se encuentran regulados en la CE y desarrollados por la LECRIM. Veamos a continuación los
que afectan al imputado o acusado desde diversas perspectivas.
B. En este sentido y en primer lugar, debe destacarse el estatuto jurídico de la parte acusada, que tiene las
siguientes características:
a) El inculpado es parte, y en cuanto tal le corresponden una serie de derechos y deberes procesales diversos,
según la fase del procedimiento.
b) El inculpado está obligado a comparecer ante el órgano jurisdiccional, pero no está obligado a declarar (art.
24.2 CE, art. 520.2, a) y b) LECRIM). La declaración del inculpado implica un acto voluntario y un derecho, pero
no un deber. De ahí que se prohíba toda coacción (arts. 15 CE, y 387, 389, 393 y 520 LECRIM). El deber de
comparecencia está sancionado con la detención (art. 487 LECRIM).
c) El inculpado sirve para la práctica de determinados medios de prueba, como la pericial, o el reconocimiento
judicial. Su interrogatorio en el juicio oral es decisivo, pero al mismo tiempo que como medio de prueba, también
para ejercer su derecho de defensa.
d) Es, por último, el titular de los bienes y derechos sobre los que puede recaer la ejecución: Su persona
(libertad) y bienes están sometidos a medidas cautelares que garantizan la posibilidad de ejecución futura.
C. En cuanto al derecho de defensa del imputado o acusado, debe decirse que tiene derecho el detenido a ella
desde el momento de su detención (arts. 17.3 y 24.2 CE, y arts. 118, 520 y 767 LECRIM). Pero la ley española es
algo confusa en cuanto a la designación de abogado, distinguiendo erróneamente varios regímenes en función de en
qué proceso penal concreto nos encontremos:
1.- Nombramiento obligatorio: El imputado debe nombrar abogado (el jurista que le defiende) y procurador (el
representante procesal) necesariamente, si no los tuviere ya (art. 545 LOPJ), desde el mismo momento, en el
proceso ordinario por delitos más graves, en que se le notifique el auto de procesamiento, y una vez abierto el
juicio oral para proceder a la calificación de la defensa (arts. 384, II y 652, II LECRIM). En los procesos
abreviados el nombramiento es obligatorio desde que resulte necesaria la asistencia letrada, es decir, desde la
detención o primer acto de imputación, y, en todo caso, para el juicio oral (arts. 767 LECRIM). Tratándose de
procesos para el enjuiciamiento rápido de determinados delitos, v. art. 796.1-2ª LECRIM. Si no los nombra, el
órgano jurisdiccional se los nombrará de oficio (art. 545 LOPJ y arts. 118, III y IV, 520.2, c) "in fine", 652, II, y
767 LECRIM), porque los Poderes públicos tienen obligación de garantizar la defensa y la asistencia de
Abogado (art. 545 LOPJ, en relación con los arts. 14, 17, 24 y 119 CE, y los arts. 118 y ss., y concordantes
LECRIM).
2.- Designación voluntaria: Según el art. 545.1 LOPJ, las partes y, por tanto, el inculpado, pueden designar
libremente al Abogado que quieran, siempre que éste reúna los requisitos exigidos por la Ley para serlo, y
siempre que no esté previsto legalmente un supuesto de exclusión del defensor (v. art. 527, a) LECRIM,
declarado constitucional por la S TC 196/1987, 11 diciembre). Conforme al nuevo texto del art. 520.2, c)
LECRIM, toda persona detenida o presa tiene "derecho a designar Abogado y a solicitar su presencia para que
asista a las diligencias policiales y judiciales de declaración e intervenga en todo reconocimiento de identidad de
que sea objeto..." No es, pues, un mero convidado de piedra.
El art. 118 LECRIM se refiere a un supuesto judicial de detención o prisión, mientras que el art. 520 LECRIM hay
que relacionarlo con las actuaciones policiales previas al proceso. Con ello, siendo el mismo derecho
constitucional a la defensa técnica, se contemplan los dos supuestos posibles, a efectos de garantizar
completamente la designación. Pero esto no debe llevar a engaño, el derecho fundamental a la defensa técnica
es el mismo y se extiende durante toda la duración del proceso penal, debiendo ser el mismo Abogado desde el
principio (la detención) hasta el final (la ejecución en caso de condena), como ocurre en los procesos penales
- 134 -
España
rápidos (v. arts. 767 y 796.1-2ª LECRIM). Además, el art. 118 LECRIM es aplicable aun cuando no exista ni
detención, ni prisión, pues se dan casos en los que se comunica a una persona la existencia de un proceso en
su contra, y no se le priva de libertad por ello.
Sobre el régimen jurídico de la asistencia letrada habría que añadir las cuestiones siguientes, expuestas con
carácter general:
a) Una vez informado el inculpado de su derecho a nombrar letrado (art. 520.2, c) LECRIM), y éste ha
comparecido, puede solicitar que se informe al detenido de sus derechos (art. 520.6, a) LECRIM), que se
amplíen o rectifiquen extremos del acta en la que se contenga el interrogatorio o que se recojan en ella las
incidencias producidas durante el mismo (art. 520.6, b) LECRIM), y, por último, entrevistarse reservadamente
con el detenido tras la finalización del interrogatorio o diligencia practicada (art. 520.6, c) LECRIM), aunque en
los procesos rápidos puede entrevistarse antes también (art. 775, II LECRIM).
b) Está obligado a concurrir al llamamiento del Colegio de Abogados si es nombrado de oficio, antes de 8 horas
(art. 520.4, I LECRIM, aunque el interrogatorio puede practicarse por la Policía si no comparece en este plazo),
incurriendo en responsabilidad en caso contrario (art. 520.4, II LECRIM).
c) El derecho a la asistencia letrada es renunciable, pero únicamente en el caso de delitos de tráfico, incluidas
las alcoholemias (art. 520.5 LECRIM).
d) Si la situación procesal es de incomunicado (normal en detenciones de presuntos terroristas, rebeldes o
grandes delincuentes, v.gr, narcotraficantes, arts. 407, 408, 509, 510, y 520 bis.2 LECRIM), no tiene derecho a
designar abogado de confianza sino que se le impone uno de oficio, no puede comunicarse con familiares, ni
tiene derecho finalmente a la entrevista reservada al final de la práctica de la diligencia (art. 527 LECRIM). Este
precepto, que tiene precedentes en el Derecho alemán y en el italiano, y que ha sido declarado constitucional
por el TC como indicábamos, es importantísimo y ha sido muy criticado doctrinalmente porque establece
restricciones del derecho de defensa que no han sido autorizadas por el art. 55.2 CE.
3.- La ley concede de forma limitada a la propia parte imputada capacidad de postulación en algunos casos: 1)
En los procesos por faltas (art. 967 LECRIM); 2) Proposición de la recusación estando incomunicado (art. 58
LECRIM); 3) Para pedir la reposición del auto que eleva la detención a prisión (art. 501 LECRIM); 4) Para
proponer diligencias cuando se le reciba declaración en el sumario (art. 396, I LECRIM); y 5) derecho a la “última
palabra”, la manifestación más genuina del derecho a la autodefensa, al final de la vista del juicio (art. 739
LECRIM).
D. Pero el imputado goza también de otros derechos durante esta primera fase del proceso penal español, a saber:
Derecho a que se consignen sus circunstancias favorables y se le instruya en sus derechos (arts. 17.3 CE, 2 y 767
LECRIM); derecho a tomar conocimiento de las actuaciones sumariales en tanto no esté declarado formalmente el
secreto (art. 302 LECRIM); derecho de "habeas corpus" (arts. 17.4 CE, 286 LECRIM, y LO 6/1984, de 24 de mayo,
reguladora de este derecho); derecho a que se le dicte auto de imputación formal, es decir, auto de procesamiento, si
está previsto (art. 384, I LECRIM); derecho a que se le tome primera declaración, llamada indagatoria, dentro de las
24 horas de su detención si ha sido procesado (art. 386 LECRIM); derecho a no declarar en general o contra sí
mismo y a no confesarse culpable, es decir, derecho a guardar silencio (art. 17.3 y 24.2 CE); derecho a que no se le
obligue a decir verdad (art. 387 LECRIM); derecho a que no se le hagan preguntas capciosas ni sugestivas (art. 389,
II LECRIM); derecho al intérprete (arts. 398, 440, 441, 520.2, e) y 762-8ª LECRIM); derecho a no ser sometido a
tortura, coacción o amenazas para declarar (art. 15 CE y arts. 389, III; 391, III y 394 LECRIM, y Convención de
Nueva York de 1984); derecho a la presunción de inocencia (art. 24.2 CE); derecho a recusar a los peritos (art. 469
LECRIM); derecho a ser oído cuando se le impute un acto punible (arts. 24 CE y 486 LECRIM); derecho a ser
detenido con las formalidades exigidas por las leyes (arts. 17.1 CE y 489 LECRIM); derecho a que se eleve la
detención a prisión o se le deje sin efecto en el plazo de 72 horas (arts. 17.2 CE, 497 y 499, I LECRIM); derecho a
que el auto de prisión sea ratificado o revocado dentro de las 72 horas siguientes al acto de la prisión, si está previsto
(art. 516 LECRIM); derecho a que se le ponga en libertad inmediatamente conste su inocencia (art. 528, II LECRIM);
derecho a que no se entre en su domicilio sino en los casos en que así lo establezca la ley (arts. 18.2 CE, y 545
LECRIM, y art. 21 LSC), derecho a que se le notifique el auto de conclusión del sumario (art. 623 LECRIM), etc.
- 135 -
España
Debo llamar la atención sobre el hecho que la doctrina considera que la lucha procesal penal contra el crimen
organizado, y en particular contra el terrorismo, afecta al principio de igualdad procesal (art. 14 CE), también
conocido como principio de igualdad de armas, en el sentido de que el importante papel que la policía y el Ministerio
Fiscal tienen en estos procesos, así como las restricciones del derecho de defensa vistas y las posibilidades de
incomunicación, hacen que el Estado ocupe una posición clara de superioridad en la lucha contra este tipo de
crímenes, lo que afecta al principio del proceso debido, que exige esa igualdad.
4. Tanto la presunción de inocencia, como el derecho del sospechoso, imputado o acusado a permanecer en
silencio, y el derecho a no declarar contra sí mismo y a no declararse culpable, son derechos fundamentales del
inculpado o acusado en el proceso penal español, por tanto, derechos constitucionalizados, y así lo hace la CE
en su art. 24.
A. La presunción de inocencia no es verdaderamente una presunción, sino una regla probatoria, que por afectar
a las esencias del sistema de enjuiciamiento propio de un Estado de Derecho alcanza ese nivel tan elevado.
Tiene un papel menor durante el desarrollo del proceso penal, pues un sistema acusatorio inclina el tratamiento
jurídico del imputado más a considerarlo de momento inocente, salvo que existan ciertas sospechas o indicios
fundados de lo contrario. Por eso goza del derecho fundamental a probar su inocencia ya desde su detención
(art. 24.2 CE), pero no tiene que hacerlo para lograr la absolución. En donde la presunción de inocencia juega
su papel definitivo es en el momento de dictar sentencia. La jurisprudencia constitucional española ha tenido
ocasión muchas veces de precisar que, en virtud de la presunción de inocencia, procede la absolución del acusado:
1°) Si no ha existido actividad probatoria alguna en el proceso, es decir, en el juicio oral no se ha practicado
prueba alguna;
2°) Si ha existido actividad probatoria, pero no es de cargo, es decir, la acusación no ha podido aportar ninguna
prueba incriminatoria; y
3°) Si existiendo prueba de cargo es considerada insuficiente en cuanto a su calidad para desvirtuar la presunción de inocencia, por ejemplo, por tratarse de un simple indicio.
En combinación con otra regla probatoria, la máxima in dubio por reo, no reconocida expresamente por la ley
pero sí por la jurisprudencia, que viene referida a la existencia de prueba de cargo pero con resultados dudosos
o en cuanto a los hechos punibles o en cuanto a la participación en los mismos del acusado, juega la presunción
de inocencia un papel importante en la práctica judicial española.
B. Los derechos a permanecer en silencio, a no declarar contra sí mismo y a no declararse culpable, son manifestaciones del derecho de defensa dentro de un sistema acusatorio, aunque sea mixto como el vigente en mi
país aún. La importancia de su reconocimiento constitucional en España reside en su aplicación a la fase y
momento más delicado para el imputado, su declaración ante la policía. El art. 520 LECRIM desarrolla estas
previsiones con detalle.
Su eficacia práctica reside, por un lado, en que las autoridades de persecución no pueden forzar las contestaciones del interrogatorio, aunque pueden seguir inquiriendo si el imputado se niega a declarar frente a una pregunta; y segundo, que en caso de no respetarse este derecho, toda la declaración es nula, lo que podría significar la absolución del acusado por falta de pruebas una vez se hayan considerado las respuestas así obtenidas
prueba prohibida.
5. Desde la solemne declaración del Tribunal Constitucional español en su Sentencia 99/1985, de 30 de septiembre, ser español o extranjero en España es absolutamente indiferente a efectos procesales, porque existen
derechos que corresponden por igual a españoles y extranjeros, siendo su aplicación idéntica para ambos, y así
sucede con aquellos derechos fundamentales que pertenecen a la persona en cuanto tal y no como ciudadano
o, dicho de otro modo, con aquellos que son imprescindibles para la garantía de la dignidad humana que conforme al art. 10.1 de nuestra Constitución constituye uno de los fundamentos del orden político español. Pues
bien, uno de estos derechos es el que todas las personas tienen a obtener la tutela efectiva de los Jueces y
Tribunales (art. 24.1 CE).
- 136 -
España
Desde luego, en ningún caso hay dos derechos penales, uno para los amigos y otro para los enemigos, ni nadie
puede ser considerado en el ordenamiento jurídico español, en todo él no sólo en el penal, no-persona. Es más,
probablemente sea España el país del mundo en donde ha existido un rechazo más claro y de mayor contenido
a las teorías del conocido catedrático alemán de Derecho Penal Günther Jakobs sobre la existencia de un
Feindstrafrecht.
6. La CE permite la suspensión de ciertos derechos humanos en situaciones extremadamente graves para la
democracia. España, por tanto, se encuentra entre los países que distinguen al más alto nivel entre derechos
humanos derogables y derechos humanos no derogables en situaciones políticas extremas. Lo hace estableciendo dos posibilidades distintas:
A. De acuerdo con el art. 55.1, los derechos que a continuación recojo pueden ser suspendidos (derogados)
temporalmente cuando se acuerde la declaración del estado de excepción o de sitio:
a) Derechos procesales durante la detención policial (legalidad de la detención, duración máxima, información,
abogado y habeas corpus) reconocidos en el art. 17 CE (pero el derecho a ser informado de la detención y a la
asistencia de abogado sólo puede ser suspendido en caso de estado de sitio, art. 55.1 in fine CE);
b) Derecho a la inviolabilidad del domicilio del art. 18.2 CE;
c) Derecho al secreto de las comunicaciones postales, telegráficas y telefónicas del art. 18.3 CE; y
d) Otros derechos no procesales recogidos en los arts. 19 (libertad de residencia y de circulación), 20.1, a) y d)
(libertad de información y de prensa), 20.5 (secuestro de publicaciones), 21 (reunión y manifestación), 28.2
(huelga) y 37.2 (conflictos colectivos) CE.
El estado de excepción y el estado de sitio se regulan en el art. 116.2 y 3 CE y en la Ley Orgánica 4/1981, de 1
de junio, de los estados de alarma, excepción y sitio. Son declarados por el Gobierno, previa autorización del
Congreso de los Diputados. La norma correspondiente debe fijar el alcance de los límites de estos derechos y
su duración temporal.
Por fortuna no hemos tenido ni una sola oportunidad en España de comprobar la eficacia de estas normas en la
defensa de la democracia.
B. Los derechos procesales durante la detención policial (legalidad de la detención, duración máxima, información, abogado y habeas corpus) reconocidos en el art. 17 CE (pero el derecho a ser infomado de la detención y
a la asistencia de abogado sólo puede ser suspendido en caso de estado de sitio, art. 55.1 in fine CE); los derechos a la inviolabilidad del domicilio del art. 18.2 CE; y el derecho al secreto de las comunicaciones postales,
telegráficas y telefónicas del art. 18.3 CE; pueden ser suspendidos para personas determinadas, en relación con
las investigaciones correspondientes a la actuación de bandas armadas o elementos terroristas (art. 55.2, I CE).
Al tratarse de una posibilidad delictiva permanente no hay sujeción temporal alguna de la restricción, como es
lógico. La LECRIM recoge normas en donde se establecen los correspondientes límites a estos derechos autorizados por el art. 55.2 CE, objeto de esta ponencia nacional más adelante. Por cierto, conviene advertir ya que
se ha añadido alguna restricción más allá de lo previsto por la CE.
En este segundo caso la suspensión se debe regular por ley orgánica, lo que así se hizo en un primer momento
por la LO 9/1984 de 26 de diciembre, contra la actuación de bandas armadas y elementos terroristas y de desarrollo del artículo 55.2 de la Constitución, hoy derogada, habiendo pasado sus diposiciones, cumpliéndose el
requisito de aprobación por ley orgánica, al CP y a la LECRIM, mediante sucesivas reformas. La clave es la
autorización judicial, pero el art. 55.2, I CE impone el control parlamentario de estas medidas, y el art. 55.2, II CE
remite al CP en caso de utilización injustificada o abusiva de las facultades reconocidas por la legislación que en
el CP y en la LECRIM está al servicio de la lucha legal contra la delincuencia organizada y el terrorismo.
En ambos casos, quienes conocen de los procesos penales correspondientes son los miembros del Poder Judicial ordinario; por tanto, en ningún caso conocen tribunales militares.
7. La legislación procesal penal española permite excepcionalmente la declaración de secreto de la fase de
investigación por tiempo limitado, y la prohibición de utilizar documentos declarados secretos por razones de
Estado. No hay posibilidad alguna de declarar legislación secreta, ni de permitir agentes secretos de justicia,
- 137 -
España
salvo los agentes encubiertos (v. infra). Téngase en cuenta además la vigencia del principio de publicidad de las
actuaciones judiciales (art. 120.1 CE), y, en su desarrollo, de los juicios orales penales, con muy pocas excepciones (art. 680 LECRIM).
A. El secreto de las actuaciones está previsto por el art. 301 LECRIM. Pero en realidad en este precepto lo que
se quiere decir es que las actuaciones sumariales (de investigación) son secretas para el público, para los terceros.
La declaración de secreto que nos interesa se recoge en el art. 302, II LECRIM. Implica que la parte imputada y
su abogado no conocen las actuaciones de investigación que se están desarrollando por las autoridades públicas de persecución (por la policía y el fiscal básicamente, pero también por el juez instructor). El fiscal, aunque
es parte, no queda exluído del conocimiento de la causa por la declaración de secreto del juez instructor. Se
trata por tanto de una excepción, cuya inconstitucionalidad no ha sido admitida, al principio de contradicción del
art. 24.1 y 24.2 CE.
El secreto de las actuaciones sumariales se utiliza en la práctica con frecuencia, precisamente en la fase de
investigación de los procesos contra miembros de la delincuencia organizada, en España principalmente mafiosos y narcotraficantes, y contra terroristas.
B. En cuanto a los documentos reservados o secretos, fuera de los diplomáticos que son inviolables conforme a
las normas internacionales, y de los protegidos por las leyes españolas por diferentes razones, por ejemplo, los
del abogado del inculpado (arts. 25 y 32 del Estatuto General de la Abogacía Española de 2001), o los de notarios y registradores de la propiedad (art. 578 LECRIM), la regulación básica se encuentra en la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil española de 2000, que en su art. 332.2 impide la utilización procesal de aquellos documentos que
tienen la naturaleza de secretos o reservados, regulados por la Ley 9/1968, de 5 de abril, de secretos oficiales,
modificada por la Ley 48/1978, de 7 de octubre.
8. La legislación española permite el uso de información de inteligencia (inteligencia policial general, información
de los servicios de inteligencia nacionales o extranjeros) en el proceso penal.
Esa información tiene que ser volcada en el pertinente acto de investigación, a realizar conforme a las normas
de la LECRIM. Por ejemplo, si la información consta en un vídeo, el Juez Instructor puede con base en él abrir
una investigación penal formalmente, porque materialmente ya la habrá iniciado la Policía con la aquiescencia
del Fiscal; podrá a continuación incorporarlo al sumario a instancias de la Fiscalía y conforme a lo que se deduzca de él realizar las oportunas investigaciones complementarias.
De acuerdo con nuestro sistema, los actos de investigación son los que se realizan en el sumario (o en las
diligencias previas o urgentes) para descubrir los hechos criminales que se han producido y sus circunstancias, y la
persona o personas que los hayan podido cometer, de manera que una vez investigado todo ello se pueda proceder
a formular una acusación o, al contrario, a terminar el proceso penal por sobreseimiento.
Se regulan fundamentalmente en la LECRIM, pero también en legislación extravagante, en ocasiones de significada
relevancia.
El problema inicial que plantea el estudio de los actos de investigación es que son prácticamente coincidentes con los
actos de prueba. La fundamental diferencia consiste en la distinta función que cumplen en el proceso: El acto de
investigación, aunque dé resultados no ciertos sino probables, puede fundar por sí sólo una resolución judicial,
puesto que se dirige a decidir si se puede abrir el juicio oral contra una persona o no; mientras que, en caso de duda,
el acto de prueba no puede fundar la sentencia, resolviéndose en favor del acusado por aplicación del principio de la
presunción de inocencia del art. 24.2 CE, pues para resultar condenado el acto de prueba debe producir resultados
ciertos e irrefutables, dado que el fin de la prueba es precisamente proporcionar al juez los datos fácticos que sirvan
para fundar su sentencia.
Los actos de investigación son de diferentes clases, aunque en realidad se pueden considerar desde dos puntos de
vista distintos:
a) Actos que se dirigen a buscar y adquirir las fuentes de la investigación: Entrada y registro en lugar cerrado, registro
de libros y papeles, y detención y apertura de la correspondencia; y
- 138 -
España
b) Actos que proporcionan por sí mismos las fuentes de investigación: Inspección ocular, declaraciones de testigos,
careos, informe pericial, documentos, identificación del imputado, e injerencias corporales.
Una aclaración también, al hilo del derecho fundamental a utilizar los medios de prueba pertinentes para su defensa
(art. 24.2 CE): Deben admitirse, aunque ese precepto se refiera a la prueba, todos los medios de investigación que la
mente humana considere como tales, estén regulados o no específicamente por la Ley. No hay por tanto tasación
legal de los actos de investigación, siendo sus únicos límites el respeto a los derechos fundamentales de las
personas, su adecuación a los fines del proceso penal, y su pertinencia, utilidad y no perjudicabilidad respecto a los
hechos criminales concretos que han dado origen a la causa y a la personalidad de los imputados.
Esto significa que las tres subcuestiones preguntadas en este punto se responden afirmativamente en España:
La información de inteligencia permite abrir una investigación penal, permite fundar los presupuestos de fumus
boni iuris para el empleo de medidas coactivas sobre bienes y sobre personas, y finalmente puede alcanzar, si
reúne los requisitos, la naturaleza de prueba de cargo.
III. Aplicación pro-activa (procedimientos policiales comunes o procedimientos penales comunes, procedimientos especiales)
9. La legislación procesal penal española establece que existen tres autoridades públicas de persecución penal,
que tienen teóricamente su trabajo perfectamente delimitado al cumplir funciones muy distintas:
a) El Juez instructor, siguiendo el modelo francés del juge d’instruction, competente formalmente para conformar
y ensamblar los muy diversos y numerosos actos procesales que conforman la instrucción de una causa penal
(recordemos que recibe diversos nombres según el tipo de proceso en el que nos encontremos: Sumario, diligencias previas, diligencias urgentes, diligencias ante el Jurado);
b) El Ministerio fiscal, que es parte acusadora pública y quien dirige los actos de investigación del crimen concreto y de su presunto autor; y
c) La Policía Judicial (en España no existe una verdadera policía judicial todavía aunque reciba este nombre
oficialmente), que es quien realiza materialmente la investigación, por iniciativa propia o por orden del juez o del
fiscal.
Pues bien, la policía tiene una participación decisiva en el éxito del proceso penal, sobre todo la llamada policía
científica; de ahí que las leyes le otorguen un papel relevante, sin llegar al de la policía anglonorteamericana, ni
tampoco a la de los países europeos continentales en donde ya es competente para instruir la causa formalmente el fiscal (v.gr., Alemania e Italia), pues carece de tan amplio poder discrecional y está sometida al principio de
legalidad. En concreto, por lo que hace referencia a la lucha antiterrorista, la policía ha adquirido en la práctica
una importancia extraordinaria al haberse estructurado fuertemente desde el punto de vista administrativo para
luchar eficazmente contra esta plaga, gozando de facultades amplias en la investigación del crimen organizado,
aunque no puede adoptar ninguna medida restrictiva de los derechos fundamentales del imputado sin la previa
autorización judicial (v.gr., la intervención de su teléfono, arts 18.3 CE y 579 LECRIM).
La policía en España, además de lo que le ordene expresamente el juez instructor o el fiscal, está obligada a
detener a los delincuentes (art. 492 LECRIM), especialmente a aquellos de los que se sospeche que forman
parte del crimen organizado y huyan refugiándose u ocultándose en alguna casa, pudiendo entrar sin necesidad
de orden judicial si el caso es excepcional o de urgente necesidad (art. 553, I LECRIM). La obligación de detener
surge del cumplimiento de las circunstancias impuestas en ese precepto: Deben detener a los delincuentes in
flagranti (el que va a cometer o el que acaba de cometer el delito, v. art. 795.1-1ª LECRIM), a los delincuentes
fugados de la prisión o siendo llevado a ella, al inculpado o condenado en rebeldía (contumacia), a los procesados por delito castigado con pena superior a 5 años, y a los procesados por delito con pena menor que presumiblemente no comparecerán si quedan libres, y al sospechoso fundadamente (“motivos racionalmente bastantes”
dice la norma) de haber cometido un delito.
Dado que no existe una verdadera Policía Judicial, policía a efectos procesales penales son los miembros de las
fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad (art. 2 LO 2/1986 de 13 de marzo, de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad: Policía
Nacional, Guardia Civil, Policía Autonómica y Policía Local). Por regla general, la demás clases de policía, v.gr.,
de aduanas, no cumplen ninguna función procesal penal, aunque como agentes de la autoridad están obligados
- 139 -
España
a detener a los delincuentes in flagranti y a prestar la primera asistencia a las víctimas del delito (art. 13
LECRIM), sin perjuicio de su deber de informar inmediatamente al fiscal de lo sucedido.
La legislación española contempla dos casos más en donde no estando en marcha, al menos todavía, un proceso penal la policía puede, ello no obstante, detener a una persona: El primero hace referencia a la llamada
retención por razones de seguridad ciudadana (art. 20.1 LO 1/1992, de 21 de febrero, sobre Protección de la
Seguridad Ciudadana); el segundo se refiere a los inmigrantes ilegales (arts. 53 a 59 LO 4/2000, de 11 de enero,
sobre derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social). En ninguno de estos dos
casos se puede decir que estemos ante normas especiales contra combatientes enemigos, o extranjeros enemigos, aunque no cabe duda que determinado grupo de extranjeros, los árabes, si bien no en general, son objeto
en España de una atención especial después de 2004 a nivel de policía administrativa (inmigración) y judicial.
La información útil para la investigación de un proceso penal se comparte, pues, investigue quien investigue
entre todos los miembros de las fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad (Policía Nacional, Guardia Civil, Policía Autonómica y Policía Local), sin perjuicio de que ocasionalmente hayan surgido problemas al respecto. Sus ficheros
y archivos están al servicio del éxito de la investigación, no sólo dentro de España, sino también a nivel europeo
(EUROPOL), e internacional (INTERPOL). Existe todo un desarrollo normativo y práctico de cooperación jurisdiccional europea e internacional en este sentido, destacando por ejemplo la colaboración en materia de orden
europea de detención y entrega (v. infra). Indudablemente, la cooperación policial y judicial entre España y
Francia, que se manifiesta a distintos niveles y con diferentes instrumentos, está siendo decisiva en la lucha
contra el terrorismo de ETA.
Específicamente las actividades de inteligencia están reguladas por la Ley 11/2002, de 6 de mayo, que crea el
Centro Nacional de Inteligencia; y por la LO 2/2002, de 6 de mayo, que establece un control judicial previo de las
actividades de dicho centro que afecten a los derechos fundamentales reconocidos en el art. 18.2 y 18.3 CE,
modificando varios preceptos de la LOPJ.
10. En ningún caso la legislación española permite el uso de tortura física o psíquica, o la utilización de cualquier
otro medio de interrogatorio inhumano o degradante. Me remito al listado de derechos fundamentales procesales
expuesto en el punto 2 para su formulación constitucional expresa. En España también es un principio de la ley
procesal penal que la verdad no se puede investigar a cualquier precio, según declaración reiterada de nuestro
TC, y también de nuestro TS, que asumen como propia la doctrina de la Sentencia del BGH alemán de 14 de
junio de 1960.
Este importante problema nos lleva claramente al tema de la prueba prohibida. El tratamiento de esta cuestión ha
variado mucho después de la Constitución española de 1978. Hasta ese año, en efecto, la LECRIM de 1882 fijó
determinados supuestos en los que la búsqueda, obtención, aportación y práctica de medios de investigación
que luego se iban a convertir en medios de prueba, no era en ningún caso posible, lo que causaba o bien la
nulidad absoluta del acto y con toda probabilidad la del mismo proceso penal considerado como un todo, o bien
la nulidad relativa, lo que podía provocar su anulación y salida del proceso.
Ejemplo típico del primer supuesto, y prácticamente único durante casi cien años, era la obtención de una confesión del acusado mediando tortura, supuesto que prohíbe el artículo 389, III LECRIM, porque los derechos a la
vida y a la integridad física se consideraban sagrados, intangibles, y ningún acto procesal podía ser válido si se
producía como consecuencia directa o indirecta de una vulneración de aquéllos. Ejemplo típico del segundo
supuesto era la no advertencia a la esposa del imputado de que podía negarse jurídicamente a prestar testimonio en contra de su marido, según el art. 416-1º LECRIM, porque una política criminal específica aconsejaba al
Estado proteger de este modo a la familia, no inmiscuyéndose en las relaciones entre los cónyuges. Pero no era
suficiente con este tipo de normas, siempre aisladas y que no permitían llegar a conclusiones seguras en todos
los casos.
El fundamento de la existencia de la prueba prohibida resulta así, en una democracia que goza de un proceso
penal propio de un Estado de Derecho, muy claro, puesto que es el propio Estado democrático el que, al consagrar un catálogo de derechos fundamentales en su Constitución, a los que otorga valor de inviolables y carácter
preferente sobre todos los demás (art. 10.1 CE), está exigiendo que cualquier acto que vulnere alguno o algunos
de esos derechos fundamentales carezca de eficacia probatoria en el proceso. Por eso valorar judicialmente en
- 140 -
España
el proceso una prueba prohibida, significa llanamente que se están ignorando las garantías constitucionales
sobre las que se sustenta el propio proceso, particularmente el proceso penal, es decir, que se está atacando
directamente el derecho al proceso con todas las garantías del art. 24.2 CE, o principio del proceso debido o
justo.
Y además con su reconocimiento legal y jurisprudencial se obtienen dos efectos trascendentales. Por un lado el
efecto garantista, ya que una correcta teoría sobre la prueba prohibida contribuye eficazmente a una mejor
protección de los derechos fundamentales del imputado o acusado garantizados por la Constitución que ordena
esa democracia, y por otro lado y no en último lugar, el efecto disuasorio, por el que se asegura que las conductas de las autoridades de persecución penal sobre todo durante la investigación del crimen, particularmente las
realizadas por la policía, serán ajustadas a la misma Constitución.
La fuente primordial, la Constitución de 1978, no regula ni directa ni indirectamente las prohibiciones probatorias.
Tampoco de ninguno de sus preceptos se desprende directamente una regla de exclusión. Una cosa es que la
Constitución contenga derechos fundamentales de las partes procesales, sobre todo del acusado, que hagan
referencia directa o indirectamente a temas probatorios, como el derecho a la igualdad procesal (art. 14), o el
derecho a la asistencia letrada durante la detención policial y judicial (art. 17.3). Y otra cosa es que entre sus
derechos fundamentales, garantías institucionales y libertades públicas reconozca los derechos a la vida (art.
15), a la integridad física (art. 15), a la libertad de movimientos (art. 17.1), al honor (art. 18.1), a la intimidad
personal y familiar (art. 18.1), a la inviolabilidad de domicilio (art. 18.2), y al secreto de las comunicaciones (art.
18.3), que de ser vulnerados en el proceso darán lugar sin duda alguna a una regla de exclusión.
Los miembros de la organización terrorista ETA denuncian sistemáticamente la práctica de torturas con la esperanza de obtener una absolución por falta de pruebas al considerarse nula su declaración ante la Policía, pero
sólo en muy pocos casos lo han logrado demostrar y en los últimos años en ningún caso. El Informe de 2007 de
Amnistía Internacional afirma que sigue habiendo “informes de tortura y malos tratos a manos de funcionarios
encargados de hacer cumplir la ley, situación que se veía agravada por la falta de investigaciones sistemáticas e
independientes de tales incidentes. Según un estudio publicado por la organización nacional contra el racismo
SOS Racismo, en uno de cada tres casos denunciados de violencia racista, los responsables eran funcionarios
del Estado encargados de hacer cumplir la ley”, recogiendo a continuación diversos casos reales, pero ninguno
de ellos es con ocasión de la investigación de delitos de terrorismo o de delincuencia organizada.
Un caso como el de Wolfgang Daschner, Vicepresidente de la Policía de Frankfurt, quien en 2002 torturó al
secuestador del hijo de 11 años de un banquero para averiguar en dónde lo tenía retenido, pero que ya había
sido asesinado por su raptor, método prohibido por el § 136a StPO, habría llevado al autor a ser condenado
también en España, ciertamente como en Alemania (Sentencia del Landgericht Frankfurt de 20 de diciembre de
2004) a una pena mínima por chantaje para declarar del § 343 StGB, con la apreciación de una atenuante, si
bien habría existido igualmente discusión sobre qué atenuante sería aplicable.
11. En caso de delitos graves, las leyes españolas permiten limitar el derecho al habeas corpus, porque, recordemos, de acuerdo con el art. 55.1 CE algunos derechos constitucionales pueden ser suspendidos (derogados)
temporalmente cuando se acuerde la declaración del estado de excepción o de sitio, los derechos procesales
durante la detención policial (legalidad de la detención, duración máxima, información, abogado y habeas corpus) reconocidos en el art. 17 CE (pero el derecho a ser infomado de la detención y a la asistencia de abogado
sólo puede ser suspendido en caso de estado de sitio, art. 55.1 in fine CE). Recordemos también que el habeas
corpus se regula en la LO 6/1984, de 24 de mayo.
En cuanto al habeas data, la CE establece una protección general de los datos personales, habiendo sido desarrollada por la LO 15/1999, de 13 de diciembre, de protección de datos de carácter personal, cuyo fin es garantizar y proteger, en lo que concierne al tratamiento de los datos personales, las libertades públicas y los
derechos fundamentales de las personas físicas, y especialmente de su honor e intimidad personal y familiar.
12. Después de los gravísimos atentados de Nueva York (11 de septiembre de 2001), Madrid (11 de marzo de
2004) y Londres (7 de julio de 2005), España no se ha podido sustraer a la tendencia del mundo occidental de
acentuar la seguridad en perjuicio de la libertad, es decir, ha optado aunque parcialmente y más moderadamenRIDP/IRPL, vol.80, 2009 / 1-2 (CD-ROM Annexe)
- 141 -
España
te que otros países por reforzar la investigación penal a costa de reducir la interpretación garantista de la aplicación de ciertos derechos del imputado durante la fase de investigación del delito.
Debe tenerse en cuenta, para una mejor comprensión del relator mundial, que en España existió una clara preocupación jurídica en recuperar cuanto antes la práctica de una Justicia verdaderamente democrática, tras 40
años de dictadura. Todas las instituciones implicadas en ello así lo entendieron y pusieron todo su afán en lograrlo, desde 1978 hasta fechas recientes. Destaca la labor ampliamente garantista del Tribunal Constitucional
español, que logró dejar el péndulo respecto a determinados derechos fundamentales del inculpado, como su
derecho a la defensa técnica, su derecho a la presunción de inocencia o su derecho al proceso con todas las
garantías, exactamente en el lugar contrario a aquél en el que las huestes fascistas de Franco lo habían dejado.
Han sido los severos correctivos que la trágica realidad del terrorismo impone en el mundo, y en particular en
España, los que han ido obligando poco a poco desde 2001 a centrar más el péndulo, notándose una clara
disminución de las doctrinas garantistas, tanto a nivel legislativo como jurisprudencial, permitiendo actuaciones a
las autoridades de persecución penal para lograr una investigación eficaz de tan tremendos crímenes, que antes
habrían sido tildadas, al menos, de posibles o más que dudosas vulneraciones de la Constitución.
Esta realidad se demuestra conociendo los siguientes datos:
A. Normas legales: Se han asumido todas las normas internacionales y europeas sobre la materia, y además
internamente se han aprobado las siguientes, generalmente en su desarrollo:
a) Orden europea de detención y entrega: Consecuencia directa del 11 de septiembre, esta institución europea,
que España incorporó inmediatamente a sus fuentes jurídicas (Ley 3/2003, de 14 de marzo, sobre la orden
europea de detención y entrega; y LO 2/2003, de 14 de marzo, complementaria de la Ley sobre la orden europea de detención y entrega), es la última máxima expresión de cooperación policial, fiscal y judicial en la Unión
Europea, facilita de una manera ultrarrápida la entrega de delincuentes al país de su nacionalidad o que quiera
enjuiciarlo criminalmente, lo que en España está funcionando correctamente con relación a los terroristas de
ETA refugiados sobre todo en Francia.
b) ADN: Se ha aprobado la Ley Orgánica 10/2007, de 8 de octubre, reguladora de la base de datos policial
sobre identificadores obtenidos a partir del ADN, que permite a la policía acceder a las bases de datos que
contienen los ADN de personas condenadas, muy útiles en investigaciones criminales posteriores. La Policía
puede acceder a esas bases de datos sin consentimiento del interesado. Esto es un arma fundamental para
descubrir a terroristas que actúan internacionalmente. La obtención de pruebas de ADN en un proceso penal se
regula en los arts. 326 y 363 LECRIM, de acuerdo con la reforma operada por la Ley Orgánica 15/2003, de 25
de noviembre.
c) Circulación o entrega vigilada de droga: Se permite el seguimiento del tránsito de droga sin obligación de
denunciar la policía los hechos en el art. 263 bis LECRIM (en relación con el art. 374.2 CP), introducido en 1999,
con el fin de poder actuar contra todos los implicados en el tráfico de estupefacientes. De esta manera, la autoridad policial queda autorizada para investigar la fabricación, transporte o distribución de materiales de cualquier
tipo, aptos para la producción de sustancias alucinógenas (art. 371 CP); la adquisición, conversión o transmisión
de bienes de origen delictivo (art. 301 CP); el tráfico de especies amenazadas o protegidas de la flora o la fauna
(arts. 332 y 334 CP); la falsificación, introducción o expendición de moneda falsa (art. 386 CP) y el tráfico y
depósito de armas (arts. 566, 568 y 569 CP). La intencionalidad legal es, aparentemente, simple: Legitimar el
seguimiento policial controlado de tales sustancias, elementos u objetos, para localizar su origen y destino y, con
ello, a los responsables de las redes de producción o distribución.
d) Policía encubierto: Esta posibilidad, introducida formalmente en 1999 y reformada en 2003, aunque autorizada por la jurisprudencia desde principios de los años 80 al juzgar la provocación para delinquir (hoy regulada en
el art. 18 CP de 1995 básicamente, si bien debe decirse que los problemas penales que plantea la figura del
agente provocador son muy discutidos en España), se autoriza expresamente en el art. 282 bis LECRIM para
luchar contra el crimen organizado. La norma establece los requisitos para que su actuación sea legítima, entre
los que destaca la prohibición de provocar para delinquir y la necesidad de guardar la debida proporcionalidad
en su conducta. Es este precepto el que define en su ap. 4 qué es delincuencia organizada: La asociación de
tres o más personas para realizar de forma permanente o reiterada conductas que tengan como fin cometer
- 142 -
España
alguno o algunos de los delitos que enumera, entre los que se encuentran el secuestro de personas, las redes
de prostitución, el tráfico de material nuclear o radiactivo, el tráfico de drogas, el tráfico de armas y el terrorismo.
En tales circunstancias y casos y, si el Juez instructor o el Ministerio Fiscal estiman necesaria o conveniente
esta forma de investigar, podrán acordar fundadamente que un miembro de la policía judicial se “infiltre” en los
lugares o ambientes adecuados, durante un período de tiempo de hasta seis meses prorrogables por otros de
igual duración en función a sus resultados.
B. Jurisprudencialmente se constata una cierta regresión en materia de garantías sobre todo a la hora de eliminar los efectos de la eficacia refleja de la prueba prohibida, de manera que hoy, aunque exista en la causa una
prueba obtenida vulnerando un derecho constitucional del imputado, si hay cualquier otra prueba de cargo válida, la condena es posible.
Debe decirse que entre toda la jurisprudencia restrictiva, el Tribunal Supremo en su Sentencia 829/2006, de 20
de julio (RA 6300, caso talibán español), la única existente de momento sobre esta materia, ha absuelto a un
musulmán español detenido en Afganistán y llevado a Guantánamo por fuerzas militares de los Estados Unidos,
y luego devuelto a España para ser juzgado aquí, al declarar nulas todas las actuaciones practicadas en la isla
por entender que el interrogatorio del detenido se desarrolló sin las garantías mínimas que exige el derecho de
defensa, de modo que lo que declaró ante los militares no podía ser asumido como cierto más allá de toda duda
razonable, vulnerándose su derecho a la presunción de inocencia al haber sido condenado sin existir prueba
alguna de cargo.
También hay que decir que se han interpretado normas de ejecución penal de manera que los condenados por
delitos de terrorismo salgan más tarde de la cárcel, al reducírseles beneficios penitenciarios que habían conseguido legalmente. Así, la S TS de 28 de febrero de 2006 (RA 467, caso Parot) ha sentado nuevos criterios en
materia de beneficios penitenciarios, muy discutibles porque pueden vulnerar el principio de prohibición de retroactividad de las leyes penales desfavorables, para el cómputo del tiempo a cumplir en prisión antes de su
puesta en libertad condicional respecto a condenados por múltiples actos terroristas muy graves. En efecto, el
último tramo del cumplimiento de las penas privativas de libertad corresponde a la libertad condicional, que se
concede a los penados siempre que concurran los siguientes presupuestos: Que se encuentren en tercer grado
penitenciario, que hayan extinguido las tres cuartas partes de la condena, y que hayan observado buena conducta gozando de un pronóstico individualizado y favorable a la reinserción social. Pero la LO 7/2003, de 30 de
junio, al reformar el art. 90 CP, introduce dos restricciones si se quiere gozar de la libertad condicional: El condenado tiene que haber satisfecho la responsabilidad civil, y, si se trata de condenados por delitos de terrorismo
o cometidos en el seno de organizaciones criminales, tienen que gozar de pronóstico favorable de reinserción
social, con signos específicos enumerados en ese precepto (arts. 90.1 CP, 192 y 193 Rto. LGP; v. STC 79/1998,
de 1 de abril). Excepcionalmente, no se exige el presupuesto de haber cumplido las tres cuartas partes de la
condena, sino que basta con haber cumplido las dos terceras partes, aunque sí los demás requisitos, para obtener la libertad condicional los condenados que hayan desarrollado adecuadamente actividades laborales, culturales u ocupacionales. El beneficio puede incluso adelantarse habiendo cumplido la mitad de la condena. Pero
nunca gozarán de él, ni en este caso, ni en el anterior, los condenados por delitos de terrorismo o por pertenencia a organizaciones criminales (art. 91 CP, reformado por la LO 7/2003, de 30 de junio). También es posible la
libertad condicional cuando el condenado alcance la edad de 70 años (art. 92, I), o se trate de un enfermo incurable (art. 92, II), en estos dos últimos casos, reformados por la LO 15/2003, de 25 de noviembre, sin duda por
razones humanitarias (v. art. 196 Rto. LGP).
Es posible la libertad domiciliaria, independientemente de lo anterior, en casos de condenados por delitos de
terrorismo por razones humanitarias, en concreto por peligro de muerte inminente a causa de huelga de hambre
seguida por el interno (Auto del Juez Vigilancia Penitenciaria de la AN de 1 de marzo de 2007, consecuencia
directa de la S TS 149/2007, de 26 de febrero, RA 73198, caso De Juana Chaos).Competente para acordarla es
el JVP, una vez desarrollado el expediente regulado en los arts. 194, 195 y 198 a 200 Rto. LGP, quien puede
imponer algunas de las reglas de conducta de las previstas en el art. 105 (art. 90.2). El período de libertad condicional dura todo el tiempo que falte al sujeto para cumplir su condena, revocándose en caso de que el condenado vuelva a delinquir o inobserve las reglas de conducta impuestas, con previsiones específicas para terroristas (arts. 93 CP, reformado por la LO 7/2003, de 30 de junio, y 201 Rto. LGP).
- 143 -
España
Sin entrar, finalmente, en la legislación administrativa en materia de inmigración, tanto europea como española,
sino sólo fijándonos en la penal, he de decir que la reforma del art. 89 CP por la LO 11/2003, de 29 de septiembre, ha implicado un matiz importante: Tratándose de extranjeros no residentes legalmente en España condenados a pena privativa de libertad inferior a seis años, en ciertos casos a más, el cumplimiento de la pena puede
sustituirse en la sentencia por la pena de expulsión del territorio nacional, aunque no siempre.
3.- Para la detención hay que tener en cuenta la ampliación del plazo del art. 520 bis LECRIM a cinco días, dos
más que el permitido constitucionalmente en el art. 17.2, si el detenido es sospechoso de haber cometido un
delito de terrorismo o del crimen organizado.
Es importante resaltar que ese mismo precepto permite la incomunicación del detenido, que implica que queda
sin contacto exterior, salvo con su abogado, con la importante restricción del art. 527, a) LECRIM. La incomunicación es posible también durante el período en prisión provisional (arts. 509 y ss. LECRIM).
Fuera de estas reformas, no se ha producido ninguna otra en materia de poderes de investigación y coactivos
de las autoridades encargadas de la investigación, ni tampoco respecto a los deberes de cooperación de las
personas investigadas.
13. En España dirige legalmente la investigación del crimen el Juez Instructor, como se indicó supra. Esto significa que formalmente no se ha producido una transferencia de poderes en mi país entre el poder judicial y la
policía y la fiscalía.
No obstante, debe indicarse que la mayor parte de la doctrina procesal penal española desea que en una nueva
Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (que recuerdo que está en el progama político del partido que ha ganado las
elecciones recientemente en España, el partido socialista o PSOE), la instrucción esté a cargo formalmente del
Ministerio Fiscal y ya no más en las del Juez Instructor. Se aduce para ello que así España tendría un proceso
penal realmente acusatorio, siguiendo el modelo de enjuiciamiento criminal anglosajón importado a otros países
europeos como Alemania en 1975 e Italia en 1988. Pero esta posición lo único que lograría es que la instrucción
estuviera formalmente en manos del Gobierno (como en USA), ya que en España el Fiscal General del Estado
es nombrado por el Poder Ejecutivo, de manera que habría que reformar primero este delicado punto. Se debería resolver también un tema de principios, porque el Fiscal en España es parte, parte acusadora, lo que implica
desde el punto de vista filosófico-conceptual que no puede, instruyendo, desarrollar una actividad objetivamente
imparcial. Finalmente, hoy la Policía, la verdadera instructora de las causas penales, depende en España tanto
del Fiscal como del Juez, instruyendo el Fiscal sólo dependería de éste, algo que en España sería difícil de
asumir socialmente, porque para los españoles, y no es una contradicción, la Justicia funciona muy mal, pero los
jueces son percibidos como independientes, no así los fiscales.
En particular, será un tema jurídico muy complejo articular la lucha procesal penal contra el crimen organizado,
de manera que se conjuguen perfectamente la máxima eficacia que exige la sociedad española con el respeto
más absoluto al principio del proceso debido, eje vertebrador del sistema de enjuiciamiento criminal acusatorio
puro o anglosajón, algo que no se ha conseguido plenamente aún en España, como estamos viendo en estas
páginas.
14. La instrucción de las causas contra los grandes criminales en España (bandas armadas, terroristas, rebeldes, mafiosos, narcotraficantes, corruptores de menores y comerciantes en pornografía infantil, tratantes de
esclavos, tratantes de blancas y demás delincuencia organizada), está centralizada en un órgano jurisdiccional
con competencia en todo el territorio nacional y sede en Madrid, la Audiencia Nacional, creada en 1977 (un año
antes de aprobarse la Constitución), pero declarada constitucional por el TC al asumirse como tribunal ordinario
por la LOPJ de 1985 (S TC 56/1990, de 29 de marzo.
La AN goza de su propia Fiscalía adscrita (arts. 12, 18 y 19 del Estatuto Orgánico del Ministerio Fiscal de 1981,
últimamente reformado en 2007). En algunos temas existen Fiscales especializados. Según el art. 19 EOMF son
dos: La Fiscalía Antidroga y la Fiscalía contra la Corrupción y la Criminalidad Organizada, aunque se pueden
crear secciones especializadas en las Fiscalías de las Comunidades Autónomas y en las Fiscalías Provinciales.
- 144 -
España
A. La Fiscalía Antidroga investiga e interviene directamente en todos los procedimientos relativos al tráfico de
drogas, estupefacientes y sustancias psicotrópicas, o blanqueo de capitales relacionado con dicho tráfico, que
sean competencia de la AN conforme a los artículos 65 y 88 LOPJ.
B. La Fiscalía contra la Corrupción y la Criminalidad Organizada investiga e interviene directamente en procesos
penales, en ambos casos siempre que se trate de supuestos de especial trascendencia, apreciada por el Fiscal
General del Estado, en relación con los delitos más graves que se pueden cometer en España por el llamado
crimen organizado, entre los que destacan: Delitos contra la Hacienda Pública, contra la seguridad social y de
contrabando; sobornos y cohechos, blanqueo de capitales y conductas afines a la receptación, salvo cuando por
su relación con delitos de tráfico de drogas o de terrorismo corresponda conocer de dichas conducta a las otras
Fiscalías Especiales. También investiga todo tipo de negocios jurídicos, transacciones o movimientos de bienes,
valores o capitales, flujos económicos o activos patrimoniales, que indiciariamente aparezcan relacionados con
la actividad de grupos delictivos organizados o con el aprovechamiento económico de actividades delictivas, así
como de los delitos conexos o determinantes de tales actividades; salvo cuando por su relación con delitos de
tráfico de drogas o de terrorismo corresponda conocer de dichas conductas a la Fiscalía Antidroga o a la de la
AN.
Esta Fiscalía debe ocuparse teóricamente de investigar el problema principal del crimen organizado, en colaboración con la Fiscalía de la AN, que investiga el terrorismo, que es el de su financiación, y por tanto, ha de centrarse en punto a la lucha contra estos grandes criminales básicamente en descubrir y eliminar sus fuentes de
financiación.
15. Respecto a las diversas cuestiones suscitadas en este apartado, he de decir que en España no se han
modificado las reglas sobre las condiciones para aprobar medidas coactivas (autorizaciones) por parte de la
autoridad judicial.
Salvo que esté declarado secreto el sumario, en los términos vistos supra, el imputado y su abogado pueden
solicitar la práctica de los actos de investigación en su descargo que les convengan y asistir a la práctica de
actos de investigación solicitados por el Fiscal. Por ejemplo, diligencia de inspección ocular, interrogatorio judicial de un testigo, diligencia de entrada y registro en su domicilio (con alguna excepción), injerencias corporales,
etc.
Sin excepción, pues en caso contrario los resultados probatorios obtenidos son nulos, el abogado defensor del
imputado debe estar presente en los actos de prueba anticipada, v.gr., en la declaración testifical de una persona a punto de morir.
Siempre que lo desee el imputado puede declarar cuantas veces quiera (art. 400 LECRIM), y es considerado
como parte penal acusada cuando realiza una declaración, a todos los efectos, tanto medio de prueba como
medio de defensa.
Finalmente, el sistema legislativo español no prevé ninguna posibilidad de detención ni de prisión preventiva
secretas, ni de deportación secreta, ni de entrega extraordinaria sin habeas corpus. Los arts. 17 y 24 CE, y
fundamentalmente el art. 520 LECRIM otorgan derechos muy relevantes respecto a estos puntos al inculpado,
que son respetados en la práctica, produciéndose casos de prueba prohibida en caso de que no sea así.
16. En España no se han introducido aún órdenes específicas para el almacenamiento de información a disposición de los proveedores de servicios, aunque los últimos acontecimientos internacionales hacen que el poder
legislativo europeo y, en consecuencia, el español también, vayan a reaccionar pronto en esta materia. Hasta
entonces, rigen las normas internacionales y europeas. En particular en el ámbito europeo:
a) Respecto al tema de protección de datos, rigen las normas europeas sobre protección de personas físicas en
lo que respecta al tratamiento de datos personales y a la libre circulación de estos datos (Directiva 95/46/CE, de
24 de octubre de 1995).
b) Y con relación a la seguridad aérea, se está a las normas europeas relativas a la Agencia Europea de Seguridad Aérea (Reglamento núm. 1592/2002 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 15 de julio de 2002).
17. En España la prueba previa al juicio obtenida por la policía y las autoridades judiciales está sometida al
control judicial, debiendo distinguirse dos posibilidades:
- 145 -
España
A. Prueba anticipada: El principio de que los medios de prueba han de practicarse durante el juicio oral sufre
excepciones, es decir, se practican antes de este acto procesal, cuando "por cualquier causa fuese de temer que no
se puedan practicar en el juicio oral, o que pudiesen motivar su suspensión" (art. 657, III LECRIM). Presupuestos de
la práctica anticipada de la prueba son: a) La probabilidad de que algún medio de prueba no pueda practicarse
durante la vista, con lo que se quiere garantizar la averiguación de la verdad material; y b) La probabilidad de que,
dejando la práctica de un medio de prueba para la vista, pueda motivar la suspensión de ésta, con lo que se quiere
garantizar el principio de concentración. Los supuestos de prueba anticipada contemplados legalmente son los
siguientes:
a) Casos en los que la práctica de la prueba es imposible: 1º) Prueba testifical (arts. 448 y 449 LECRIM); y prueba
pericial (art. 479 LECRIM).
b) Casos en que la práctica daría lugar a suspensión de la vista: 1º) Prueba de reconocimiento judicial (art. 727 en
relación con el 746-2º LECRIM); 2º) Interrogatorio de testigo imposibilitado (art. 718, I en relación con el art. 746-2º
LECRIM); 3º) Interrogatorio del testigo fuera de la sede del órgano jurisdiccional (art. 720 en relación con el art.
746-2º LECRIM); 4º) Operaciones periciales previas a la declaración de los peritos (art. 725 LECRIM); y 5º) Cualquier
prueba que deba practicarse mediante cooperación jurisdiccional (v.gr., art. 719, si la imposibilidad se prevé con
antelación, y art. 720, en su caso).B. Prueba obtenida sin contradicción: No es prueba según la legislación procesal penal española y su jurisprudencia. Las informaciones, documentos y piezas de convicción (pruebas físicas)
que en su investigación haya encontrado u obtenido la Policía o el Ministerio Fiscal no tienen valor de prueba.
Son actos de investigación practicados sin contradicción que únicamente tienen como finalidad valorar si el
hecho es punible y quién es sospechoso fundadamente de haberlo cometido. Sólo sirven para motivar una
petición al juez para que autorice la admisión como verdadera prueba o pieza de convicción.
Para que la declaración del testigo hecha ante la policía adquiera por tanto valor probatorio, se requiere que ese
mismo testigo declare el día del juicio oral en presencia de todas las partes ante el tribunal competente para el
juicio, de manera que pueda ser preguntado por todas ellas y contrastada su información. Si el policía ha levantado un informe oficial sobre ello (llamado en España atestado policial), debe ser interrogado ern el juicio también como testigo para que el contenido de ese informe pueda ser considerado prueba de cargo suficiente para
enervar la presunción de inocnecia del acusado y que éste pueda ser condenado.
En España no existen medidas especiales en este aspecto que aquí se pregunta respecto a los delitos graves.
18. En España se permite el uso de la prueba obtenida en el extranjero. Respecto a la Unión Europea rige la
Declaración de aplicación provisional del Convenio de Asistencia Judicial en materia penal entre los Estados
miembros de la Unión Europea, hecho en Bruselas el 29 de mayo de 2000 (BOE del 15 de octubre de 2003), en
cuyos arts. 10 (videoconferencia), 11 (audición por conferencia telefónica), 13 (resultados probatorios obtenidos
por equipos conjuntos de investigación), 14 (investigaciones encubiertas), y 17 y ss. (intervención de telecomunicaciones), se facilita la aplicación de estas normas probatorias entre los estados que conforman la UE.
Para faciliar su interpretación entre los fiscales, la Fiscalía General del Estado dictó la Instrucción 3/2001, de 28
de junio, sobre los actuales mecanismos y modalidades de asistencia judicial internacional en materia penal.
También deben tenerse en cuenta la Instrucción 2/2003, de 11 de julio, sobre actuación y organización de las
fiscalías en materia de Cooperación Judicial Internacional; y la Instrucción 2/2007 sobre la organización de la
sección de cooperación internacional de la secretaría técnica de la Fiscalía General del Estado y el ejercicio de
las funciones que atribuye al ministerio público la Ley 16/2006, de 26 de mayo por la que se regula el estatuto
del miembro nacional de Eurojust y las relaciones con este órgano de la Unión Europea.
19. En España no se han introducido medidas coactivas que hayan dejado en papel mojado las reglas sobre el
juicio justo. La detención y la prisión provisional han sido reformadas varias veces desde la reinstauración de la
democracia, sobre todo esta última como ya hemos indicado, pero no se puede decir que hayan supuesto un
ataque al principio del proceso debido o juicio justo, y que por ello sean inconstitucionales.
Sí he de decir no obstante que fueron muy discutidas las reformas efectuadas en la Ley Orgánica 5/2000, de 12
de enero, reguladora de la Responsabilidad Penal de los Menores, por la LO 7/2000, de 22 de diciembre, y por
la LO 8/2006, de 4 de diciembre, en relación con la participación en los actos de violencia callejera, muy frecuentes en menores y jóvenes pertenecientes a los sectores radicales del nacionalismo vasco que apoyan el terroRIDP/IRPL, vol.80, 2009 / 1-2 (CD-ROM Annexe)
- 146 -
España
rismo (violencia allí llamada kale borroka), que elevaron el tiempo de permanencia en prisión y aumentaron la
gravedad de las medidas de internamiento, por entender la doctrina discrepante que se aplicaba a menores de
edad una coacción excesiva en relación con el delito cometido, por tanto, por infracción del principio de proporcionalidad que rige en materia de medidas cautelares personales en España.
20. En España existe una ley especial para la protección de testigos y peritos, y otra para la protección de determinadas víctimas, entre las que se encuentran las del terrorismo. No existe ninguna legislación específica
para la protección de jueces, salvo la administrativa que proporciona a determinados jueces superiores protección policial especial (escoltas, teléfonos secretos, coches blindados, etc.). Debemos, pues, distinguir entre:
A. Testigos y peritos: La LO 19/1994, de 23 de diciembre ha determinado un sistema de protección de los testigos y peritos que declaren en causas criminales, estableciendo las siguientes medidas en caso de que peligre
su vida o integridad o la de su familia por causa de su declaración: Anonimato en la declaración, imposibilidad
de identificación visual, omisión del domicilio, protección policial, nueva identidad, ayudas económicas o laborales, etc.
B. Víctimas: Hay que distinguir las víctimas del terrorismo, de las víctimas de delitos dolosos violentos y sexuales. Se trata de leyes, como es comprensible, que procuran la mejor y mayor reparación posible de la víctima.
1°) Delitos de terrorismo, bien para los resarcimientos y ayudas ordinarias consignadas con carácter anual
presupuestariamente, bien en la normativa extraordinaria de la Ley 32/1999, de 8 de octubre, de solidaridad con
las víctimas del terrorismo, y su reglamentación complementaria por el RD 1912/1999, de 17 de diciembre.
2°) Delitos de tráfico (RD-Leg 8/2004, de 29 de octubre, y Ley 62/2003, de 30 de diciembre);
3°) Delitos dolosos violentos y contra la libertad sexual (Ley 35/1995, de 11 de diciembre, y su Reglamento
aprobado por RD 738/1997, de 23 de mayo); y
4°) Delitos de caza (con muchas particularidades y varias normas que los regulan).
V. Fase de enjuiciamiento (procedimientos penales, procedimientos especiales)
21. Generalmente, todos los delitos cometidos por el llamado crimen organizado son delitos graves y muy graves en España. Están tipificados en el CP. Son enjuiciados por un tribunal, llamado Audiencia Nacional, que
forma parte del Poder Judicial ordinario español (se trata de los tribunales regulados en la LOPJ de 1985).
Esto es importante porque al ser la AN un órgano jurisdiccional con competencia objetiva, funcional y territorial
para toda España, puede dar la impresión al lector extranjero de creer que es un tribunal especial. Pero no es
así, pues este órgano forma parte de los tribunales ordinarios, es el segundo atendida su competencia penal en
la escala jerárquica, después del Tribunal Supremo, y los magistrados que forman parte de ella tienen el mismo
estatuto jurídico que los demás jueces ordinarios españoles (arts. 62 a 69 y 316 y ss. LOPJ). Pero como dije es
un órgano dogmáticamente muy discutido porque se ha entendido doctrinalmente que vulneraba el principio del
juez legal al no ser enjuiciados los autores de esos grandes crímenes por el juez del forum comissi delicti, si bien
sobre su ajuste a la CE, se ha pronunciado expresamente el TC en sus SS 199/1987, de 16 de diciembre, y
56/1990, de 29 de marzo).
La estructura de la AN es la siguiente. Se compone de dos juzgados y un tribunal, la llamada propiamente Audiencia Nacional:
1.- Juzgados Centrales de Instrucción: Instruyen, entre otras competencias, las causas penales de las que son
competentes para juicio los Juzgados Centrales de lo Penal (delitos castigados con hasta 5 años de prisión) y la
Audiencia Nacional (el resto). También tramitan los expedientes de ejecución de la orden europea de detención
y entrega (art. 88 LOPJ, reformado por la LO 2/2003, de 14 de marzo).
2.- Juzgados Centrales de lo Penal: Conocen del juicio y sentencia en los casos indicados (los delitos contemplados en el art. 65 LOPJ), y tiene las demás competencias que le señalen las leyes (arts. 88, 89 bis.2 LOPJ y
14.3 LECRIM).
3.- Audiencia Nacional: Conoce fundamentalmente de los delitos más graves que se pueden cometer en España, como los que afectan a la Corona y Altos Organismos de la Nación, falsificaciones, delitos monetarios, defraudaciones, tráfico de drogas y otros fraudes, previstos en el art. 65.1, a) a d) LOPJ; los delitos cometidos
- 147 -
España
fuera del territorio nacional (art. 65.1, e) LOPJ), incluida la extensión de la competencia a los delitos conexos a
ellos (art. 65.1, e), II LOPJ); y los delitos de terrorismo, sin duda su competencia más conocida (establecida de
manera un tanto extraña por la disposición transitoria de la LO 4/1988, de 25 de mayo, una de las normas derogadoras de la legislación antiterrorista formal como sabemos, que no ha sido incorporada literalmente como tal a
la LOPJ). Conoce finalmente del procedimiento para la ejecución de la orden europea de detención y entrega
(art. 65.4 LOPJ, reformado por la LO 2/2003, de 14 de marzo).
Por tanto se puede decir que España, respecto al enjuiciamiento del crimen organizado, no ha creado tribunales
especiales, pero sí ha establecido normas particulares en cuanto a la competencia.
Tampoco hay normas especiales para el juicio, salvo las especialidades que comentamos en esta ponencia
nacional. La protección de testigos, víctimas y jueces ya ha sido analizada y, salvo en caso de agentes encubiertos y menores, que declaran protegidos por una pantalla, o por videoconferencia (arts. 448, IV, 707, II y 731 bis
LECRIM, reformados por la LO 8/2006, de 4 de diciembre), no hay ninguna especialidad probatoria, tampoco en
cuanto a su valoración, que es libre en todos los casos, es decir, fundada en criterios de lógica racional del
juzgador (art. 741 LECRIM). Desde luego, en España no se puede suprimir la prueba favorable al sospechoso
en circunstancias especiales.
22. Todos los derechos del imputado o acusado enumerados a continuación son reconocidos por la legislación
procesal penal española, no sólo cuando se trata de delitos graves, sino también en cualquier supuesto en el
que tenga que intervenir un tribunal penal, v.gr., en caso de faltas. Así, centrándonos principalmente en nuestra
Constitución, se reconocen expresamente los siguientes derechos fundamentales, expuestos escuetamente a fin
de evitar reiteraciones:
1.- El derecho del imputado o acusado a un tribunal independiente e imparcial, el llamado principio de la independencia judicial del art. 117.1 CE, que forma parte del conjunto de garantías que conforman el proceso debido
o justo reconocido en el art. 24. 2 CE.
2.- El derecho a la presunción de inocencia del art. 24.2 CE, ya analizado supra en estas mismas páginas. En lo
penal no se prevé ninguna regla probatoria especial (presunción de culpabilidad o de responsabilidad, inversión
de la carga de la prueba, etc.).
3.- El derecho a ser juzgado sin dilaciones indebidas (art. 24.2 CE), y el derecho a que se determine la legalidad
de la detención lo antes posible (art. 17.4 CE, derecho al habeas corpus).
4.- La máxima in dubio pro reo, antes explicada, tal y como ha sido perfilada por la jurisprudencia constitucional
y ordinaria.
5.- El derecho a la igualdad de las partes en el proceso (igualdad de armas), consecuencia del principio general
de igualdad del art. 14 CE, con los matices indicados supra.
6.- El principio del due process of law, o derecho a un proceso debido o a un juicio justo, no se encuentra reconocido expresamente por la CE, aunque sí es ley en España al estar consagrado en el art. 6 CEDH, pero la
jurisprudencia constitucional ha dicho indubitadamente que el derecho al juicio justo forma parte del derecho al
proceso con todas las garantías del art. 24.2 CE.
7.- El derecho a un juicio público con una audiencia se encuentra consagrado en los arts. 24.2 y 120.1 CE.
8.- El derecho a un procedimiento oral, en audiencia equitativa y adversarial (principio de contradicción) se encuentra consagrado en los arts. 24.1, 24.2 y 120.2 CE.
9.- El derecho a estar presente en el juicio (principio de contradicción y principio de defensa) se reconoce en el
art. 24.2 CE.
10.- El sagrado derecho a la defensa técnica se encuentra reconocido en los arts. 17.3 y 24.2 CE, desarrollando
el art. 520 LECRIM los principios de una defensa activa.
11.- El derecho a ser informado sin retraso del delito imputado forma parte del núcleo del derecho fundamental a
ser informado de la acusación del art. 17.3 y del art. 24.2 CE.
- 148 -
España
12.- En España se considera que el derecho a tener acceso al estado de las actuaciones judiciales del caso y el
derecho a tener un tiempo adecuado para preparar la defensa, forman parte del núcleo esencial del derecho a la
defensa técnica de los arts. 17.3 y 24.2 CE.
13.- El derecho a la publicidad interna (entre las partes implicadas) es en realidad en España un tema de principio de contradicción, garantizado por el art. 24 CE; la publicidad externa es la verdadera publicidad pues se
refiere a terceros, al público, y está garantizada por los arts. 24.2 y 120.1 CE. Hay ciertos problemas con los
mass media, que son el verdadero público hoy, pero la opinión general de los tribunales es no poner restricciones a su labor.
14.- El derecho a examinar los testigos contrarios al acusado y a obtener la presencia y el examen de testigos
en su favor en las mismas condiciones que los testigos en su contra, forma parte del derecho a la prueba del art.
24.2 CE y del principio de contradicción del art. 24 CE.
15.- El derecho a un intérprete forma parte del derecho a la defensa y se recoge expresamente en el art. 520.2,
e) LECRIM.
16.- El derecho a no ser testigo en procedimientos contra uno mismo no se reconoce en España expresamente
por obvio, dado que rige el principio universal de Nemo idoneus testis esse potest in re sua (es decir, “nadie
puede ser al mismo tiempo testigo y parte en la misma causa”, igual que por ejemplo en el Derecho alemán:
“Der Beschuldigte kann nicht zugleich Zeuge in eigener Sache sein”). Pero desde otro punto de vista, puesto que
en el fondo subyace esta cuestión, debe decirse que el testigo no está obligado a declarar contra sí mismo si el
interrogatorio evoluciona de manera distinta a la prevista y parece que se esté convirtiendo en posible imputado,
porque sería vulnerar el derecho fundamental de toda persona a no declarar contra sí mismo (art. 24.2 CE) y a
no confesarse culpable (art. 24.2 CE), derecho reconocido expresamente a nivel ordinario por el art. 418
LECRIM. De ocurrir ello, se convertiría en co-inculpado y en una causa declararía como tal, y en la otra como
testigo, pero nunca en la misma causa en ambas cualidades.
17.- España es probablemente el país de cultura occidental que reconoce más ampliamente el derecho a la
autodefensa y a la defensa técnica en los arts. 17.3 y 24.2 CE, con una extensa práctica jurisprudencial a favor
de no permitir prácticamente excepciones al mismo. El derecho a la defensa técnica se integra por los derechos
reconocidos en los arts. 118 y 520 LECRIM. El sistema atiende en primer término a la libre designación de abogado por el imputado, el llamado defensor de confianza, y en caso de que no lo haga por la razón que fuere,
generalmente por carecer de recursos para pagarle sus honorarios, el Estado le designa uno por medio del
colegio de abogados a su cargo, el llamado defensor de oficio, que tienen idénticas facultades y cargas que el
de confianza.
En caso de que el acusado se niegue a declarar, la jurisprudencia española insiste expresamente en que ello no
es indicio alguno de culpabilidad. Por tanto, constatado por el tribunal del juicio que en su día el detenido se
negó a declarar, no puede extraer de ello consecuencia negativa alguna para el ahora ya acusado que pueda
fundar una declaración de culpabilidad y por tanto la condena.
23. Dado que el proceso penal por delitos de terrorismo y por los demás delitos graves del crimen organizado,
es en realidad el proceso penal ordinario que corresponda con las especialidades procedimentales que hasta
aquí hemos reseñado, no hay ningún cambio en lo que respecta a los medios de impugnación admitidos con
carácter general por la LECRIM (con el refuerzo añadido del art. 14.5 del PIDCP, de importancia mínima en
España atendido nuestro sistema de recursos). Todas las partes del proceso penal (y puede haber en el lado
activo hasta tres acusadoras penales distintas, el Ministerio Público, la víctima o acusador particular, y el español no ofendido o acusador popular, más el demandante o actor civil en el proceso civil acumulado), y el acusado y el responsable civil del lado pasivo del proceso, pueden recurrir en apelación y en casación (si en este
último caso es admisible), siempre que la resolución les haya causado perjucio (gravamen). El derecho al recurso forma parte del derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva del art. 24.1 CE, según reiterada doctrina del TC. El reconocimiento del derecho al recurso penal es, pues, en el ordenamiento español amplísimo. En determinados
casos cabe además recurso de amparo ante el Tribunal Constitucional.
- 149 -
España
Tampoco queda afectada la prohibición del doble proceso (principio negativo o excluyente de la cosa juzgada
material o ne bis in idem), cuando se produzca una absolución o se declare la culpabilidad y se imponga una
pena. En todos los casos en que la sentencia penal sea firme, v.gr., la dictada en casación por el Tribunal Supremo, se alcanza ese efecto, que ha sido fundamentado por el Tribunal Constitucional en el principio de legalidad penal del art. 25 CE, siendo indiferente que la sentencia condene o absuelva (SS TC 2/2003, de 16 de
enero, y 229/2003, de 28 de diciembre).
Conclusiones
La terrible plaga del terrorismo que sufre España desde los años 60, principalmente a causa del grupo terrorista
ETA, pero no sólo éste pues han existido y existen otros grupos terroristas entre nosotros lamentablemente, ha
obligado a constantes reformas legislativas, tanto desde el punto de vista sustantivo, como del procesal, para
adaptar la eficacia de la respuesta legal al inadmisible reto que dichos grupos significan, particularmente dentro
de los límites del Estado de Derecho. Tras el 11 de septiembre de 2001 se constata una mayor intensidad en las
reformas legislativas para conseguir acabar con esas bandas de criminales.
Como hemos señalado, las reformas legislativas se han producido no sólo con relación al terrorismo, sino también contra determinados sectores del crimen organizado. Por eso las normas de desarrollo particular se refieren
a “bandas armadas”, “individuos terroristas” y “rebeldes”, a los que hay que añadir “mafiosos”, “narcotraficantes”,
“corruptores de menores y comerciantes en pornografía infantil”, “tratantes de esclavos” y de “blancas”.
En España no existe legislación especial antiterrorista. La hubo en la dictadura de Franco y al principio de la
etapa democrática, pero ahora los preceptos que regulan esta materia desde el punto de vista sustantivo están
en el Código Penal, y los que la regulan desde el punto de vista procesal en la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal.
No hay por tanto un proceso penal especial en materia de terrorismo. Pero sí hay especialidades legislativas que
permiten tratar con carácter separado y agrupado determinadas instituciones procesales afectadas por esa
legislación que presentan características particulares respecto a cuando es enjuiciado un delincuente “normal”:
Competencia centralizada, plazo de detención más amplio, detención o prisión incomunicada, investigación del
crimen y derechos fundamentales, agentes de persecución específicos, derecho de defensa limitado, normas
particulares de testigos, restricción de la prueba prohibida, sentencias de condena con pronunciamientos concretos, y normas propias de ejecución.
Esos tratamientos especializados en estos casos permiten afirmar que el Estado de Derecho ha endurecido su
postura en la lucha contra el crimen organizado, particularmente frente a los terroristas, limitando ciertas garantías constitucionales y dando más medios a las autoridades de persecución e investigación del crimen, especialmente a la Policía. Se constata que la sociedad española en general, tan ávida de seguridad como hastiada
del fenómeno del terrorismo, y siempre al lado de sus víctimas, recibe usualmente bien estas posturas más
firmes y aplaude las reformas que dan más poder al Estado frente a estos delincuentes.
Fuera del marco estricto del Derecho Penal y del Derecho Procesal Penal, también se han adoptado medidas de
importancia en la lucha contra el crimen organizado, y en especial contra el terrorismo. Destaco la incorporación
a España de normas internacionales, especialmente europeas, y nacionales que intentan detectar y acabar con
la financiación de esos grupos, y la legislación interna que permite declarar ilegales a los partidos políticos que
no respeten las reglas democráticas.
La práctica ayuda también a ese pretendido reforzamiento del Estado de Derecho, pues muchas sentencias en
las últimas dos décadas de nuestros más altos tribunales (Tribunal Constitucional y Tribunal Supremo) avalan
actuaciones poco garantistas, sobre todo de la Policía, incluso al límite de la vulneración de derechos fundamentales tan sagrados como la presunción de inocencia o el derecho al proceso con todas las garantías (juicio justo). La evolución restrictiva en materia de prueba prohibida de la última jurisprudencia española así lo demuestra
indubitadamente.
Mientras no se acabe política y jurídicamente a nivel interno con ETA, nuestro principal por no decir ya único
grupo terrorista, y a nivel internacional con los grupos islamistas que tan duro han golpeado a mi país, particularmente el 11 de marzo de 2004, España mantendrá en mi opinión la misma tendencia que los demás países
que sufren el terrorismo en sus propias carnes con dureza, limitando garantías allí en donde la lucha policial
pueda resultar más eficaz, con el único límite de no chocar directamente contra el propio tenor literal de la norma
- 150 -
España
constitucional. En consecuencia, la evolución de la realidad práctica de esas garantías en España, que entró
hace tiempo en una penumbra de difusos límites, amenaza con continuar así, si no se torna lamentablemente
todavía más oscura, durante un prolongado período de tiempo.
Bibliografía consultada
ÁLVAREZ GÁLVEZ, J.A. / DÍAZ VALCÁRCEL, R., Acerca de la responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado en los
daños causados por el terrorismo, La Ley, Revista jurídica española de doctrina, jurisprudencia y bibliografía
1985, núm. 3, págs. 921-925.
BENGOECHEA CABALLERO, D.J., La lucha contra el terrorismo en los confines de la CE, la UE y el CEDH,
AJA 2007, núm. 724, págs. 1-6.
CANCIO MELIÁ, M. / GÓMEZ-JARA DÍEZ, C. (Coord.), Derecho Penal del Enemigo. El discurso penal de la
exclusión, Edisofer et alt., Madrid 2006.
CATALINA BENAVENTE, M.A., La restricción de los derechos fundamentales en el marco de la lucha contra el
terrorismo, Ed. Fundación Alternativas, Madrid 2006.
ETXEBARRÍA ZARABEITIA, X., Algunos aspectos de Derecho sustantivo en la Ley Orgánica 5/2000, reguladora
de la Responsabilidad Penal de los Menores y de su Reforma en materia de terrorismo, ICADE - Revista de las
Facultades de Derecho y Ciencias Ecómicas y Empresariales 2001, nº 53, págs. 77-120.
FARALDO CABANA, P. (Dir.), Nuevos retos del Derecho Penal en la era de la globalización, Ed. Tirant lo
Blanch, Valencia 2004.
FARALDO CABANA, P. (Dir.), Derecho Penal de excepción. Terrorismo e inmigración, Ed. Tirant lo Blanch,
Valencia 2007.
FERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ, A., Ley de Partidos Políticos y Derecho Penal. Una nueva perspectiva en la lucha
contra el terrorismo, Ed. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia 2008.
FERNÁNDEZ TOMÁS, A.F., Constitución Europea y terrorismo, Cuadernos de Integración Europea 2005, núm.
1.
FUSTER-FABRA TORRELLAS, J.M., Responsabilidad civil derivada de actos de terrorismo, Ed. Atelier, Barcelona 2001.
GARCÍA DE BLANCO, V., Delitos de terrorismo, cumplimiento de pena y separación de poderes, el caso “De
Juana Chaos”, Icade: Revista de las Facultades de Derecho y Ciencias Ecómicas y Empresariales 2007, núm.
72, págs. 225-257.
GARCÍA VALDÉS, C., Terrorismo y Derecho, Icade: Revista de las Facultades de Derecho y Ciencias Ecómicas
y Empresariales 1997, núm. 42, págs. 155-160.
GARZÓN, B., Un mundo sin miedo, Ed. Plaza & Janés, Barcelona 2005.
GÓMEZ COLOMER, J.L., La exclusión del abogado defensor de elección en el proceso penal, Lª Bosch, Barcelona 1988.
GÓMEZ COLOMER, J.L., Constitución y proceso penal, Ed. Tecnos, Madrid 1996.
GÓMEZ COLOMER, J.L. / GONZÁLEZ CUSSAC, J.L. (Coord.), Terrorismo y proceso penal acusatorio, Ed.
Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia 2006.
GONZÁLEZ CUSSAC, J.L., El Derecho Penal frente al terrorismo. Cuestiones y perspectivas, Lección inaugural
del curso 2005/06, Ed. Universitat Jaume I, Castellón 2005.
GUTIÉRREZ-ALVIZ Y CONRADI, F. (Dir.), La criminalidad organizada ante la Justicia, Ed. Universidad de Sevilla et alt., Sevilla 1996.
GUTIÉRREZ-ALVIZ Y CONRADI, F. / VALCÁRCE LÓPEZ, M. (Dir.), La cooperación internacional frente a la
criminalidad organizada, Ed. Universidad de sevilla, Sevilla 2001.
LAMARCA PÉREZ, C., Tratamiento jurídico del terrorismo, Ed. Ministerio de Justicia, Madrid 1985.
- 151 -
España
LAMARCA PÉREZ, C., Sobre el concepto de terrorismo ( A propósito del caso Amedo), Anuario de Derecho
penal y ciencias penales 1993, tomo 46, págs. 535-560.
LÓPEZ GARRIDO, D., Terrorismo, Política y Derecho, ed. Alianza, Madrid 1987.
MAGDALENO ALEGRIA, A., Libertad de expresión, terrorismo y límites de los Derechos Fundamentales, Revista de derecho político 2007, núm. 69, págs. 181-222.
MARTIN OSTOS, J., La Audiencia Nacional y los delitos de terrorismo, Revista Universitaria de Derecho Procesal 1988, núm. 1, págs. 119-133.
MARTÍN PALLÍN, J.A., Terrorismo y represión penal, Revista Claves de la Razón Práctica 1992, núm. 23, págs.
26-35.
MORAL DE LA ROSA, J., La Decisión Marco sobre la lucha contra el terrorismo, Boletín de Información del
Ministerio de Justicia 2006, año 60, núm. 2015, págs. 57-64.
PÉREZ MARTÍN, E., La extradición y el terrorismo desde la perspectiva de la Unión Europea tras el 11 de septiembre, Ed. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid 2003.
PRADEL, J., Los sistemas penales frente al reto del crimen organizado. Relación General (trad. De la Cuesta),
Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 1998, vol. 69, págs. 701-728.
REDONDO HERMIDA, A., La víctima del terrorismo: una reflexión jurídica, Diario la Ley 2007, núm. 6807.
REMOTTI CARBONELL, J.C., La suspensión individual de derechos en la Constitución española de 1978, Ed.
Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona 1998.
SALAS, L., El sistema de justicia en la lucha contra el terrorismo en los Estados Unidos: seguridad nacional y
derechos fundamentales, Teoría y derecho: Revista de pensamiento jurídico 2007, núm. 1, págs. 234-263.
TERRADILLOS BASOCO, J., Terrorismo y derecho, Ed. Tecnos, Madrid 1988.
VERCHER NOGUERA, A., Antiterrorismo en el Ulster y en el País Vasco: Legislación y medidas, Ed. PPU,
Barcelona 1991.
VERCHER NOGUERA, A., Terrorismo y reinserción social en España, La Ley, Revista jurídica española de
doctrina, jurisprudencia y bibliografía 1994, núm. 2, págs. 969-980.
VERCHER NOGUERA, A., Terrorismo y reinserción social: nuevas perspectivas, La Ley, Revista jurídica española de doctrina, jurisprudencia y bibliografía 1996, núm. 2, págs. 1300-1303.
VÍRGALA FORURIA, E., La suspensión de derechos por terrorismo en el ordenamiento español, Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 1994, núm. 40, págs. 61-132.
- 152 -
Preparatory Colloquium of the XVIII International Congress of Penal Law
Section III
FINLAND*
Johanna NIEMI**
1. To what extent do international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law treaties (Geneva conventions) apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of
these international standards in your country? Can citizens (suspects, accused, victims, witnesses...)
derive rights from these treaties in your domestic legal order?
Finland has ratified major HRs conventions and is party to Geneva conventions. There are no reservations. The
main HRs conventions are incorporated into domestic law and the parties can invoke them in courts.
2. What important legislative reforms were carried out in your country in the last decades in the interest
of national/global security and public safety? Are there currently any such reform plans? (brief description)
Several reforms of the Crime Investigation Act (CIA 449/1987), the Coercive Measures Act (CMA 450/1987) and
the Police Act (PA)(493/1995; www.finlex.fi) have been partly motivated be these issues. The threat of terrorism
has not been the explicit motivation of most of the reforms (the main exceptions being the 2003 reform of CIA
and the 2005 reform of PA). Rather, the reforms have been motivated by broader security concerns, especially
the increase of organized crime, and technical problems in the criminal investigation and the prevention of crime.
Major examples of such reforms are:
• Telecommunications surveillance and monitoring was made possible in crime investigation in 1995
(1995/402). Also other technical surveillance measures (interception, observation and tracking) were regulated
both in CMA and PA.
• Reform of Police Act in 1999 introduced regulation of undercover policing and pseudo purchase (mainly of
drugs). The acquisition of contact data between telecommunications contacts (monitoring) was made possible in
proactive policing concerning serious crime (22/2001; RP 34/1999).
• The Penal Code was amended to include provisions on Terrorist crimes (Chapter 34a) and these new
crimes were added to CMA’s list of crimes, in the investigation of which telecommunications surveillance can be
used (2003/18).
• A major revision of Crime Investigations Act (449/1987) was made in 2002. This reform was not motivated
by security reasons and the reform consisted of various issues. For example, serious economic crime became
subject to telecommunications surveillance (2003/64: 646/2003). For the first time, technical interception in premises that are used for permanent living (bugging) was made possible in the investigation of most serious crimes.
The persons who are subject to such interception are represented in the courts by an attorney.
** Docent, senior researcher.
*
- 153 -
Finland
• The 2005 reform of Police Act (525/2005) was motivated by the in increase in organized crime and the
threat of terrorism (RP 266/2004). Proactive telecommunications interception was made possible but only concerning terrorist crime.
• The ratification of the Palermo Protocol led to the reform of criminal law and a special provision on trafficking
was added (RP 34/2004). As a consequence, trafficking together with some other crimes was added to the list of
crimes that can be investigated by telecommunications interception (651/2004).
•
The freezing of assets (bank accounts and data) was regulated in 2005 according to the European Union
decisions and regulations (CMA 541/2005; RP 56/2005).
- Did the reforms amend the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement, or did they
elaborate an alternative track of special proceedings (military justice, police justice, administrative justice, military commissions, etc.) outside the regular criminal justice system?
All reforms have been carried out within the frame of ordinary criminal investigation law and police law. However,
the coercive measures were originally regulated in the Coercive Measures Act, which is only applicable in the
investigation of (already committed) crimes. The trend in the reforms has been to introduce extended powers to
the police in the prevention of crime that is regulated in the Police Act. As a consequence, the border line between criminal investigation and proactive policing has become somewhat blurred.
It has to be pointed out that telecommunications interception and monitoring are subject to control by court. A
court warrant is required before these measures are taken. In emergency situations the police can start monitoring but even then the court has to be informed within 24 hours.
As amendments to common criminal procedure.
Such provisions are not included in the CMA or PA.
The Finnish Constitution, 23 §, (731/1999) allows for derogation from the constitutional rights in the times of
emergency. See point 6 below.
- Did criminal justice practice play a role in defining and carrying out the reforms? Did, e.g., higher courts
(cassation or constitutional court) reverse elements of these reforms?
Generally no. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has a specific responsibility to monitor the implementation of
surveillance and has taken a relatively active role in this regard. His/her opinions have been taken into account in
the reforms.
There has been relatively little public debate on these issues. The politicians, however, have actively monitored
constitutional and human rights in the context of these reforms. In the Parliament both the Legal Affairs Committee and the Constitutional Committee have made several amendments to the reforms with the aim of guaranteeing the rights of the citizens. These committees have also called for a comprehensive overview of the acts, which
is now under preparation in the Ministries of Justice and Interior.
3. What are the general principles of your criminal procedure (e.g., principle of legality, fair justice, equality of arms) and what is their legal source (e.g., constitution, statute)?
Principle of legality; all coercive measures that encroach to the rights of the citizens should by governed by law
(not only punishment); based on the Constitution, Chapter 2.
Proportionality – CMA 1:3.3 (concerning arrest and detention); PA 2.2 and 2.3 §; doctrine
Equity CMA 1:26a (concerning detention)
Principle of objectivity CIA 7.1; 12 §; PA 2.1 §
Presumption of innocence – CIA 7.2 §.
Right to counsel CIA 10 §; Criminal Procedure Act (CPA 689/1997) Ch 2
- 154 -
Finland
Equality of Arms – doctrine
Favor defensionis – doctrine
4. At what stage(s) of the criminal process does your legal system provide for - the presumption of innocence? All
- the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against
himself or to confess guilt? All
5. Does your common criminal procedure or special proceedings provide for a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, nationals or non-nationals, or specific categories of subjects (aliens, enemies,
non-persons)?
No distinction. (Exception CMA 3.1 (4) allowing for detention of a non-resident who is likely to avoid the proceedings with no regard to the seriousness of the crime.)
6. Does your legal system allow for the suspension of human rights in emergency situations (including
war)?
The section 23 of the Constitution (731/1999; 23 §) that allows for derogation:
Constitution 23 §: Such provisional exceptions to basic rights and liberties that are compatible with Finland's
international obligations concerning human rights and that are deemed necessary in the case of an armed attack
against Finland or if there exists an emergency that threatens the nation and which according to an Act is so
serious that it can be compared with an armed attack may be provided by an Act.
The derogations are regulated in the Emergency Powers Act (EPA; 1080/1991) and the State of Defence Act
(SDA; 1083/1991) as amended. A proposal for the reform of EPA is at the time of writing in the Parliament (RP
3/2008)
With a degree of the President, the Government can be given the powers to take measures regulated in the EPA
and the SDA. Such a degree shall be immediately submitted to the Parliament that can revoke the degree. But
when it comes to the issue of derogation from HRs, such derogation has to be made by law.
According to the proposal for a new EPA, a state of emergency situation would be declared by a Degree of the
Government, after a consultation with the President of the Republic. The Degree has to be given to the Parliament for approval within a week.
The reference to the international HRs obligations in the 23 § of Constitutions means that only derogable HRs
can be subject to the derogations according to the domestic law.
The State of Defence Act includes provisions on the competence to limit a persons right to choose place of residence or the right to movement (8 §; 12 §), on security detention (9 §) and on the competence to restrict the
freedom of association, assembly and expression (10, 11 and 13-14 §).
The EPA, also after the pending reform, is more concerned with the economy, including telecommunications and
post, and economic rights than rights concerning human integrity. The proposal includes duties that can be imposed on the citizens as obligations to work and perform certain tasks.
- Can emergency serve as a ground to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings
(military forum, police procedure, administrative procedure, military commissions)?
No. The procedures, coercive measures and competence in certain crimes committed by military personnel and
conscripts are regulated in the Military Court Procedure Act (326/1983), Military Discipline Act (331/1983) etc.
The state of war has certain relevance to the jurisdiction of the first mentioned act.
7. Does your legal system recognize special measures by which parts of the legislation and/or parts of
the criminal process may be classified (classified legislation, secret procedures, secret actors of justice,
secrecy in the administration of criminal justice)?
- 155 -
Finland
The legislation is always made public. There are no secret actors of justice.
The publicity of the criminal procedure is regulated in the Law on the Publicity in the General Courts (370/2007).
An exception to the main principle of public trial can be made, among other grounds, when the publicity would
endanger the external security of the state (15 § 1 p.).
8. Does your legal system allow for the use of intelligence information (e.g., general police intelligence,
national or foreign intelligence services information) in criminal proceedings, such as - preliminary information for opening a criminal investigation; - evidence for probable cause for using coercive measures on goods and on persons (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, and detention);
There is no prima facie or explicit prohibition of the use of such intelligence in any of the mentioned respects.
Such information, most likely also foreign intelligence information, is used in the investigation of crimes.
In criminal proceedings, the standard of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the burden of proof lies at the prosecutor and the principle of free evaluation of evidence prevails. Thus, even the intelligence information has to be
presented to the court and the defendant has the right to confront it.
9 a. Do intelligence forces, regular police forces, or administrative enforcement agencies (such as customs or tax agencies) have the competence in your country to use coercive powers in a pro-active way?
Coercive powers, meaning detention, search and seizure, freezing of assets etc. can only be used in the investigation of a crime that is suspected to have happened.
Gathering of intelligence, however, is possible in a pro-active way when it is assumed that a person is going to
commit a serious crime.
If yes,
- under which conditions?
- must there be a suspicion based on probable cause to use these coercive powers or are indications of
dangerousness for the national security or public interest sufficient? Has the definition of suspicion
been changed for serious offences?
- can these coercive powers be used for persons other than suspects/accused of crimes (e.g., enemy
combatants, enemy aliens, persons having no right to the protection of regular criminal procedure, etc.)?
- can the information obtained through the pro-active enforcement by means of use of coercive measures
be shared between intelligence, police, administrative enforcement agencies, and judicial authorities?
Proactive policing is regulated in Police Act of 1995 with several amendments (see answer 1 above). Most relevant here is Chapter 3: Provisions on gathering information (28-36 §). This Chapter regulates the use of surveillance and monitoring in order to maintain public order and security and to prevent and reveal offences. The techniques that are regulated in the Chapter are
1) technical monitoring: viewing or listening to members of the public;
2) surveillance: continuous or repeated gathering of information on certain persons or their
activities;
3) technical surveillance means continuous or repeated listening to certain persons with the help of a technical
device and recording the voice (interception), viewing and photographing or videotaping (technical observation),
and tracking the movements of a vehicle or goods (technical tracking);
4) undercover activities
5) pseudo purchase
6) telecommunications monitoring
- 156 -
Finland
7) telecommunications surveillance.
The provisions define the degree of seriousness of the crime that is suspected to be committed. Telecommunications monitoring (tele-address, time etc.) can be used when the suspected offence is such for which the punishment can not be less than four months’ imprisonment or an IT offence, menace, intimidation of a witness or a
narcotics offence. The offences in question are basically the same as those that can be the basis for telecommunications surveillance in the investigation of an already committed crime according to the CMA.
Telecommunications interception in a proactive way is only possible when there is a suspicion that a terrorist
crime will be committed.
The crimes for which technical surveillance can be used in a proactive way are generally the same as according
to the CMA.
The suspicion of the crime to be committed is defined at the level of ‘justifiably assumed’.
Telecommunications interception and monitoring and technical interception, when a device is placed in a room or
a motor vehicle, require permission by the court.
The registration and transfer of information to other police units and judicial authorities is subject to detailed
regulation in the Act on the Processing of Personal Data by the Police
(761/2003; www.finlex.fi), see especially 17-19 §, which allow the supply of data for specific purposes.
9 b. Does your legal system allow for the use of tough forms of investigation techniques (torture or cruel,
unusual, or inhuman treatment) during pro-active enforcement, and, if yes, under which conditions?
What is the practice of your country in this field?
No. Not allowed, not used.
10. In case of serious offences, does your legal system allow for limiting - the right to habeas data (data
protection, private life)?
- the right to habeas corpus (arrest, detention, deportation, extraordinary rendition, etc.)?
Habeas corpus; There is always a right to a hearing in the court within four days. There are no exceptions from
this right.
Habeas data: The discretion to use search is entrusted to the police and there is generally no court review of
such measures. The person who has been subject to seizure of evidence may seek a court order to reverse it
(see ECHR Sallinen v. Finland 2005).
11. Did your legal system experience an increase of - investigative powers and coercive powers (search
and seizure, bugging and tapping, freezing orders, evidence production orders, arrest and detention,
infiltration, etc.) of the investigation authorities? If yes, in which way?
Yes, see answer 2 above.
- cooperation duties of the investigated persons? If yes, in which way? Are there any new cooperation
duties foreseen in transnational settings (e.g., transnational production orders of information)?
No, no changes in this respect.
- from the judiciary (investigation magistrates, judges for the preliminary trial setting) to the executive
dealing with investigation (police, prosecutors, intelligence forces, administrative enforcement agencies,
army)? If yes, how and to which extent?
The prosecution and the courts have historically had limited role in the investigation of the crimes. Therefore,
even if the police has relatively wide powers in the investigation and in the implementation, it is difficult to say that
there would have been a shift in power. Rather, the court control of telecommunications surveillance and monitoring is a certain kind of signal of increased judicial supervision of the use of investigative power.
- 157 -
Finland
13. Did a specialization and/or centralization of the judicial investigative authorities take place in your
country?
The role of the Central Criminal Police may have increased due to their increasing specialisation but there seems
to be no general trend. Another development has been that the local police districts are merged into fewer and
fewer units. This development may mean certain centralization (fewer local districts) but also decentralization (as
the local units become bigger and stronger).
14. Were the rules in your legal system changed on
- the conditions to approve coercive measures (warrants) of the judiciary? If yes, how and to what extent? Has there been a redefinition of the probable cause for warrants?
- the compilation of the investigative dossier or on the disclosure of evidence in order to keep part of it
ex parte, thus not available for the defence?
- the conditions for arrest and detention? Does your legal system provide for possibilities of secret arrest
and detention, deportation, and extraordinary rendition without habeas corpus?
No major changes.
The law does not allow secret detentions, nor are there any.
The conditions for arrest and defence were changed in 2002 so that probable cause is not any more required for
the risk of collusion, escape or recidivism. (Probable cause is required for the suspicion that the suspect has
committed the crime. Investigative detention for one week is possible without probable cause if important evidence is to be expected during that time.) The change has not had any effect in practice as far as I can tell. Other
than that the conditions of warrants have not been changed.
At the trial, all evidence has to be disclosed to the defendant. No changes in this respect.
15. Were specific production orders (subpoena or not) introduced in your country for stored information
at disposal of the service providers (internet providers, travel agencies, air companies, credit card companies)?
Generally, those who are in possession of evidence of a crime are obliged to provide it to the court; and alternatively such evidence can be seized by the police during the investigation of the crime. The evidence includes
written documents and electronically stored documents.
In 2007, new provisions on the freezing of data were added to the Coercive Measures Act.
16. Is pre-trial evidence, gathered by police and judicial authorities, subject to judicial control (admissibility of pre-trial evidence) in your country? Are there special measures in the field of serious offences?
No. The principle is free submission of evidence and free evaluation of evidence. There are rules on privileged
information, confidentiality etc. These issues are generally not brought in the court or decided be the court before
the trial. In theory it is possible to hold a preliminary hearing on a procedural issues, such as confidentiality of
certain information.
17. Does your country allow for the use of evidence obtained abroad (extraterritorial use of evidence)? If
yes, under which conditions?
Finland is party to the European Union Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 29.5.2000. The
domestic law on cooperation in such matters was enacted in 1994 (13/1994).
This question perhaps means intelligence information. There are no specific rules for foreign intelligence information. If it is used in the court, it has to be disclosed to the defendant in the same way as domestic intelligence
information.
18. Have coercive measures been introduced in such a way that they could definitely preclude fair trial
norms?
In my opinion, no.
- 158 -
Finland
19. Were special measures introduced in your country for the protection of the secrecy of witnesses,
victims, judges, etc.?
Their address and other contact information can be held secret. A witness who is afraid can be heard in the
absence of the defendant.
No.
No.
No.
- evidence and proof at trial? Can shielded or secret evidence be used in ex parte proceedings? Is there a
public interest exception to disclosure of evidence and cross-examination? Can evidence in favour of the
suspect be deleted in special circumstances?
No.
No.
21. When dealing with serious offences, does your legal system fully provide for - the right of the suspect/accused/detained person to an independent and impartial tribunal?
Yes.
- the presumption of innocence at the trial or does it foresee special rules (presumption of liability or
accountability, reverse of the burden of proof)?
Yes, the presumption of innocence is in force.
- the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined as
soon as possible (habeas corpus)?
Habeas corpus: There is always a right to a hearing in the court within four days. There are no exceptions from
this right.
The length of the trial is a practical problem in difficult criminality, especially in economic crime. The right to a fair
trial within a reasonable time applies to all trials.
Yes, at least in theory.
- the procedural rights of parties (equality of arms, fair trial)? X = yes
x the right to a public trial with an audience;
x the right to an oral, fair hearing and adversarial proceedings;
x the right to be present at the trial;
x the right of the counsel to have access to all criminal case records;
x the right to be informed without delay of the offence charged;
x the right to full disclosure of the state's case and to adequate time to prepare a defence;
x the right to internal (between parties involved) and external publicity of the proceedings;
x the right to examine the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witness on his behalf under the same conditions as the witness against him; special measures for new
- 159 -
Finland
cyber techniques (videoconferencing, etc.); special measures concerning shielded or protected witnesses (undercover agents, agents of intelligence forces)?
x the right to have free assistance of an interpreter;
x the right not to be a witness in proceedings against oneself;
x the right to counsel (mandatory or not?), changes to legal privilege? Free choice or screened or assigned by the state?
x the right to remain silent (are there any limitations to the obligation to inform the accused of this right;
are there limitations to the right to remain silent)?
- Is it permissible to draw prejudicial conclusions from the fact that the accused refused to testify?
This is a difficult question discussed in legal doctrine. It may have some evidentiary value, especially when the
accused does not counter other testimony that ties him to the crime. But the refusal to testify can never be the
only or main testimony against him.
No.
No.
- 160 -
Section III
GERMANY*
Tonio WALTER**
Table of contents
Bibliography
List of abbreviations
1. To what extent do international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law treaties (Geneva conventions)
apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of these international standards in your
country? Can citizens (suspects, accused victims, witnesses…) derive rights from these treaties in your domestic legal order?
2. What important legislative reforms were carried out in your country in the last decades in the interest of national/global
security and public safety? Are there currently any such reform plans? (brief description)
3. What are the general principles of your criminal procedure (e.g. principle of legality, fair justice, equality or arms) and what
is their legal source (e.g. constitution, statute)?
- the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess
guilt?.
5. Does your common criminal procedure or special proceedings provide for a distinction between citizens and non-citizens,
nationals or non-nationals, or specific categories of subjects (aliens, enemies, non-persons)?
6. Does your legal system allow for the suspension of human rights in emergency situations (including war)?...
7. Does your legal system recognize special measures by which parts of the legislation and/or parts of the criminal process
may be classified (classified legislation, secret procedures, secret actors of justice, secrecy in the administration of criminal
justice)?
8. Does your legal system allow for the use of intelligence information (e.g., general police intelligence, national or foreign
intelligence services information) in criminal proceedings, such as
- evidence for probable cause for using coercive measures on goods and on persons (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, and
detention);
- evidence of liability/guilt in criminal proceedings?.
9. a. Do intelligence forces, regular police forces, or administrative enforcement agencies (such as customs or tax agencies)
have the competence in your country to use coercive powers in a pro-active way?
** Chair of Criminal Law, Law of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Business Law and European Criminal Law University of Regensburg. Universitätsstr. 31. 93053 Regensburg
*
-161 -
Germany
9. b. Does your legal system allow for the use of tough forms of investigation techniques (torture or cruel, unusual, or inhuman
treatment) during pro-active enforcement, and, if yes, under which conditions? What is the practice of your country in this
field?
- the right to habeas corpus (arrest, detention, deportation, extraordinary rendition, etc.)?.
11. Did your legal system experience an increase of
- investigative powers and coercive powers (search and seizure, bugging and tapping, freezing orders, evidence production
orders, arrest and detention, infiltration, etc.) of the investigation authorities? If yes, in which way?
- cooperation duties of the investigated persons? If yes, in which way? Are there any new cooperation duties foreseen in
transnational settings (e.g. transnational production orders of information)?
- from the judiciary (investigation magistrates, judges for the preliminary trial setting) to the executive dealing with investigation (police, prosecutors, intelligence forces, administrative enforcement agencies, army?) If yes, how and to which extent?
- from the public prosecutors to police, etc.? If yes, how and to what extent?.
- the conditions to approve coercive measures (warrants) of the judiciary? If yes, how and to what extent? Has there been a
redefinition of the probable cause for warrants?
- the compilation of the investigative dossier or on the disclosure of evidence in order to keep part of it ex parte, thus not
available for the defence?
- the conditions for arrest and detention? Does your legal system provide for possibilities of secret arrest and detention,
deportation, and extraordinary rendition without habeas corpus?.
15. Were specific production orders (subpoena or not) introduced in your country for stored information at disposal of the
service providers (internet providers, travel agencies, air companies, credit card companies)?
16. Is pre-trial evidence, gathered by police and judicial authorities, subject to judicial control (admissibility of pre-trial evidence) in your country? Are there special measures in the field of serious offences?.
17. Does your country allow for the use of evidence obtained abroad (extraterritorial use of evidence)? If yes, under which
conditions?
19. Were special measures introduced in your country for the protection of the secrecy of witnesses, victims, judges, etc.?
- evidence and proof at trial? Can shielded or secret evidence be used in ex parte proceedings? Is there a public interest
exception to disclosure of evidence and cross-examination? Can evidence in favour of the suspect be deleted in special
circumstances?
- the right of the suspect/accused/detained person to an independent an impartial tribunal?
- the presumption of innocence at the trial or does it foresee special rules (presumption of liability or accountability, reverse of
the burden of proof)?
- 162 -
Germany
- the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined as soon as possible
(habeas corpus)?
VI. Post trial setting (criminal, special proceedings)
Bibliography
BEULKE, Werner, Strafprozessrecht, 10th edition, Heidelberg 2008
BRUGGER, Winfried, Vom unbedingten Verbot der Folter zum bedingten Recht auf Folter, JZ 2000, p. 165 ff.
HANSEN, Markus / PFITZMANN, Andreas, Online-Durchsuchung – Technische Grundlagen von Online-Durchsuchung und –
Beschlagnahme, DRiZ 2007, p. 225 ff.
HIRSCH, Burkhard, Aktuelle Sicherheitspolitik im Lichte des Verfassungsrechts – Eine notwendige Entgegnung – Erwiderung
zu Schäuble, ZRP 2007, 210, ZRP 2008, p. 24 ff.
HOFMANN, Hans / HOPFAUF, Axel (Ed.), Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, 11th edition, Köln 2008
KLEVER, Stefan, Die Rasterfahndung nach § 98 a StPO, Münster 2003
KRÜPE-GESCHER, Christiane, Die Überwachung der Telekommunikation nach den §§ 100 a, 100 b StPO in der Rechtspraxis,
Berlin 2005
KUTSCHA, Martin, Verdeckte „Online-Durchsuchung“ und Unverletzlichkeit der Wohnung, NJW 2007, p. 1169 ff.
-, Innere Sicherheit und Verfassung (Teil 1), in: ROGGAN, Fredrik / KUTSCHA, Mar-tin (Ed.), Handbuch zum Recht der Inneren
Sicherheit, 2nd edition, Berlin 2006 (cited: KUTSCHA in: Handbuch Innere Sicherheit)
KÜHL, Kristian, Strafgesetzbuch, Kommentar, 26th edition, München 2007
LISKEN, Hans / DENNINGER, Erhard (Ed.), Handbuch des Polizeirechts, 4th edition, München 2007 (cited: BEARBEITER in: Handbuch Polizeirecht)
LÖWE-ROSENBERG, Die Strafprozessordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Peter Rieß (Ed.), Erster Band (Einleitung;
§§ 1 – 71), 25th edition, Berlin 1999 -, Zweiter Band (§§ 72 – 136 a), 25th edition, Berlin 2004
MEYER-GOßNER, Lutz, Strafprozessordnung, Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, Nebengesetze und ergänzende Bestimmungen, 50th
edition, München 2007
MEYER-WIECK, Hannes, Der Große Lauschangriff – Eine empirische Untersuchung zu Anwendung und Folgen des § 100 c
Abs. 1 Nr. 3 StPO, Berlin 2005
PUSCHKE, Jens / SINGELNSTEIN, Tobias, Telekommunikationsüberwachung, Vorratsdatenspeicherung und (sonstige) heimliche
Ermittlungsmaßnahmen der StPO nach der Neuregelung zum 1.1.2008, NJW 2008, p. 113 ff.
ROGGAN, Fredrik / BERGEMANN, Nils, Die „neue Sicherheitsarchitektur“ der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Anti-Terror-Datei,
gemeinsame Projektdateien und Terrorismusbekämpfungsergänzungsgesetz, NJW 2007, p. 876 ff.
SACHS, Michael (Ed.), Grundgesetz, 4th edition, München 2007
SCHENKE, Wolf-Rüdiger, Polizei- und Ordnungsrecht, 5th edition, Heidelberg 2007
List of abbreviations
ATDG
Antiterrordateigesetz (Anti-Terror-File Act)
BayPAG
Bayerisches Polizeiaufgabengesetz (Bavarian Act on Police Functions)
BfV
Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Federal Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution)
BGH
Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court)
BGHSt.
Amtliche Sammlung der Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Strafsachen (Decisions of the Federal
Supreme Court in Criminal Cases)
BND
Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service)
- 163 -
Germany
BNDG
BVerfGE
nal Court)
BVerfSchG
DriZ
Gesetz über den Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service Act)
Amtliche Sammlung der Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Decisions of the Federal Constitutio-
DVBl.
Deutsche Verwaltungsblätter (German Administration`s Paper)
ECHR
GG
GVG
ICCPR
INPOL
JR
European Convention on Human Rights
Grundgesetz (Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany)
Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (Judicature Act)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Informationssystem der deutschen Polizeien (Police Information System)
Juristische Rundschau (Judicial Overview)
Bundesverfassungsschutzgesetz (Protection of the Federal Constitution Act)
Deutsche Richterzeitung (German Judge`s Journal)
JZ
Juristenzeitung (Jurist`s Journal)
LfV
Landesämter für Verfassungsschutz (State Bureaus for the Protection of the Constitution)
LG
Landgericht (Regional Court)
LuftSiG
Luftsicherheitsgesetz (Air Safety Legislation)
MAD
Militärischer Abschirmdienst (Military Counter-Intelligence Service)
MADG
Gesetz über den militärischen Abschirmdienst (Military Counter-Intelligence Service Act)
NJW
Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (New Judicial Weekly)
OWiG
Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Administrative Offences Act)
StGB
Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal Code)
StPO
Strafprozessordnung (Code of criminal procedure)
TKG
Telekommunikationsgesetz (Telecommunications Law)
VSG-NRW Gesetz über den Verfassungsschutz in Nordrhein-Westfalen (Protection of the Constitution of North RhineWestphalia Act)
VStGB
Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (Code of Crimes against International Law)
ZSHG
Zeugenschutz-Harmonisierungsgesetz (Federal Act on Harmonising Witness Protection)
ZRP
Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (Journal for Policy of Law)
I. Reform of legal framework: special measures with regard to prevention, investigation and prosecution∗
1. The general rules of international law, i.e. customary international law and the rules and principles of international law are, according to Art. 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz [GG]), a
superior form of federal law and, as such, a legal authority to be observed in criminal procedure. These rules of
international law take precedence over statutes and create rights (and duties) directly for the citizens. The provisions of international treaties do not count among the “general rules of international law”. They attain validity in
the domestic law through a so-called “treaty law”, pursuant to Art. 59 (2) GG2, which, as a lex specialis, supersedes Art. 25 GG. Of special importance in the criminal procedure are the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR)3 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).4 Both of these conventions
∗
The author wishes to thank Bernhard Paa, research assistant at the University of Regensburg, for important contributions
and Geraldine Paul, lecturer at the University of Regensburg, for her support in translating the report into English.
1 Wording of Art. 25 GG: “The general rules of international law are an element of federal law. They take precedence over
statutes and create rights and duties directly for the residents of the federal territory.”
2 Wording of Art. 59 (2) GG: “Agreements which regulate the political relations of the federation or which relate to matters of
federal legislation require the approval or participation of the responsible body in the form of a federal statute. The provisions
regulating the federal administration apply to administrative agreements.”
3 BGBI. II 1952 p. 685 (act of assent).
4 BGBI. II 1973 p. 1533 (act of assent).
- 164 -
Germany
contain fundamental guarantees, which apply in Germany as national law (Art. 59 [2] GG).5 German courts must
observe and apply the ECHR (considering the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights)6 and the
ICCPR, as well as federal statute law within the framework of accepted canons of statutory interpretation. The
German law of criminal procedure almost completely complies with the requirements of the ECHR and the
ICCPR, so that the parties in criminal proceedings can rely directly on the rules in the code of criminal procedure.7 — The consequences of crimes under international law are regulated in Germany by the Code of Crimes
against International Law (VStGB), which came into force on 30th June 2002. According to the statute of the
International Criminal Court, this code details the crimes of genocide (section 6 VStGB), crimes against humanity
(section 7 VStGB) and war crimes (sections 8-12 VStGB), and in so doing, it renders violations of the Geneva
Conventions and other rules of international humanitarian law subject to criminal sanctions. The VStGB recognises the validity of universal jurisdiction, so that crimes can be prosecuted regardless of the scene of the crime.
2. Legislative reforms
a. Reform of legal framework with regard to investigation
aa. Great Surveillance, sections 100 c and 100 d StPO
In recent decades, means of secret acquisition of information have increasingly found their way into the code of
criminal procedure (StPO). Among these is audio surveillance of private property, the so-called “great surveillance” (Großer Lauschangriff). The introduction of this measure was preceded by a prolonged discussion.8 While
the need to find an effective means of tackling organised crime was emphasised, critics expressed concerns in
terms of the rule of law. Following the attainment of a political majority and the subsequent amendment to the
provision of the basic law relating to the inviolability of the home (Art. 13 GG), no obstacle remained to the introduction of audio surveillance into the code of criminal procedure. — After the introduction in 1998 of the amended
section 100 c StPO, the monitoring and recording of words spoken privately by the accused in the home became
permissible, provided that certain facts substantiated the suspicion that he had committed one of the criminal
offences listed in a definitive catalogue of crimes9, or that he had attempted to commit the crime in cases where
such an attempt is punishable. This measure was permissible only when the investigation or the discovery of the
whereabouts of the offender would otherwise have been excessively difficult or futile. — In its decision of 3rd
March 2004,10 the Federal Constitutional Court allowed an appeal and held that section 100 c StPO is (in part)
incompatible with the Basic Law (GG). The court criticised most notably the excessively wide scope of the offences listed in the catalogue of crimes in section 100 c StPO, and ruled that “particularly serious crimes” in the
context of the code are only those offences punishable by more than a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.
Moreover, in the view of the court, too few provisions were made for the protection of the innermost private
sphere of life. With the enactment of a law on 24th July 2005, legislators adapted the surveillance rules according
to the requirements of the Federal Constitutional Court. The scope of the catalogue of offences was narrowed
and the condition was introduced that the individual offence in question must be serious (section 100 c [1] no. 2
StPO). This form of surveillance may henceforth be ordered only if factual indications show that no conversation
infringing on the strictly protected innermost sphere of private life will be recorded, (section 100 c [4] sentence 1
StPO). Furthermore, the surveillance of private property must be interrupted if the course of the conversation
takes such a turn (section 100 c [5] sentence 1 StPO). A legal definition of the term “innermost private sphere”
cannot, however, be found in the code of criminal procedure. Audio surveillance in private homes can be ordered
following an application of the prosecution through a chamber of a regional court (section 100 d [1] sentence 1
StPO). In the case of imminent danger, the presiding judge can decide by himself (section 100 d [1] sentence 2
RIESS in: Löwe-Rosenberg Intro. (Einl.) section C, margin no. 7 and Einl. section 1, margin no. 70.
STREINZ in Sachs, GG Art. 59, margin no. 65 a.
7 Concerning the problem of compatibility of coercive measures in criminal proceedings with the ECHR cf. ESSER p. 110 ff.
8 cf. MEYER-WIECK p. 7 ff.
9 Over 60 criminal offences altogether, for example murder (s. 211 StGB), manslaughter (s. 212 StGB), aggravated robbery
(s. 250 StGB), forming terrorist organisations (s. 129 a StGB), blackmailing accompanied by the use or threat of force (s. 255
StGB).
10 Decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) 109, 279.
5
6
- 165 -
Germany
StPO).
bb. Surveillance of telecommunications, sections 100a and 100b StPO
Rules within sections 100a and 100b StPO on the surveillance of telecommunications, which have been repeatedly criticised in literature11, were introduced in 1968 to the code of criminal procedure. Since then, numerous
amendments have been made, most of which have extended the scope of application.12 The sphere of crimes in
relation to which the ordering of telecommunications surveillance may be possible has been progressively widened. — As from 1st January 2008, new regulations concerning telecommunications surveillance have applied.
According to these, surveillance may be ordered if certain facts substantiate the suspicion that a person committed or was party to the committing of one of the “serious offences” listed in section 100 a (2) StPO13, or that he
attempted to commit one of these offences where such an attempt is punishable, or that he, in the course of
committing another crime, prepared to commit such an offence. Legislators understand the term “serious criminal
offence” to mean an offence with a maximum penalty of at least five years’ imprisonment, or less than five years
in individual cases where the legally protected interest is of special importance or where the public interest would
be served by a prosecution.14 In comparison to the former legal position, this signifies a considerable expansion
of the scope of telecommunications surveillance. The offence must, in each individual case, be serious and the
criminal investigation or discovery of the whereabouts of the accused would need to be seriously hampered or
hopeless without the surveillance (section 1 a [1] StPO [subsidiarity]). Against the background of the decision of
the Federal Constitutional Court in the matter of audio surveillance of private homes, legislation protecting the
innermost private sphere of life was passed. Where factual indications suggest that information from the innermost private sphere was gained through telecommunications surveillance alone, such surveillance is inadmissible (section 100 a [4] StPO). — The literature contains serious criticisms of the extent of the catalogue of offences in section 100 a (2) StPO.15
cc. Undercover agents, section 110 a (and following sections) StPO
The provisions covering undercover agents in sections 100 a through to 110 c StPO were brought into law in
1992 with the aim of fighting drug trafficking and other manifestations of organised crime. The necessity and
permissibility of undercover investigations, whether through undercover agents in the broadest sense, through
informants or through private professional police informers (so-called V-Leute)16 was, however, recognised in the
case law before the introduction of the provision in 1992. —According to the legal definition in section 110 (2) a
StPO, an undercover agent is an official of the police service, who conducts investigations under a conferred
altered identity, which he uses for an extended period. Pursuant to section 110 a (1) StPO, undercover agents
can be used in the solving of crime when sufficient factual indications show that a crime of major significance was
committed (1) in connection with narcotics or arms dealing, or counterfeiting of money or stamps or (2) in the
area of state security or (3) on a commercial or habitual basis or (4) by a member of a gang, or otherwise involving organised criminal activity. "Crimes of major significance" are those of at least middle range in seriousness,
which cause a disturbance of law and order, and are capable of seriously undermining the perception of legal
security among the people.17 Petty offences do not come within this category. Moreover, the use of undercover
agents is permissible only when the solving of the crime would otherwise be hopeless or seriously hampered
(subsidiarity). With regard to solving criminal offences punishable by a minimum of one year’s imprisonment or
more (section 12 [1] Criminal Code [StGB]), and where there is a risk of re-offending, the use of undercover
agents is permitted regardless of whether the offence is listed in the catalogue of offences in section 110 a (1)
Elaborated in KRÜPE-GESCHER p. 19 ff.
Overview in SCHÄFER in: Löwe-Rosenberg § 100 a, margin no. 2.
11 Bundestag printed paper 16/5846 p. 40.
13 Over 110 criminal offences altogether, for example gang theft (s. 244 [1] no. 2 StGB), receiving stolen property as a business (s. 260 StGB), robbery (s. 249 StGB), bribery and corruption (s. 332 and 334 StGB).
14 BT-DS 16/5846 S. 40 (legislative intent).
15 cf. KRÜPE-GESCHER p. 21 ff. with further references.
16 cf. BVerfGE 57, 250, (283 ff.); Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court in Criminal Cases (BGHSt.) 32, 115 (120 ff.).
17 BT-DS 13/10791 p. 5 (legislative intent); BVerfGE 103, 21 (34); SCHÄFER in: Löwe-Rosenberg § 98 a, margin no. 27;
MEYER-GOßNER § 98 a, margin no. 5.
11
12
- 166 -
Germany
sentence 1 StPO, or not (110 a [1] sentence 2 StGB). Furthermore, the use of undercover agents for serious
crimes that do not appear in the catalogue of offences is permitted, even where there is no risk of re-offending,
provided that the criminal offence is of special importance and the chances of solving the crime would otherwise
be hopeless (section 110 a [1] sentence 4 StPO). The use of undercover agents normally requires the consent of
the prosecution (section 110 b [1] sentence 1 StPO). The measure requires the agreement of the court, if it is
conducted against a specific person or if the undercover agent enters a home which is not publicly accessible
(section 110 b [2] sentence 1 StPO).
dd. Rasterfahndung, section 98 a (and following sections) StPO
Rasterfahndung is the comparison by computer of personal data with a set of previously determined characteristics. Data of those not suspected of involvement in criminal activity may initially be processed in order to draw out
suspects from their social circle. The Rasterfahndung was introduced into the StPO in July 1992 through a law
seeking to tackle illegal drug trafficking and other manifestations of organised crime. — Pursuant to section 98 a
(1) StPO, the Rasterfahndung may be conducted in connection with broadly defined and listed offences of special importance, when the investigation of the case or the discovery of the whereabouts of the offender would
otherwise be seriously hindered (subsidiarity). In this context, the criminal offence must be of special importance
(cf. 2 a cc above) either (1) in connection with narcotics or arms dealing or counterfeiting of money or stamps or
(2) in the area of state security or (3) a danger to public safety or (4) or a danger of serious injury or loss of life,
sexual self-determination or personal liberty or (5) on a commercial or habitual basis or (6) by a member of a
gang, or otherwise involving organised criminal activity. Responsibility for ordering of the Rasterfahndung lies
with a judge, or in the case of imminent danger, also with the prosecution (section 98 b (1) StPO). — The regulations concerning the Rasterfahndung have often been criticised in the literature as too general and too wide. As
well as this, the threshold justifying such action, namely a normal reasonable suspicion, is said to be too low.18
According to the Federal Constitutional Court, preventative Rasterfahndung by police authorities is only compatible with the right of informational self-determination (Art. 2 I and Art. 1 I GG), if there is imminent danger to highranking legal interests such as the state`s existence or security or a person`s health, life or freedom. A situation
of general threat is not sufficient.19
ee. Genetic Fingerprinting, sections 81 e and 81 f StPO.
Through genome analysis (DNA analysis; "genetic fingerprinting"), it is possible to prove with relative certainty
that test material such as hair, sperm or skin particles are those of the offender. A positive result, however, has
only statistical probative value and will not in itself lead to a conviction.20 The relevant provisions (sections 81 e to
81f StPO) were introduced into the code of criminal procedure in 1997. Prior to this, there had been much controversy as to whether the existing rules covering physical examination of the accused (section 81 a StPO) represented a sufficient legal basis for DNA analysis. While the courts and prevailing opinion indicated an affirmative
answer to this question, concerns as to constitutionality and criminal procedure in relation to the matter were
expressed by others.21 The introduction of section 81 e and following sections of the StPO put an end to the
discussion. — Section 81 e StPO regulates DNA analysis in relation to ongoing criminal proceedings. Molecular
genetic testing involves the comparison of material obtained from the accused in the context of a physical examination according to section 81 a StPO, or of material obtained during physical examination of other persons
pursuant to section 81 c StPO (section 81 e [1] sentences 1 and 2 StPO) or of discovered, seized or confiscated
trace material (section 81 e [2] StPO). The use of genome analysis is restricted to the purpose of establishing the
origin of the accused and his offspring, or discovering whether the trace material is from the accused or the victim
(section 81 e [1] sentence 1 StPO). Without written consent of the person concerned, the test may be authorised
only by a judge, unless there is a risk of imminent danger, in which case the prosecution and its investigators
may also order the test (section 81 f [1] StPO). The storage of a DNA sample for identification in the future is
authorized by section 81 g StPO. If the accused is suspected of a crime of special importance or an offence
cf. KLEVER p. 64 ff, 122 ff., and 174 ff., with further references.
BVerfG NJW 2006, 1939.
20 BGHSt. 37, 157 (159 f.).
21 BEULKE margin no. 242 with further references.
18
19
- 167 -
Germany
against sexual self-determination, samples of cells may be taken from him for the purpose of identification in
future criminal proceedings. These cells may be sent for molecular genetic examination in order to establish
identifying markers in the DNA, as well as the gender of the suspect, provided that the nature of the crime, or the
carrying out of the offence, or the personality of the accused, or other findings give reason to believe that criminal
proceedings against the accused for crimes of special importance may be brought in the future (section 81 g [1]
sentence 1 StPO). An acquittal or dismissing the charge later on does not affect the legality of the measure. The
storage and the use of a DNA identification in future criminal proceedings is inadmissible, if the reasons for the
judgment reveal that the affected person did not commit the offence or had a legal justification for committing it
(section 8 [3] of the Act on the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the cooperation of Bund and Länder
in criminal police affairs).22
ff. Data retention, sections 113 a and 113 b TKG, 100 g StPO
Data retention is a practice in the context of telecommunications surveillance, whereby, without a reasonable
suspicion, the communication data of all citizens who use the various means of telecommunication is stored.
According to the old legal position, the telecommunications service providers were authorised under the telecommunications law (Telekommunikationsgesetz [TKG]) to store communications traffic data for the purpose of
billing, provided the customer did not claim anonymisation. This data could, pursuant to section 100 g StPO, be
retrieved retrospectively. In compliance with an EU directive (2006/24/EG), the law was amended and given
effect as from 1st January 2008. The amendment stipulates that the providers of publicly available telecommunications services are henceforth required to store for six months certain communications traffic data and location
data that accrue during the use of telephones, mobile phones, Email and internet (section 113 a [1] TKG). Section 113 b of the TKG regulates the use of stored data. According to this provision, data stored in the database
can be retrieved for the purpose of criminal prosecutions, defence against serious threats to public safety, and
conduct of intelligence service operations. However, the provision itself does not authorise the retrieval of data.
Instead, section 113 b TKG requires the observance of other legal provisions in regard to the retrieval of data
under section 113 a TKG. Section 100 g StPO refers to section 113 a TKG, thus allowing a request for information for the purpose of criminal proceedings. — The retention of communications traffic data has been criticised in
the literature both in the context of constitutional law and the criminal process.23 In response to an appeal on a
constitutional matter, the Federal Constitutional Court24 ordered, as an interim measure, that, although the data
must be collected, it may be provided to the law enforcement agency that requested the data only when the
offence under investigation is a "serious criminal offence" under section 100 a (2) StPO (cf. 2 a bb. above), and
when, in addition, the requirements set out in section 100 a (1) StPO are fulfilled, i.e. the individual case in question is serious, the suspicion is based on definite facts, and the investigation would otherwise be seriously hampered or hopeless. Until the decision on the main issue, the forwarding of data for the purpose of danger prevention or conduct of intelligence service operations is not permitted. The reason for this decision is that the retention
of data represents a serious inroad into the protection of telecommunication secrets in the Basic Law (Art. 10 [1]
GG).
b. Reform of the legal framework in regard to prevention
aa Anti-Terror file
The so-called anti-terror file is a data base which was legally established in 2006. It is a shared data base for
various German law enforcement agencies: Federal Intelligence Service (BND), Military Counter-Intelligence
Service (MAD), Federal Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Customs Criminological Office, State Bureaus for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV), as well as federal
and state police authorities, in particular state criminal investigation departments. In accordance with the Federal
Ministry of the Interior further law-enforcing police authorities may participate, if fighting against international
terrorism pertains to their functions (§ 1 [2] Anti-Terror-File Act [ATDG]). The database serves to facilitate the
exchange of information on people who are known to belong to a terrorist organisation, or to support such an
KRAUSE in: Löwe-Rosenberg § 81 g, margin no. 25, 68.
PUSCHKE/SINGELNSTEIN NJW 2008, 113 (117 ff.) with further references.
24 BVerfG DVBl. 2008, 569.
22
23
- 168 -
Germany
organisation, or favour violence as a means of achieving their religious or political ideals (e.g. those preaching
hatred) (section 2 sentence 1 no. 1 and 2 [ATDG]). Furthermore, possible contacts, organisations, enterprises
and donations are added to the data of those suspected of involvement in international terrorism (section 2 sentence 1 no. 3 and 4 ATDG). In regard to the stored data, a distinction must be made between basic data - that is
the name and further individual identifying features such as place of birth, address and nationality - and the more
extensive basic data (section 3 ATDG). The latter may be retrieved only with the consent of the authority storing
the data, or in a case requiring the speedy averting of a public danger. This data includes telecommunications
connections, bank details and religious affiliation. Furthermore there is the possibility of an additional text field for
the inclusion of non-standardized, theoretically unlimited information, provided that it is appropriate in the individual case after due assessment of the circumstances and if it is essential for obtaining information on or fighting
against international terrorism (section 3 [1] no. 1 lit. b rr ATDG). The right of access to this data is granted to the
law enforcement agencies named above, in so far as this is necessary for the fulfilment of their respective duties
in the fight against international terrorism (section 5 [1] sentence 1 ATDG). — In the literature, the regulations
concerning the Anti-Terror file, in the context of the principles of clarity and certainty, as well as proportionality,
have been the subject of criticism.25 Moreover, the ATDG is said to contradict the requirement of a strict separation of police and intelligence services.26
bb. Police law
In principle, police law and its execution pertain to the functions of the federal states (cf. Art. 30, 70 [1] and 83
GG), because the Grundgesetz allocates only select legislative and administrative powers to the Bund. Pursuant
to Art. 73 no. 5, Art. 87 (1) sentence 2 GG, the Bund has the legislative and administrative power concerning the
federal police (formerly known as Bundesgrenzschutz), which is mainly responsible for frontier protection and air
traffic protection (sections 2 and 4 Federal Police Act). The Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation is also a
federal authority (cf. Art. 73 no. 10, Art. 87 Abs. 1 S. 2 GG), whose major function is to support federal and state
police authorities in preventing and prosecuting crime of federal, international or major importance (section 2 [1]
of the Act on the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the cooperation of Bund and Länder in criminal
police affairs). — The police law of the individual federal states has, since the beginning of the 1990s, contained
rules on special methods of secret information gathering for use in averting dangers, where the person concerned is unaware that the individual measure is a police one or is unaware of the measure altogether. Among
these are the use of undercover agents, professional police informers and observations. The rules in the police
law in regard to undercover agents are very similar to those in the code of criminal procedure (cf. 2 a cc above).27
— In the wake of the terror attacks of September 11th 2001, additional special methods of information gathering
were introduced or expanded. Thus, regulations for preventative telecommunications surveillance and recording
were introduced into the police law of a number of states. In view of the gravity of the intervention, the measures
are permitted only as a last resort in the averting of particularly serious threats to important legally protected
interests, e.g. in the case of a present danger to a person of loss of life or liberty, or a threat of serious injury.28 —
The comparison of data by computer (Rasterfahndung) was also introduced, as a special authorisation, into the
police law of the states to aid in the averting of dangers. The Rasterfahndung permits the retrieval of personal
data from non-local databases and the comparison of this data with that in police or other files; the legal prerequisites for the Rasterfahndung differ from state to state.29 — Since the mid-1990s, a system of random police
checks, the so-called Schleierfahndung, has gradually been added to the police law of increasing numbers of
ROGGAN/BERGEMANN NJW 2007, 876 (877) with further references.
This requirement prescribes a strict organizational and functional separation of police and intelligence services. For example, intelligence services must not use the coercive measures which police have at their disposal, and they are no prosecution
authority (KUTSCHA in: Handbuch Innere Sicherheit S. 80 f.; ROGGAN/BERGEMANN NJW 2007, 876 [ib.]).
27 Cf. Art. 33 BayPAG (Bavaria); s. 35 BremPolG (Bremen); s. 26 ASOG (Berlin); s. 16 HSOG (Hesse); s. 33 SOG M-V
(Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) and RACHOR in: Handbuch des Polizeirechts F margin no. 302 with further references.
28 Cf. Art. 34 a (1) no. 1 BayPAG (Bavaria); s. 15 a (1) HSOG (Hesse); s. 33 a (1) NdsSOG (Lower Saxony); s. 31 (1)
RhPfPOG (Rhineland-Palatinate) and SCHENKE margin no. 197 c with further references.
29 Cf. Art. 44 BayPAG (Bavaria); s. 38 RhPfPOG (Rhineland-Palatinate); s. 44 SOG M-V (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern); s. 40
BWPolG (Baden-Württemberg); s. 45 a NdsSOG (Lower Saxony) and SCHENKE margin no. 213 a with further references.
25
26
- 169 -
Germany
states. This is a form of random identification of people, which, in light of the abolition of border controls according to the Schengen Agreement, aims to tackle organised crime and terrorism. These random checks are at the
forefront of concrete protective measures, which are often carried out on thoroughfares such as German motorways or main European roads. — Most police laws on the state level now contain a legal basis for data collection
in or from private homes. Images or conversations of a person can be recorded by means of technical appliances
(cameras or microphones) installed either inside or outside the home. The prerequisites for the carrying out of
these measures vary from state to state.30
cc. Air safety
On 11th May 2005, air safety legislation (Luftsicherheitsgesetz [LuftSiG]) came into force. This legislation aims to
prevent (terror) attacks on or hijacking of aircraft. Section 5 regulates the security checks of people and objects at
airports. Section 7 restricts the conducting of reliability testing to certain people. Sections 8 and 9 set out the
safety precautions to be implemented by both airport and airline companies. Section 11 details objects which
may not be carried in hand luggage. — Section 14 (3) LuftSiG empowered the armed forces to lock aircraft
where there is an intention to use that plane as a weapon to destroy human life – even if hostages were on board
–, provided that this was the only way to avert the existing danger. On 15th February 2006, the Federal Constitutional Court31 ruled that this provision is unconstitutional and invalidated it on the ground that it violates the basic
rights to life (Art. 2 [2] GG) and human dignity (Art. 1 GG).
dd. Immigration law
In the fight against terrorism, the law of immigration has also been toughened. By virtue of section 53 no. 5
(membership or support of terrorist organisations) and section 54 no. 6 of the Residence Act (false or incomplete
statements concerning connections with terrorist organisations), a ground specific to terrorism is no longer necessary for deportation.
ee. Powers of intelligence services to retrieve information
Following the terror attacks of 11th September 2001, the powers of the intelligence services (Federal Intelligence
Service, Military Counter-Intelligence Service, Federal Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution) were extended. Most notable is the newly regulated power to access information in section 8 a of the Protection of the
Federal Constitution Act (BVerfSchG). The Federal Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution is empowered in
the Act, within the framework of its official duties, to retrieve data from services and companies such as the
postal and telecommunications services, aviation companies, credit institutions and financial service companies.
According to section 4 a of the Military Counter-Intelligence Service Act (MADG) and section 2 a of the Federal
Intelligence Service Act (BNDG), this power is also granted to the Military Counter-Intelligence Service and the
Federal Intelligence Service.
c. Reform plans: Online-searching
The term online-searching describes a covert form of searching of electronic data processing systems by means
of specially developed software programmes. These “spy programmes” are installed by law enforcement agencies, via the internet or on the spot after entering the private home secretly, into certain computers, where they
facilitate the spying out of stored data and the use of the internet or the sending of emails.32 In its decision of 31st
January 200733, the Federal Supreme Court held that this method of criminal investigation does not comply with
the code of criminal procedure’s existing legal requirements justifying such intervention and may not therefore be
performed. Nevertheless, policy makers adhere to their conviction that this measure is necessary. A new draft bill
allows online searching (section 20 k of the draft bill on averting the dangers of international terrorism by the
Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigation). It does not, however, permit entry into the home of a suspect for the
Art. 34 BayPAG (Bavaria); s. 28 a SaarlPolG (Saarland); s. 15 Abs. 4 HSOG (Hesse); s. 23 BWPolG (Baden-Württemberg);
s. 40 SächsPolG (Sachsen) and SCHENKE margin no. 193 ff., 195 with further references.
31 BVerfGE 115, 118.
32 However, controlling the communication by e-mail is already possible by surveillance of telecommunications (s. 100 a and b
StPO; cf. I 2 a bb above).
33 Federal Supreme Court (BGH) NJW 2007, 930.
30
- 170 -
Germany
purpose of installing spy programmes onto computers. — On the state level, North Rhine-Westphalia was the
first state to authorise (in late 2006) online searching for the protection of its constitution. In section 5 (2) no. 11 of
the Protection of the Constitution of North Rhine-Westphalia Act (VSG-NRW), the Bureau for the Protection of
the Constitution is permitted to engage in secret observation and surveillance of the internet, as well as secret
accessing of information technology systems. In its ruling of 27th February 2008, the Federal Constitutional Court
held this provision to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the general right of privacy. In the view of
the court, online searching is permissible only when a legally protected interest of paramount importance, such
as human life or the continuity of the state is materially threatened. In addition, adequate measures must be
taken to avoid intrusions into the strictly protected innermost sphere of private life, and the measure may be
carried out only on the order of a judge. — The new Bavarian police law also allows online searching (Art. 34 d, e
Bavarian Act on Police Functions [BayPAG]). Art. 34 e sentence 1 BayPAG contains the right to enter the home
of the affected person without his consent. Yet it is dubitable and disputed, whether these new provisions were
constitutional. A plaint has been raised against them before the Federal Constitutional Court. — Online searching
has often been criticised in the literature as too extensive an encroachment on personal freedom.34 It has also
been objected that there may be technical difficulties and that the discovered data cannot be utilized in criminal
procedure, because installing spy programmes alone means a modification of the target system and it cannot be
ruled out that third parties could also have access to the system.35
d. Criticism in the Literature
Many in the literature have expressed concerns regarding the increasing power of the intelligence services. Their
primary criticism is that civil liberties are progressively being curtailed in exchange for unfulfillable promises of
safety.36 The expansion of the new German security apparatus, they claim, represents a crossing of the boundary into a surveillance system.37
3. a. The principle of officiality (offizialprinzip) dictates that the criminal process, from the first stage to the execution of the sentence, is a matter for the state. According to section 152 (1) StPO, the principle of officiality attaches when the prosecution is called to bring criminal charges. The enforcement of the substantive criminal law
through a criminal prosecution is an official process. The criminal process differs fundamentally from the civil
process, in that, according to the principles of party disposition (dispositionsmaxime), the initiation and conducting of the civil process is a matter for the citizens involved. An exception to the principle of officiality is the socalled privatklagedelikt (offence that can be prosecuted privately), when the victim of the crime can conduct the
prosecution without a state prosecutor (e.g. trespass [123 StGB]).
b. According to the principle of accusation (Akkusationsprinzip), a criminal case may be brought to court and tried
only where charges have been raised (section 151 StPO). Moreover, the court may investigate and sentence
only the specific charges brought (section 155 StPO).
c. The legality principle (Legalitätsprinzip) places an obligation upon the prosecution to begin an investigation
where there is a reasonable suspicion, and to bring charges where an initial assessment of the case suggests
that the prosecution will probably lead to a conviction (hinreichender Tatverdacht). The legality principle is entrenched in sections 152 (1) and 170 (1) StPO). — In contrast to the legality principle, the opportunity principle
(Opportunitätsprinzip) holds that law enforcement agencies may decide whether or not to prosecute according to
their own discretion. It exists as an exception in the German criminal procedure in section 153 and following
sections StPO (dismissing the charge) as well as in section 374 and following sections StPO (private criminal
action), furthermore in all criminal offences that are prosecuted only upon application by the victim (for example
unlawful entering another person`s home [section 123 StGB]). Especially if the criminal offences were committed
abroad or if they are directed against the state`s security, dismissing the charge is an option (cf. sections 153 c to
KUTSCHA NJW 2007, 1169 with further references.
HANSEN/PFITZMANN DRiZ 2007, 225 (227 f.).
36 ROGGAN/BERGMANN NJW 2007, 876 (880) with further references.
37 HIRSCH ZRP 2008, 24 (25).
34
35
- 171 -
Germany
153 f StPO).
d. Law enforcement agencies are obliged to investigate the facts of a case in an official capacity. The so-called
principle of investigation (Untersuchungsgrundsatz) is entrenched in sections 155 (2), 160 (2) and 244 (2) StPO.
— The main civil process maxim, in contrast to the Untersuchungsgrundsatz, dictates that it is for the parties to
decide which facts to introduce in a civil dispute (Verhandlungsmaxime). It plays only a minor role in the German
criminal procedure: The accused is free to testify or even to confess as well as to propose a motion for the admission of evidence, which the court cannot deny arbitrarily (cf. sections 244 and 245 StPO).
e. The principle of free judicial evaluation of evidence (Grundsatz der freien richterlichen Beweiswürdigung) is
regulated by section 261 StPO. According to this, the court may reach its verdict, following the presentation of
evidence in an oral hearing, according to its own discretion. — The same provision also provides for the principle
of oral proceedings (Grundsatz der Mündlichkeit). This maxim expresses the requirement that the crime reconstruction is not to be conducted through the review of documents behind closed doors, but instead in the presence of all concerned parties. Thus, the session must be in the form of an oral hearing.
f. A further principle applying to the criminal trial is the principle of directness (Grundsatz der Unmittelbarkeit),
which is provided for in sections 226 (1), 250 and 261 StPO. The court is to form as direct a picture of the crime
as possible. Pursuant to sections 226 (1) StPO, the court must be in attendance without interruption for the entire
period of the trial. During the crime reconstruction, the most direct evidence should be used. Concerning this
point, there are special rules on the evidence by witnesses: It is only admissible as a special exception to read
the record or to play the video recording of a former examination instead of directly questioning the witness.
g. Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt (in dubio pro reo) is an additional principle within the German
criminal process. The accused may be punished only if he is guilty; and guilt must be proved, according to the
requirements of due process, to the satisfaction of the court (section 261 StPO). In case of doubt, the accused
must be acquitted. This principle is not expressly provided for in law. Article 6 (2) ECHR, which provides for the
presumption of innocence, and section 261 StPO are often cited as legal foundations for the principle.38
h. The requirement of fairness in criminal proceedings (fair-trial principle) follows from the principle of the rule of
law and can be derived from Art. 1 (1), Art. 2 (2) sentence 2, Art. 20 (3), Art. 101 (1) sentence 2, Art. 103 (1) GG
taken together; as well as Art. 6 (1) sentence 1 ECHR.
i. The legal judge principle, laid down in Art. 101 GG, holds that nobody may be deprived of a legal judge
(Grundsatz des gesetzlichen Richters). Special courts are forbidden. As a result of the principle, objective and
general rules regarding the jurisdiction of the criminal courts are required. Nevertheless, there are specialized
and specially composed courts for certain criminal offences. In particular, that is the case for offences against the
state`s security and for economic offences (cf. sections 74 a and 74 c Judicature Act [GVG]).
j. All defendants have the right to be heard in court (Art. 103 [1] GG). The accused must be given the opportunity
to answer the charges against him.
k. The requirement of the speedy conducting of criminal proceedings derives from Art. 2 (2) sentence 2 GG, in
combination with the rule of law (Art. 20 [3] GG). Since criminal proceedings burden the accused and seriously
restrict his liberties, he has a right to a hearing and resolution within an appropriate period (cf. Art. 6 [1] sentence
1 ECHR). An overly long period is not a ground for dismissing the charge, but it may lead to a reduction of the
execution of the sentence.39
l. The principle of publicity (Grundsatz der Öffentlichkeit) is laid down in section 169 sentence 1 GVG. According
to the principle, anyone is entitled to be present at the trial. This guarantees the public nature of the trial. Exceptions to the principle are regulated in section 169 sentence 2 and section 170 and following sections of the GVG,
among these provisions to protect witnesses and state secrets.
4. a. As noted in 3 g (above), an accused may be punished only if his guilt has been proved, according to due
process, to the satisfaction of the court (section 261 StPO). Where an element of the offence or the guilt of the
38
39
In detail T. WALTER JZ 2006, 340.
BGH GS NJW 2008, 860.
- 172 -
Germany
accused is in doubt, the accused must be acquitted. The principle of giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt
(in dubio pro reo) is clearly applicable in the questions of guilt and punishment within the criminal process. — The
further scope of the principle is disputed. According to case law, it only applies exceptionally to procedural requirements: to facts concerning the limitation period (mainly the time of the deed), concerning the existence of a
criminal complaint and concerning the question of further pendency and ne bis in idem.40 In the case of other
procedural errors41, the defendant is not given the benefit of the doubt.
b. The principle that nobody is required to accuse himself or be a witness against himself, the so-called nemotenetur principle, is derived by the courts from the general right of privacy of the accused (Art. 2 [1] in combination with Art. 1 GG), as well as from the principle of the rule of law (Art. 20 [3] GG).42 The right to silence is afforded to the accused. The nemo-tenetur principle applies as the overriding legal principle for the entire criminal
process.43 The principle is expressly provided for in section 136 (1) sentence 2 StPO for the accused, and in
section 55 (1) StPO for witnesses.
5. In principle, the German criminal procedure does not provide for a distinction between citizens and noncitizens, nationals and non-nationals, or specific categories of subjects. Pursuant to section 18 and following
sections GVG, German jurisdiction does not include foreign diplomats and members of consular representations.
According to section 153 c (1) no. 2 StPO, the public prosecutor can refrain from prosecuting an offence, which a
foreigner committed in Germany on a foreign ship or aircraft. Pursuant to section 185 (1) GVG, an interpreter
must be engaged when a participant in the process does not speak German.
6. The basic law does not provide for any general curtailing of basic rights in a state of emergency. However,
different restrictions are provided for according to whether the emergency is internal or external. — An internal
emergency could be constituted by a natural catastrophe or a particularly serious disaster (Katastrophennotstand), or when violent rioting threatens the continuity of or the free democratic basic order of the federation or of
a state (Verfassungsnotstand).44 In such cases, the basic rights of freedom of movement (Art. 11 [2] GG), inviolability of the home (Art. 13 [4] and [7] GG), and secrecy of telecommunications (Abs. 10 [2] GG) may be curtailed. — An external emergency may be provoked by a dangerous external situation or a military threat from
abroad. This does not include terror attacks committed in Germany by foreign nationals.45 Even in the case of
defence, the basic law does not allow for any generalised restriction of basic rights. An important curtailment of
liberties in the case of an external emergency is contained within Art. 12 a, subsections 3 - 6 GG, in which service obligations are regulated. For the case of defence, Art. 115 c (2) GG provides for a relaxation of the prohibition against expropriation and deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, the rights to freedom of movement (Art. 11 [2]
GG, as well as Art. 17 a [2] GG) and inviolability of the home (Art. 13 [4] and [7] GG, and Art. 17 a [2] GG) may
be restricted in case of an external emergency. — The above curtailment of constitutional rights is a matter of
lawful statutory restriction of basic rights. Details such as jurisdiction and exact procedures are regulated in the
respective statutes. Measures used on the basis of these legal provisions may be challenged through the normal
legal channels.
It is not possible to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings in the case of an emergency.
7. The German legal system does not recognise special measures by which parts of the legislation and/ or parts
of the criminal process may be classified. If there is a danger to the state`s security, the public may be excluded
from the trial (section 172 No. 1 GVG). But there are no limitations to the defending counsel`s right to inspect
files.
8. In Germany, the requirement of a separation of police and intelligence services applies. Both organisationally
and functionally, they are strictly separated and are consequently independent of one another. This also applies
in regard to the exchange of information. The transfer of data between police and secret services is restricted to
BGHSt. 46, 349 (352); 47, 138 (147).
BGHSt. 16, 164 (167).
42 BGHSt. 38, 214 (220).
43 MEYER-GOSSNER Einl. margin no. 29 a.
44 HOPFAUF in: Hofmann/Hopfauf before Art. 115 a, margin no. 24.
45 HOPFAUF in; Hopfauf before Art. 115 a, margin no. 25.
40
41
- 173 -
Germany
legally regulated individual cases.46 The Anti Terror File, which was introduced in 2006 (described in 2 b aa
above), was a breach of this separation. The police may retrieve information stored by the intelligence services,
in so far as this is necessary in the fulfilment of their duty to investigate and fight international terrorism.
9. a. Pursuant to section 112 (1) StPO, the accused may be taken into custody, if there is both a strong suspicion
of a criminal act47 and a specific reason for the detention, and if the detention is not out of proportion to the importance of the offence and to the expected sentence. As possible reasons for detention the law enumerates
flight, risk of flight and risk of collusion. In the case of certain serious offences48, risk of recurrence is a reason for
detention as well. — The confiscation of objects (cf. section 74 [3] StGB) also belongs to the preventative coercive measures. If the perpetrator committed the criminal offence intentionally but without guilt, objects may be
confiscated, which spring from the offence or which were used during it or intended to perpetrate or prepare the
offence, provided that these objects, owing to their nature and the circumstances, threaten general public, or
provided that there is a danger these objects may serve for committing other offences. — Section 74 d StGB is of
preventative character, too. It regulates on confiscating criminal publications (legal definition in section 11 [3]
StGB, including tapes and electronic storage devices) and on rendering devices unserviceable which have been
used for their production (for example plates, moulds, stencils). — In recent years, criminal offences of preventative character were introduced into the substantive criminal law, such as section 129 a StGB (forming terrorist
organisations), section 310 StGB (preparation of an explosion or radiation offence) and section 328 StGB (illegal
use of radioactive material and other dangerous material and goods). As usual, the suspicion of such an offence
authorizes law enforcement agencies to use the regular instruments of investigation regulated in the StPO. Since
offences of the said kind do not violate legally protected interests but may be aimed at preparing their violation,
the prosecution has a preventative effect.
9. b. In view of the repressive nature of police activity, namely the conducting of criminal prosecutions, section
136 a StPO prohibits any restriction of the accused’s free exercise of will through mistreatment, sleep deprivation, physical assault, administration of substances, torture, deception or hypnosis. Coercion may be employed
only to the extent that the law allows. The threat of such measures is also unlawful. There is general agreement
that the threatening of torture by the police, even in the prevention of crime or in the averting of a danger, is
impermissible and unlawful.49 — There is, however, disagreement in the literature as to whether an exception to
the absolute prohibition of torture should be made in extreme situations, such as when the use of torture or comparable measures appears to be the only way to save the lives of others (preventative torture). A minority would
argue that this is acceptable on the ground that the state should do all in its power to save the lives of those in
danger; and that, if necessary, the use of psychological or physical pressure may also be justified.50 The majority
view, however, is that, even in extreme situations, no exception to the absolute prohibition of torture should be
made.51 This position is derived from national (Art. 104 [1] sentence 2 GG and section 136 a StPO) and international law (Arts. 3 and 15 ECHR, and the UN Convention Against Torture). The courts also tend to this view.52
10. a. For the purpose of danger prevention, the police have considerable powers at their disposal, which may
involve incursions into the private lives of citizens. The police- and order laws of every state contain a legal basis
for the entry to and searching of homes.53 Some states allow the use of technological means, such as cameras
and microphones, for the surveillance of homes, as well as preventative telephone surveillance (cf. 2 b bb
KUTSCHA in: Handbuch Innere Sicherheit S. 80 f.; ROGGAN/BERGEMANN NJW 2007, 876 (876 f.).
A strong suspicion of a criminal act requires high probability that the accused is the perpetrator or participant (cf. section 25
and following sections StGB) of a criminal offence (MEYER-GOßNER § 112, margin no. 5).
48 Over 30 criminal offences altogether, for example sexual abuse of children (s. 176 StGB), sexual coercion and rape (s. 177
StGB).
49 BEULKE margin no. 134 a; RACHOR in: Handbuch Polizeirecht F margin no. 922 ff.
50 BRUGGER JZ 2000, 165 (167 f.); KÜHL § 32 margin no. 17 a with further references.
51 Cf. BEULKE margin no. 134 a with further references.
52 A police officer who threatens a kidnapper with torture to find out the whereabouts of the abducted child, would be convicted of assault (LG Frankfurt am Main NJW 2005, 692 [694 f.]).
53 SCHENKE margin no. 152.
46
47
- 174 -
Germany
above). — There are also regulations on data processing in the police laws of every state.54 These provisions
allow the police to store, modify and use personal data for the purpose for which it was obtained. For any other
purpose, the data may be used only where the law allows the police to retrieve it for that particular purpose. The
use of data, particularly the comparison of data, is facilitated by the Police Information System (INPOL), which is
operated on both the federal and state levels.55 — The law concerning the three German intelligence services
(Federal Intelligence Service, Military Counter- Intelligence Service, Federal Bureau for the Protection of the
Constitution and State Bureaus for the Protection of the Constitution) also contains provisions dealing with the
storage of the personal data required for the fulfilment of secret service duties (sections 10 and 11 Protection of
the Federal Constitution Act, section 6 Military Counter-Intelligence Service Act, and section 4 Federal Intelligence Service Act).
b. The police laws of every state contain provisions for the taking of people into custody as a preventative measure.56 According to these provisions, a person may be taken into custody in order to prevent him from seriously
injuring or killing himself, or where it is necessary in order to prevent the imminent committing or continuing of a
very dangerous crime. — In the course of the fight against terrorism, immigration law has also been tightened.
Terrorist-specific grounds for expulsion have been included in the catalogue of the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz). Pursuant to this, a foreign national may normally be deported if he belongs to or supports a terrorist
organisation (section 54 no. 5 Residence Act), or if he provides significantly false or incomplete details of his
connections with terrorist organisations (section 54 no. 6 Residence Act). — According to section 112 a StPO, a
person may be taken into custody when there is a strong suspicion that he has committed certain serious crimes,
and when there is, in addition, a risk that the crimes will be repeated. — Following section 66 StGB, under certain
circumstances, preventative detention of a person who has committed a serious crime may be ordered if he is
considered to be a danger to the general public. The preventative detention is ordered in addition to any punishment as a safety measure. It is a so-called measure for improvement and safety. If certain serious offences57
have been committed, preventative detention can be ordered even after trial, provided that – amongst other
prerequisites – facts indicating the offender`s high danger to the public are revealed and a due assessment of the
circumstances comes to the result that the perpetrator is very likely to commit serious criminal offences again in
the future, causing severe physical or psychological damage to a victim (section 66 b [1] StPO).
11. a. The powers of law enforcement agencies have, over the past 20 years, been progressively expanded. The
new security apparatus was originally established for the purpose of fighting the Rote-Armee-Fraktion, later this
was expanded to organised crime, too. Since the terror attacks of 11th September 2001, the threat posed by
international terrorism has been under discussion. Legislators have become more active, particularly in the area
of secret acquisition of information by prosecuting authorities. In this context, regulations authorising surveillance
(the great surveillance) and the use of undercover agents have been introduced. Further important new legal
measures are listed in 2 a above.
b. The German legal system has not increased the duties of those under investigation to cooperate with law
enforcement agencies.
12. The increase of powers afforded to law enforcement agencies does not generally imply an alteration in the
balance of powers in favour of prosecuting authorities and at the expense of the judiciary. Coercive measures
can be authorised by the police (as investigators for the prosecution), by the prosecution itself or by a judge. The
more invasive the measure in terms of private rights, the higher the level of authority needed for the issuing of the
order. For example, the surveillance and recording of telecommunications may be authorised only by a judge - or
in the case of imminent danger, by a prosecutor (section 100 b [1] sentences 1 and 2 StPO). The “great surveillance” (sections 100 c and 100 d StPO), which represents a more profound intrusion into the private sphere, may
SCHENKE margin no. 205 ff.
SCHENKE margin no. 211.
56 For example Art. 17 – 20 BayPAG (Bavaria); s. 28 BWPolG (Baden-Württemberg); s. 32 to 35 HSOG (Hesse); s. 22 SächsPolG (Saxony); cf. SCHENKE margin no. 141 with further references.
57 For example offences against life, freedom and sexual self-determination.
54
55
- 175 -
Germany
be authorised through an application to a special chamber of a regional court; or in the case of imminent danger,
through the judge alone (section 100 d [1] and [2] StPO). — Requirements such as these seek to provide judicial
control over law enforcement agencies before measures can be used. This judicial control aims to minimise the
risk of violations of private rights.
13. At some courts, special public prosecutor`s offices for the prosecution of certain kinds of criminal offences
have been established, e.g. offences against the state`s security and economic offences. The prosecution of
terrorism pertains to the functions of the Federal Public Prosecutor. According to section 142 a (1) GVG, he is the
competent public prosecutor for serious offences against the state`s security, which affect to a high degree the
country`s internal or external security. Further specialization and / or centralization of the judicial investigative
authorities did not take place in Germany.
14. In Germany, the rules on the respective topics have not been changed. — There are no possibilities of secret
arrest, detention, deportation or extraordinary rendition without habeas corpus. At the arrest of a person and at
every further decision as to the continued detention of that person, a relative or other person close to the suspect
is to be informed without delay (section 114 b StPO).
15. Since January 1st 2008, data retention (Vorratsdatenspeicherung), provided for in sections 113 a and 113 b
TKG and 100g StPO, has been in use in Germany. This is a process of telecommunications surveillance that
requires no reasonable suspicion. According to section 113 a TKG, providers of telecommunications services are
henceforth required to store, for a period of six months, communications traffic data and location data that accrue
in the course of telephone, mobile phone, E-mail or internet use (cf. the more detailed 2 a ff). The powers of the
intelligence services (Federal Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution, Federal Intelligence Service, Military
Counter-Intelligence Service) are empowered to retrieve this data within the framework of their official duties (cf. I
2 b ee).
16 a. Evidence collected prior to trial is subject to judicial control. Evidence that was obtained unlawfully may be
excluded, i.e. may not be considered by the court when reaching its verdict. Legal provisions expressly forbid the
use of evidence in trial where, for example, it is discovered by chance through telephone surveillance, if that trial
concerns a criminal offence in relation to which telephone surveillance may not be ordered (section 100 [5] StPO;
cf. I 2 a aa above) or where, under the “great surveillance”, recordings in the private sphere are made (section
100 c [5] sentence 3 StPO). The exclusion of evidence may also be ordered in the absence of express legal
provisions. In this case, a weighing of the interest in prosecuting (severity of the crime, chances of solving the
case) against conflicting interests is required. Indications for an (unwritten) exclusion include a serious incursion
into the rights of the accused, or where such is needed as a disciplinary measure to discourage certain practices
of prosecuting authorities. For example, written notes of the accused, especially diaries, may not be used as
evidence, if they belong to the strictly protected innermost sphere of private life.58 — Where evidence was acquired unlawfully – and, as a result of this, a further piece of evidence is discovered – the US “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” does not apply. The original violation of law does not automatically render the subsequently
discovered evidence inadmissible. The court will consider the circumstances of the individual case and the nature
of the prohibition.59
b. The same principles apply in the area of serious crime.
17. In the context of the German criminal procedure, evidence acquired abroad is admissible. 60 Section 247 a
StPO allows for the testimony of a witness via video conference. Section 244 (5) sentence 2 StPO provides that
a motion to hear evidence from a witness whose court summons was effected abroad may be rejected if the
court is of the opinion that the hearing of the witness is not necessary for the discovery of the truth.
18. A steady expansion of the power of law enforcement agencies and a resultant outcry (sparked by the writings
of critics; see 2 d and 11 above) have been observable in recent years. However, due process in the criminal
process has not been lost. The cornerstones described under 3 above, still apply.
BVerfGE 80, 367 (373).
BGHSt. 29, 244 (249).
60 Concerning the problem of making use of evidence, which was acquired abroad illegally, cf. GLESS JR 2008, 317.
58
59
- 176 -
Germany
19. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains regulations for the protection of witnesses (and therewith for the
protection of the victim). According to section 68 (2) StPO, a witness may be permitted to withhold the details of
his/her domicile if, by supplying these details, he/she, or another person may be brought into danger. Where
there is a danger of loss of life or liberty, or serious injury, the witness may refrain from giving any personal details, or may only give details of any previous identity (section 68 [3] sentence 1 StPO). — In addition, the Federal
Act on Harmonising Witness Protection (ZSHG) of 11th December 2001 provides further protection for witnesses.
For the concealment of a witness’s identify, special witness protection agencies have been established, at whose
request certificates or other documents can be produced for the purpose of creating or preserving a temporary
false identity (section 5 [1] and [2] ZSHG). Moreover, the statute stipulates that, as well as the witness, relatives
and people close to the accused may also be afforded protection (section 1 [2] and [3] ZSHG). — There are no
special regulations concerning the concealment of the identity of judges and lay assessors.
20. The jurisdiction of the courts of first instance in criminal proceedings depends on the severity of the expected
sentence. The court and the prosecution have discretion in predicting the sentence. The structure of the courts is
on four levels: Amtsgericht (Local Court), Landgericht (Regional Court), Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional
Court) and Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court). The Amtsgericht is exclusively a court of first instance,
while the Bundesgerichtshof has only appellate jurisdiction. The Amtsgericht (single judge or court with lay assessors) hears cases where the sentence is predicted to be not more than four years (section 24 [1] no. 2 GVG).
A single judge tries minor offences that are not expected to be punished with more than two years’ imprisonment
(section 25 no. 2 GVG). Other cases are heard by the Schöffengericht (court of lay assessors), which, following
section 29 (1) GVG, is composed of one professional judge and two lay justices (Schöffen). Where the anticipated sentence is higher than four years’ imprisonment, the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Oberlandesgericht (Grand Criminal Division). According to section 76 (1) sentence 1 GVG, the Grand Criminal Division is
composed of three professional judges and two lay justices (Schöffen). Regardless of the anticipated sentence,
the Landgericht hears specified serious offences listed in section 74 (2) GVG (e.g. murder, manslaughter, bodily
harm with fatal consequences, rape with fatal consequences etc), together with certain offences related to corporate crime (section 74 c GVG), and against the security of the state (section 74 a GVG). For especially serious
crimes threatening state security, the Oberlandesgericht has, according to section 120 (1) and (2) GVG, jurisdiction as a court of first instance. The judicial panel in such cases, which is referred to as a senate, comprises five
professional judges. — Apart from the jurisdiction of the courts, there are no special rules for serious crimes in
the criminal process.
21. The principles described in 3. above also apply in regard to serious crime. Thus:
When dealing with serious offences, the German legal system fully provides for
• the right of the accused to an independent and impartial tribunal;
• the presumption of innocence at the trial;
• the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of the detention determined as
soon as possible. In the German criminal process the obligation to conduct the proceedings speedily
(Beschleunigungsgebot) applies (cf. 3 k above). This can be seen in provisions such as section 115 or 128 StPO,
according to which, a person arrested must be brought before a judge without delay. A further example of this are
the short time limits set by the StPO, such as the time limit for summoning a person in section 217 StPO. Pursuant to section 229 (1) StPO, the trial must basically not be interrupted for more than three weeks;
• the maxim in dubio pro reo;
• the right to a public trial in sections 169 and following sections of the Judicature Act (GVG); however, limitations are possible, e. g. where there is a danger to the state`s security (section 172 GVG no. 1 GVG);
• the right to a fair oral hearing and adversarial proceedings (section 261 StPO);
• the right to be present at the trial (section 230 [1] StPO). A trial in the absence of the accused is permissible
in only exceptional cases (section 231 [2], section 231 and following sections of the StPO);
- 177 -
Germany
• the right of counsel to have access to all criminal case records (section 147 StPO);
• the right to be informed without delay of the charges (section 136 (1) sentence 1 StPO);
• the right to full disclosure of the state’s case and to adequate time to prepare a defence. According to section
147 (1) StPO, the counsel for the defence has a right to inspect files. The accused himself does not have such a
right. However, the accused, who has no assistance of a lawyer, can be given information and copies, provided
that this does not endanger the investigation`s success and that third parties do not suffer more severely than the
accused would without the information (section 147 [5] StPO). — Pursuant to section 217 (1) StPO there must be
a period of time of at least one week between the serving of the summons and the day of the trial;
• the right to examine witnesses against oneself (section 240 [2] StPO); special measures for new cyber techniques (sections 58 a, 168 e and 247 a StPO);
• the right not to be a witness in proceedings against oneself (section 136 [1] sentence 2 GVG);
• the right to counsel. Throughout the proceedings, the accused has the right to the assistance of defence
counsel (section 137 [1] sentence 1 StPO). The accused is entitled to choose his counsel. In certain cases, the
involvement of defence counsel is obligatory (section 140 StPO), for example, when the accused is charged with
a serious crime. If necessary, counsel will be appointed;
• the right to remain silent (section 136 [1] sentence 2 StPO). The judge is obliged to inform the accused of his
right to silence before questioning him for the first time, even if the defendant had previously been informed of the
right in earlier questioning by the police or prosecution. Whether the accused already knew of the right is irrelevant. Information provided by the accused in answer to questioning by law enforcement agencies or the judge is
inadmissible unless the accused was informed of his right to silence before the questioning began. This does not
apply, however, when the accused had been made aware of the right through another source or where the defence counsel expressly consents to the admitting of the testimony or does not contradict the accused throughout
the hearing.61 — There are no limitations to the right to remain silent. However, the accused has to give personal
data which allow his identification and are not protected by this right (cf. section 111 Administrative Offences Act
[OWiG]).
• When the accused claims the right to silence, i.e. refuses to testify at all, no negative consequences may
result, since otherwise the accused would in effect be compelled to testify. This also applies to the “partial silence” of the accused, for example, when he initially remains silent but in the trial makes an exculpatory testimony. The situation is different when the accused testifies during the trial but omits to mention facts relevant to
the case or surrounding the case, or declines to answer certain questions. Through this form of “partial silence”,
the free judicial evaluation of evidence comes into play, which means that negative conclusions may be drawn.
22. In proceedings involving terrorism or other serious offences, the German system has not modified
- the right of a higher court to review the sentence;
- the prohibition of double jeopardy.
61
Consistent case law; cf. BGHSt. 42, 15 (22); 47, 172 (173).
- 178 -
Section III
HUNGARY*
Erika RÓTH & Herke CSONGOR
Part I1
conventions) apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of these international standards in your country? Can citizens (suspects, accused, victims, witnesses...) derive rights from these
Hungary ratified all important international human right treaties and incorporated them into internal law by acts.
- The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966) was ratified on 17
January 1974 and implemented into domestic law by Statutory Rule No. 8 of 1976 (entered into force on 22 April
1976);
- The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 December
1966) by Act XXIV of 1988 (entered into force on 29 November 1988);
- The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (New York, 15 December 1989) by Act II of 1995 (entered into force on 2 March 1995)
and last but not least
- The European Convention on Human Rights was ratified on 5 November 1992 and implemented it by Act XXXI
of 1993 (entered into force on 15 April 1993).
Thereby the Covenant and the Convention became applicable before Hungarian courts.
International conventions should be published in the Hungarian official journal by a statute and only after publishing are they applicable for administration of justice. It is the duty of the Hungarian Government (and in this field of
the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement) to prepare modifications of law creating harmony between rules
and requirements of international treaties and internal law. This work deeply concerned the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CCP) after accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.2 The first one means significant modification at the end of 1980’s, while the latter one made necessary amendments since the beginning of 1990’s. The
main stage of this work was the preparation and adoption of the Act XXVI of 1989 and Act XCII of 1994. The
modification process is a permanent one because the Hungarian Government keeps its eyes on the case law of
the European Human Rights Court and try to follow the requirements and avoid the risk to be “guilty” in the violation of the Convention.
1 By Erika Róth. Associate Professor, University of Miskolc, Faculty of Law, Institute of Criminal Sciences.
2 The author wrote more about the topic in: Erika RÓTH: Hungary. In Jaap VAN DER HULST (ed.) ECHR and Criminal Proceedings. The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Criminal Proceedings in the European Union. Printed at
the Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2001. pp. 29 - 43
*
- 179 -
Hungary
Neither rights of which limitation is prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
European Convention on Human Rights nor other fair trial rights should be limited in Hungarian Criminal Procedure, such as the right of the arrested person to be brought promptly before the judge, the right to compensation
of the unlawfully arrested or detained person, presumption of innocence.3
Article 8 para. 4 of the Constitution of Hungary allows limitation of certain rights during a state of national crisis,
state of emergency or state of danger, when the exercise of fundamental rights may be suspended or restricted,
with the exception of the following fundamental rights: the right to life and to human dignity; prohibition of torture
or cruel, inhuman or humiliating treatment or punishment; the right to freedom and personal security, the rules of
nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege, prohibition of retroactive force, the right to freedom of
thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion; the equality of men and women; mothers’ right to receive support and protection before and after the birth of the child; the protection of women and youth in the
workplace; children’s right to receive the protection and care; parents’ right to choose the form of education given
to their children; protection of the family and youth; rights of the national and ethnic minorities; protection of Hungarian citizens (citizenship, social support etc).
Procedural rights that could be derogated will be explained in point 21 of this national report.
Hungary became a State Party to the four Geneva Conventions in 1954 and to all the three Additional Protocols
in 1989 and in 2006 as well, without any reservation. According to the scope of application of International Humanitarian Law, namely that they shall be applied in the case of armed conflicts, the enforcement of these treaties have not had any relevance till today. There was only one exceptional situation, the 1956 uprising, which
raised several dilemmas regarding the accountability of perpetrators of grave breaches of the Geneva law. Two
significant decisions were taken by the Constitutional Court in this regard, namely decisions No. 53/1993 and
36/1996. Both of them were related to an act adopted by the Hungarian Parliament in 1993 about "The procedure
to follow in case of certain crimes committed during the 1956 war of independence and revolution" which interpreted the notions included in the 1949 Geneva Conventions in a failed way. Therefore, in the second (36/1996)
decision the Constitutional Court abolished the act and reaffirmed the conclusion declared in the first (53/1993)
decision, that the Geneva Conventions are directly applicable in the domestic law according to par 7 (1) of the
Hungarian Constitution. Moreover, the Court declared that statute of limitations cannot be adopted regarding
international crimes.
The most dominant internal event of the last two decades which has influence on the legislation in Hungary was
the political, social and economic transition in 1989. Thereafter changes in the criminal law and criminal procedural law were motivated by the demand for the achievement of constitutional and so called rule of law requirements.
Here we have to emphasize the outstanding role of the Constitutional Court which cancelled several rules of
criminal code and code of criminal procedure in the last – almost - twenty years. If the Constitutional Court annuls
a rule of law it means a modification itself, but in most cases an amendment will be prepared thereafter in order
to ensure the constitutional requirement but introduce a rule similar to the cancelled one.
The most important result in the field of criminal justice was the adoption of the new Code on Criminal Procedure
(Act XIX of 1998) which entered into force only on 1 July 2003 after some – sometimes very significant –
amendments. The Criminal Code was modified several times as well but until now the “old” code, Act IV of 1978
remains effective.
It was a very special solution that some provisions of the new Code were incorporated into the old one as a
modification in 1998 (Act LXXXVIII of 1998), especially those which may help to conduct the procedure more
effectively.
3 See about this question BÁRD Károly: Demokrácia – tisztességes eljárás – megismerés a büntetőperben. In: FARKAS Ákos
(ed.): Emlékkönyv Kratochwill Ferenc (1933-1993) tiszteletére. Bűnügyi Tudományi Közlemények 5. Bíbor Kiadó, Miskolc,
2003. p. 67.
- 180 -
Hungary
Concerning external effects that have influenced the legislation we have to mention – first of all - the joining the
Council of Europe and the European Union.
There is not task of this report to provide for a detailed chronology of the modification of Criminal Code and Code
of Criminal Procedure, but we have to mention that most changes of the last two decades were influenced by
conventions of the United Nations and the Council of Europe and later with requirements of the European Union.
Especially rules regarding organised crime (definition of the criminal organisation, the consequences of committing a crime in criminal organisation, some types of organised crime e.g. money laundering) can be mentioned as
examples. By the Act CXXI of 2001 the same protection was granted to foreign official persons as their Hungarian counterparts enjoyed. The conventions on transnational corruption influenced the content of this Act as well.
This modification made a serious step forward to protect the financial interest of the European Communities. Also
in 2001 the Act CIV means a novelty regulating the criminal liability of legal persons and measures applicable
against them. The Act CXXX of 2003 made easier the cooperation in criminal matters with the authorities of the
EU, among other measures the European arrest warrant was introduced that time. The Europol Convention of 26
July 1995 was announced by the Act XIV of 2006. Incorporation of these conventions into Hungarian law and
harmonising the content of some crimes within the EU have outstanding importance in the fight against transnational crime.
Currently there is no planned modification in the field of criminal justice which may be in connection with global or
national security and public safety.
-Did the reforms amend the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement, or did they elaborate
All reforms introduced in the last two decades amended only the common legal framework of criminal law and
criminal procedure and did not elaborate any alternative procedure. The new Code of Criminal Procedure and
previous amendments created or widened some special procedures, alternatives to the full “normal” trial in order
to simplify and accelerate the administration of justice, but they are part of the CCP.
-Are these legislative reforms governed by constitutional provisions on emergency (including war)?
Legislative reforms were not governed by constitutional provisions on emergency. The most important indicator
of the mentioned amendments – as it was mentioned under point 2 – was a demand to ensure that the criminal
law and criminal procedure be constitutional and governed by the rule of law and to create harmony with the EU
law and with the human rights standards of the Council of Europe.
-Did criminal justice practice play a role in defining and carrying out the reforms? Did, e.g., higher courts (cassation or constitutional court) reverse elements of these reforms?
Criminal justice authorities were involved into the reform process particularly concerning the new Code on Criminal Procedure. Representatives of the Supreme Court and of the Prosecutor General took part in the work of the
board preparing the draft code in the second half of the 1990’s. The draft code was circulated among authorities
of criminal justice and bar association but departments of faculties of law received it also in order to express their
opinion. Due to the definitive disagreement of the professional circles of the criminal justice some provisions of
the draft had never entered into force (e.g. questioning of the witness by the parties as a main rule).
As it was mentioned under the point 2) the Constitutional Court plays a very active role in making harmony between the constitution and rules of Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 40 of the Act XXXII of
1989 on the Constitutional Court says that “If the Constitutional Court establishes the unconstitutionality of a rule
of law or other legal means of state administration, it annuls in whole or in part that rule of law or other legal
means of state administration.” The consequence of such a decision is that the rule of law or other legal means
of state administration annulled may not be applied from the day of publication of the relevant resolution in the
official journal. However the Constitutional Court may depart from that time and set a different time for an unconstitutional rule of law to become ineffective or for its applicability in a concrete case, if this is justified by the interest in legal certainty or a particularly important interest of the entity initiating the proceedings. (Article 43 para-
- 181 -
Hungary
graph (1) and (4) of the Act XXXII of 1989). If a rule or a part of it has been cancelled the legislator may adopt a
modification conform to the decision of the Constitutional Court.
The Supreme Court is authorised to conduct a harmonisation procedure in order to ensure a uniform sentencing
policy. The harmonisation decision is compulsory for the courts of Hungary.
-Were the reforms subject to political or public debate?
Reforms are subject to political debate in the Parliament but all proposals are published on the website of the
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement where everybody is entitled to comment on the draft. The most effective
debate is the one taking place in professional circles where specialists discuss the proposed rules. (E.g. Hungarian Society of Criminology.)4
arms) and what is their legal source (e.g., constitution, statute)?
Some general principles of criminal procedure have a constitutional5 background among others fair trial rights.
These are
- equality before the law,
- right to be tried in a just, public trial by the independent and impartial court established by law,
- presumption of innocence,
- right to defence,
- right to legal remedy.
Article 57 of the Constitution states:
(1) In the Republic of Hungary everyone is equal before the law and has the right to have the accusations
brought against him, as well as his rights and duties in legal proceedings, judged in a just, public trial by an
independent and impartial court established by law.
(2) In the Republic of Hungary no one shall be considered guilty until a court has rendered a final legal
judgment determining criminal culpability.
(3) Individuals subject to criminal proceedings are entitled to legal defence at all stages of the proceedings.
Defence lawyers may not be held accountable for opinions expressed in the course of the defence.
(4) No one shall be declared guilty and subjected to punishment for an offence that was not a criminal offence under Hungarian law at the time such offence was committed.
(5) In the Republic of Hungary everyone may seek legal remedy, in accordance with the provisions of the
law, to judicial, administrative or other official decisions, which infringe on his rights or justified interests. A law
passed by a majority of two-thirds of the votes of the Members of Parliament present may impose restrictions
on the right to legal remedy in the interest of, and in proportion with, adjudication of legal disputes within a
reasonable period of time.
These rights are part of basic provisions or rules concerning the court procedure of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are declared in the Act LXVI of 1997 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts. Code of Criminal Procedure widens the scale of basic rights declaring the burden of proof, right to use native language. The
rule of ex officio procedure is defined in the Code as well and shows the character of legality when states that “It
is the responsibility of the court, the prosecutor and the investigating authority to initiate and conduct the criminal
proceedings if the conditions set forth in this Act prevail.”
4 On the “professional” debate see A legfontosabb kérdésekben nem értünk el eredményt. KIRÁLY Tibor akadémikussal és
BÁRD Károllyal, az ELTE Büntetőjogi Tanszékének vezetőjével Fahidi Gergely és Tordai Csaba beszélget Fundamentum,
2002/2 pp 41 - 45
5 Article 57 Act XX of 1949 The Constitution of the Republic of Hungary
- 182 -
Hungary
So we can say that theoretically the basis of the criminal procedure is legality, but the prosecutor can choose
some alternatives to prosecution. From the reasoning of the new Code it is obvious that although legality remains
the main rule, opportunity is also present in the Hungarian Criminal Procedure e.g. in rules concerning the discretionary power of the public prosecutor.
Other fundamental procedural rights will be discussed by answering the questions below.
-the presumption of innocence?
Presumption of innocence is a right provided for during the whole criminal procedure. As Article 7 of the CCP
states “Nobody can be regarded as guilty until convicted in a final judgement of the court”. The function of the
presumption of innocence is to create a favourable and objective legal situation for the accused during the procedure. The accused cannot be obliged to prove his innocence, as the charge shall be proven by the accuser. It
is only the innocence of the accused that may be presumed…”6
-the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to
confess guilt?
The right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or
confess guilt are also rights which are guaranteed during the whole criminal procedure. Prohibition of selfincrimination is part of basic provisions of the CCP, prescribed in the Article 8. “No one may be compelled to
make a self-incriminating testimony or to produce self-incriminating evidence.” Article 117 para. 2 of the CCP
says, that “At the opening of the questioning, the suspect shall be advised that he is not under the obligation to
testify, that he may refuse to testify or to respond to any of the questions in the course of the questioning, but
may freely decide to testify at any time even if he has previously refused to do so. The suspect shall also be
warned that anything he says or provides may be used as evidence.” These rules shall be applied in every stage
of the procedure, during the investigation, if the prosecutor examines the suspect prior to filing of the indictment
and in the court procedure as well.
In Hungarian criminal procedure there is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens, nationals and nonnationals and there are no special rules concerning any mentioned specific categories. Even not knowing the
Hungarian language shall not be a ground for discrimination. Every person involved in the criminal procedure (not
only the suspect but the witness, the victim and anybody else) may use, both verbally and in writing, their native
language, their regional or minority language or another language defined by the party concerned as a language
spoken. The decisions and other official documents shall be translated for them. An interpreter shall be employed
if a person whose native language is not Hungarian uses his native language or his regional or minority language
in the course of the proceeding.
The other special rule concerns defendants living abroad independently of their citizenship. Upon their request
prior to the filing of the indictment the prosecutor, thereafter the court may permit to depose a sum of security. In
this case the procedure may be conducted in absence of the defendant, he may return into his home country.
As it was explained under the point 1) most basic rights are not allowed to be suspended even during a state of
national crisis, state of emergency or state of danger. Article 8 para. 4 of the Constitution of Hungary allows
limitation of certain rights in these situations, which means that the exercise of fundamental rights may be suspended or restricted.
-Who has the power to make this decision and which control mechanisms apply?
See more about this question in Ákos FARKAS – Erika RÓTH: The Constitutional Limits of the Efficiency of Criminal Justice.
Acta Juridica Hungarica, 1995/96 37 No 3-4 pp. 145 - 146
6
- 183 -
Hungary
In the Republic of Hungary regulations pertaining to fundamental rights and duties are determined by law; such
law, however, may not restrict the basic meaning and contents of fundamental rights. (Article 8 para. 2 of the
Constitution).The Constitution refers the decision on the declaration of a state of war, a state of national crisis
and a state of emergency into the authority of the Parliament. Should the Parliament be obstructed in reaching
such decisions, the President of the Republic shall have the right to declare a state of war, a state of national
crisis and establish the National Defense Council – which in certain circumstances shall exercise the powers of
the Parliament -, or to declare a state of emergency.
These rules mean guarantee that fundamental rights be not restricted without constitutional grounds. The control
mechanism is in the hands of the Constitutional Court.
-What safeguards may be suspended? Does your legal system distinguish between derogable and nonderogable human rights?
From the fact that a state recognises and enumerates human rights in its constitution does not follow the absolute prohibition of the intervention of the state.7 The guarantee is that the restriction of human rights is allowed
only by law but “such law, however, may not restrict the basic meaning and contents of fundamental rights” (Article 8 para. 2 of the Constitution) For example right to legal remedy8 or the right to personal liberty9 and a number
of other basic rights may be restricted if the restriction has a legal background.
Rights may not be suspended were mentioned in point 1 of this report. These ones mean non-derogable rights.
-Can emergency serve as a ground to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings (military
There is no special proceeding in Hungarian law which can be introduced in or justified with the situation of
emergency. However, military criminal procedure is one of the special procedures regulated in the CCP, and
administrative authorities and in some cases the court deal with administrative offences in the administrative
procedure. These are part of the everyday practice, independent of state of crisis or emergency in the country.
The only obstacle of admissibility of evidence is if the evidence was traced, gathered, secured or used not in
compliance with the provisions of CCP. The aim of the investigation defined by the CCP is to conduct an inquiry
into the criminal offence, identify the offender and to locate and secure the means of evidence. The statement of
facts shall be clarified to such an extent that it enables the accuser to decide on accusation. It means that the
investigating authorities carry out investigatory actions, among others evidentiary procedures, examination of
witnesses and the suspect etc. and take minutes on them. These minutes and reports of the investigating authorities and means of evidence gathered by them may be used in the court procedure. The indictment shall
contain description of the means of evidence as well as the facts they prove and a proposal of the prosecutor for
the order of taking evidence at the trial. CCP regulates the preconditions of reading out and presenting the earlier
testimony of the accused and the witness at the trial. These rules are the same in every case, they do not depend on the seriousness of the offence.
There are circumstances when the investigating judge has to hear a witness, and only in this case may the testimony be used in the court process without summoning the witness once more: e.g. examination of a witness
whose life is in imminent danger or who is believed, on reasonable grounds, to be unable to attend the trial,
specially protected witness and witness under the age of fourteen. The reason why these witnesses shall be
7 See HALMAI Gábor – TÓTH Gábor Attila: Az emberi jogok korlátozása. In: HALMAI Gábor és TÓTH Gábor Attila (szerk.): Emberi
jogok. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2003. pp 108 - 135
8 Article 57 para. 5 of the Constitution
“A law passed by a majority of two-thirds of the votes of the Members of Parliament present may impose restrictions on the
right to legal remedy in the interest of, and in proportion with, adjudication of legal disputes within a reasonable period of
time.”
9 In the Republic of Hungary everyone has the right to freedom and personal security; no one shall be deprived of his freedom
except on the grounds and in accordance with the procedures specified by law.
- 184 -
Hungary
examined by the investigating judge is that they will not be able to appear before the court or the specially protected witness and child witness may not be questioned at the trial.
There is no special rule concerning evidence obtained abroad in the CCP. Evidence shall be traced, gathered,
secured and used in compliance with the provisions of the CCP. While foreign investigating authorities do not
apply Hungarian rules, evidence obtained abroad theoretically is not allowed to be used in a Hungarian procedure. But it cannot be excluded that a document of the procedure carried out abroad, or any other evidence
obtained abroad may be used as document in a Hungarian criminal procedure. Document shall mean all means
of evidence prepared and suitable for proving that a fact or data is true, that an event has taken place or that a
statement has been made. Any other means – abstracts made from the documents, objects produced by way of
technical, chemical or other methods for the purpose of verifying facts mentioned above may be used as document.
The situation is different if the investigating action was carried out in the framework of legal aid. E.g. in the criminal cooperation with the Member States of the European Union Hungarian authorities may ask the authority of
the requested Member State to conduct the procedure in compliance with the provisions of the Hungarian law
and by using the defined technical methods. Evidence obtained during the procedure conducted by the common
investigating group of the Member States of the EU may be used as well.10
Preconditions of coercive measures and the decision making procedure were formulated in the way to be consistent with the requirement of fair trial. All decisions concerning coercive measures are subject to legal remedy.11
judges, etc.?
Protection of witnesses may concern the victims as well because in the Hungarian criminal procedure the victim
may participate in the course of the evidentiary procedure as a witness. Means of witness protection are confidential treatment of the personal data of the witness, a possibility to be declared specially protected witness,
personal protection of participants12 of criminal proceedings and witness protection program13.
The witness or the lawyer acting on behalf of him may request that the personal data of the witness – except his
name – be handled separately and confidentially among the documents. In exceptionally justified cases, even the
name of the witness may also be treated confidentially. These measures may be ordered ex officio as well.
Specially protected witness may not be summoned and heard at the trial. If the accused, the defence counsel,
the prosecutor or the judge wants to put questions to the specially protected witness, the court order the questioning of the specially protected witness by the investigating judge and the abstract of the minutes shall be forwarded to the trial court. In this way the identity of the witness is handled confidentially.
Besides these special measures protection of the witness is provided for when evidentiary procedures are carried
out. If required for the protection of witness identification parade shall take place under conditions preventing the
person presented from identifying or noticing the witness; the confrontation of the witness shall be omitted. If the
confidential treatment of the witness was ordered, this shall be ensured during the identification parade as well.
See about difficulties of using evidence obtained abroad FARKAS Ákos: Jogharmonizáció és bizonyítási problémák a büntetőeljárásban. In: RÓTH Erika (szerk.): Magyarország az európai uniós csatlakozás küszöbén. Miskolci Jogtudományi Műhely
3. Bíbor Kiadó, Miskolc, 2003. pp 49 - 56
11 See more about questions of coercive measures restricting right to liberty HERKE Csongor: A letartóztatás. Dialóg Campus
Kiadó, Budapest - Pécs, 2002 and RÓTH Erika: Az elítélés előtti fogvatartás dilemmái. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2000
12 Regulated by the Government Decree No. 34/1999. (II.26.)
13 Was introduced by the Act LXXXV of 2001
10
- 185 -
Hungary
-jurisdiction? If yes, what is the jurisdiction rationae materiae?
It seems to be necessary to describe the Hungarian court system before we answer this question. In the Republic
of Hungary justice is administered by the Supreme Court, the (regional) appeals courts, the county courts (the
Municipal Court of Budapest has the same status) and the local courts.
The court of first instance shall be the local court and the county court. The overwhelming majority of criminal
cases are settled at the local courts, because the Code of Criminal Procedure says that judgement of criminal
offences in the first instance shall fall within the competence of the local court, unless they are referred to the
competence of the county court by the Code. The CCP defines crimes falling within the competence of the
county court. Mainly these are serious offences (e.g.: offences punishable by imprisonment for a term up to
fifteen years or life imprisonment by the law; offences against the state, crimes against humanity; murder, homicide, physical injury causing death, kidnapping; offences against the order of elections, referenda and the people’s motions, riot of prisoners; terrorist acts, participation in criminal organisation; money laundering; most serious crimes against property; criminal offences subject to military law. So we can say that serious offences usually
are dealt with by the county court as court of first instance. (Military tribunals of first instance act only on the
county court level.)
In some cases where the special territorial competence is necessary, jurisdiction of the court of first instance is
special, however these regulations concern only the local courts. Traffic offences, causing public danger, endangering the minor, abuse of nuclear materials, economic crimes and some other criminal offences shall fall under
the jurisdiction of the local court located at the seat of the county court (within the geographical jurisdiction of the
Metropolitan Court it means the Pest District Court).
-the organization of the trial, including the setting up of special tribunals?
Organisation of the trial is based on the same rules in serious and less serious cases as well.
Composition of the court at local level depends on the seriousness of the case. In most cases these courts act as
single judge without the involvement of lay judges. But if the criminal offence is punishable by eight years or more
imprisonment by the law, the local court shall consist of a professional judge and two lay judges.
At the county court acting as the court of first instance in the panel we can find a professional judge and two lay
judges or even more members. The county court may order that a case be tried by a panel consisting of five
members: two professional judges and three lay judges if this is justified by the large number of the persons
accused, or the exceptionally extensive scope of the case, or if the criminal offence is punishable by life imprisonment.
-the protection of the secrecy of witnesses, victims, judges, etc.?
The protection of the secrecy of witnesses, victims, judges and other participants of the procedure is only partly
influenced by the seriousness of the case. Although these protective instruments were introduced in connection
with serious, especially organised crimes, preconditions are very complex, and among them only one is that the
testimony of the witness relates to the substantial circumstances of a particularly serious case (e.g. concerning
specially protected witness); outstanding seriousness of the case (witness protection program); exceptionally
justified case (personal protection of the participants on criminal proceedings and confidential treatment of the
personal data and the name of the witness).
-evidence and proof at trial? Can shielded or secret evidence be used in ex parte proceedings? Is there a public
As it was described earlier, covert data gathering may be applied if the proceeding is conducted upon the suspicion of a criminal offence listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure. These are serious crimes: criminal offence
committed intentionally and punishable by five years or more imprisonment; criminal offence committed in business-like manner or as part of the criminal organisation and punishable by three years imprisonment; trafficking
in human beings, abuse with prohibited pornographic record, living on earnings of prostitution, pandering, smuggling people, abuse of authority and harbouring a criminal punishable by three years imprisonment and violation
- 186 -
Hungary
of service secret. If the investigation is conducted by the prosecutor, covert data gathering may be performed in
other cases listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure as well.
Rules of disclosure of evidence and possibility of questioning the witness by the prosecutor, the defence counsel
or the accused are the same in serious and less serious cases.
-the evaluation of evidence?
Evaluation of evidence does not depend on the seriousness of the offence.
-the right of the suspect/accused/detained person to an independent and impartial tribunal?
Yes, this fair trial right cannot be limited even in serious cases.
-the presumption of innocence at the trial or does it foresee special rules (presumption of liability or accountability, reverse of the burden of proof)?
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right in Hungary, exercise of which may not be suspended or restricted. The charge shall be proven by the accuser either he is the public prosecutor or substitute
private prosecutor or private prosecutor. But the Criminal Code reverses the burden of proof presuming that the
property obtained during the participation in the criminal organisation falling under the confiscation until the contrary is proven (Article 77/B para. (1) and (5) of the Criminal Code).
-the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined as soon as
We may suppose that the offender of a serious offence is waiting for trial in detention. In this case the court, the
prosecutor and the investigating authority shall make all efforts to reduce the term of pre-trial detention as much
as possible. If the defendant is held in pre-trial detention, an extraordinary procedure shall be conducted without
undue delay in order that the case should be tried as soon as possible. Every suspect has the right to be brought
before the court within 72 hours following his arrest or be released. The custody which may be ordered by the
investigating authority or the prosecutor must not exceed the period of 72 hours. After that period the defendant
shall be released, unless the court has ordered his pre-trial detention.
-the maxim in dubio pro reo?
Fact which is not proved beyond reasonable doubt should not be evaluated against the accused. This rule of
evaluation of evidence is independent of the seriousness of the offence committed.
-the procedural rights of parties (equality of arms, fair trial)?
Every defendant enjoys all procedural rights.
.. the right to a public trial with an audience;
The trial of the court (court of first, second and third instance as well) is public, everybody has the right to attend
trials and the accused has the right - guaranteed by the Article 57 paragraph 1 of the Constitution - to have the
accusations brought against him, judged in a just, public trial by an independent and impartial court established
by law. However, the court may, ex officio or at the motion exclude the public. Reasons of such a decision are
listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure:
- ethical reason,
- protection of the minor taking part in the procedure,
- protection of other persons participating in the procedure or the witness,
- protection of the state and official secret.
As we can see there is no reason based on the seriousness of the offence, but most likely the protection of witness or state secret emerge when the crime allegedly committed is a serious one.
.. the right to an oral, fair hearing and adversarial proceedings;
The court trial is always an oral procedure in Hungary. The accused has the right to testify. He shall be advised
that he is not under the obligation to testify, he may refuse to testify or answer any of the questions, but may
- 187 -
Hungary
freely decide to testify at any time even if he has previously refused to do so. The defendant shall also be warned
that everything he says or provides may be used as evidence.
The defence counsel may be present at the questioning of the suspect and of the witness if he or the suspect he
defends asked the witness to be questioned, as well as the confrontation held with the participation of such a
witness. The defence counsel who is present at the questioning may ask questions from the suspect and the
witness as well. The accused and his defence counsel has the right to be present at the trial and ask questions
from other accused, witnesses and expert as well. In some cases prescribed by the law the presence of the
defence counsel is obligatory at the trial. As a main rule the presiding judge questions the accused, the witness
and the expert as well, and other participants have the right to put questions only subsequently. But due to the
new Code at the motion the presiding judge may permit the questioning of the witness first by the prosecutor and
the defence counsel. Rules of this procedure are defined in the Code as well.
In addition, we have to mention that if the question may influence the accused or the witness, suggests the answer, is irrelevant, has been asked by a person who is not entitled to put questions, injures the dignity of the trial,
or is repeatedly directed to the same fact, the presiding judge shall prohibit the answer.
.. the right to be present at the trial;
The accused has the right to be present at the trial. During the evidentiary procedure he is entitled to be in the
courtroom after his questioning. If his presence may disturb the witness or the other accused, the presiding judge
may order him to leave the court room for the period of the questioning.
.. the right of the counsel to have access to all criminal case records;
The right of the defence counsel to have access to the records are different in the course of the investigation and
during the court procedure. During the investigation those having the right to be present in the investigatory
action may inspect the minutes taken thereon. The counsel has access to the expert opinion as well and may
inspect other documents if this does not injure the interest of the investigation. This means that the investigator
may permit the defence counsel to inspect other documents balancing the interest of the investigation. The counsel is entitled not only to inspect the documents mentioned above but to receive a copy of them as well.
After the conclusion of the investigation the prosecutor or the investigating authority hand over all the documents
– except for those treated confidentially – to the defence counsel and the suspect. At that moment they may
inspect all the documents that may serve as the basis for the decision of the prosecutor.
After that their access to the file is limited only concerning documents treated confidentially.
.. the right to be informed without delay of the offence charged;
The defendant is entitled to receive information on the suspicion, on the charge and any changes therein. If there
is a reasonable ground based on available data to suspect that a specific person has committed a criminal offence, the prosecutor or the investigating authority interrogate the suspect. At the beginning of the questioning
the suspect shall be informed on the essence of the suspicion and the relevant legal regulation.
If the suspicion changes during the investigation the investigating authority has to inform the suspect.
During the preparation of trial, which starts when the file has arrived at the court, the presiding judge shall send
the indictment to the accused and the defence counsel. At that time they will be informed on the content of the
indictment, the charge that will be the basis of the trial. If the charge is amended or expanded during the trial, the
court may adjourn the trial ex officio or on the motion in order to leave time to prepare for a defence.
.. the right to full disclosure of the state's case and to adequate time to prepare a defence;
As it was mentioned in the previous part, at the end of the investigation the suspect and the defence counsel
have access to the whole file, expect document treated confidentially. Defence has adequate time to prepare
because the indictment shall be served to the suspect and the defence counsel before the trial leaving for them
fifteen days to state their means of evidence. The presiding judge will establish the date of the trial and send
summons. The summons shall be served on the accused at least five days prior to the trial.
.. the right to internal (between parties involved) and external publicity of the proceedings;
- 188 -
Hungary
This right is provided for with the exceptions mentioned under the title ‘the right to a public trial’. Rules concerning
disclosure of information, providing information to the general public are part of the CCP. It is defined who is
entitled to give information to the press. The press is entitled to proved information on public court hearings.
Obstacles are defined in the CCP as well: the protection of state secret or official secret or if the disclosure of
information to the press would jeopardise the successful conclusion of the proceedings. Recording (sound or
video) at the court hearings need the permission of the presiding judge and “private” persons present at the
hearing. During the investigation the public is excluded, only persons mentioned in the CCP are allowed to be
present. In this stage of the proceeding the press may be informed by the member of the investigating authority
authorised to do so.
.. the right to examine the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witness on his
behalf under the same conditions as the witness against him;
During the investigation the defence counsel - if he is allowed to be present (see above) - may make observations and ask the witness questions. At the trial the witness is questioned by the presiding judge first. After that –
among others – the accused and the defence counsel are entitled to put questions. As it was mentioned above,
the new Code of Criminal Procedure allows the accused and the defence counsel to bring forward a motion to
hear the witness by the accused or the defence counsel.
When the accused and the defence counsel would like to ask a specially protected witness questions, the court
orders the repeated questioning of the witness by the investigating judge. He shall put questions asked by the
accused or his defence counsel. In this case the interrogation takes place by the indirect method.
special measures for new cyber techniques (videoconferencing, etc.);
To hold a trial by way of a closed-circuit communication system is a new possibility provided by the new Code of
Criminal Procedure. The presiding judge may order the examination of the witness, or in exceptional cases of the
accused this way. The Code defines which witnesses may be questioned (e.g. witness under fourteen years of
age, whose presence at the trial would impose unreasonable difficulties etc.) and in which circumstances the
accused may be examined (participating in the witness protection program, whose presence at the trial would
endanger public safety) through a closed-circuit communication system.
They stay in a separate room at the court or in the institution of detention. A judge from the court where the testimonial room is shall be present and establish the identity of the witness or the accused and verify that there is
no unauthorised person in the room. The defence Counsel may be present both in the venue of the trial or the
testimonial room. The questioning procedure is regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
special measures concerning shielded or protected witnesses (undercover agents, agents of intelligence
forces)?
We have written about the questioning of the specially protected witness above. Covert investigator who is a
member of the investigating authority may be used with the permission of the prosecutor. If there are reasonable
grounds to suspect that the criminal offence has been committed by the covert investigator in line of duty in the
interest of law enforcement, the prosecutor shall reject the complaint or terminate the investigation. The prosecutor, or with his permission the investigating authority may make the same decision if there are reasonable
grounds to suspect that a criminal offence has been committed but the suspect cooperates in the investigation, or
proving the case or another criminal offence, and the interest of national security or law enforcement are more
significant than the interest to enforce the claim of the state under criminal law against him. The cooperating
offender has a special – privileged - status even in the special procedure of waiver of the trial as well.
.. the right to have free assistance of an interpreter;
The court, the prosecutor or the investigating authority shall appoint a defence counsel ex officio if the participation of the defence in the procedure is compulsory and the defendant has not authorised a lawyer or, if the defence is not obligatory, but the defendant due to his financial circumstances is not able to authorise a defence
counsel. And last but not least, the appointment of the defence counsel is possible if deemed necessary in the
interest of the defendant. Expenses and the fees of the officially appointed defence counsel are parts of the cost
of criminal proceedings which shall be paid by the defendant if he is declared guilty. If based on his income and
- 189 -
Hungary
property he is presumably unable to cover the cost of the criminal proceedings and it is certified in the manner
prescribed by the law, the court or the prosecutor may decide on the personal exemption from paying the costs.
In this case the fee and verified expenses of the officially appointed counsel are paid by the state.
Not only the defendant but every participant of the procedure may use his native language or any other language
defined by him in the course of criminal procedure. The state shall bear the costs incurred because the accused
whose native language is not Hungarian intended to use his native language.
.. the right not to be a witness in proceedings against oneself;
No one may be compelled to make self-incriminating testimony or produce self-incriminating evidence. Even the
witness who has to tell the truth has the right to refuse to testify if he would incriminate himself. The defendant
shall be advised that he is not under the obligation to testify. Unlike the Anglo-American system, in Hungary the
defendant is not the witness for the defence but his testimony is an independent special means of evidence.
.. the right to counsel (mandatory or not?), changes to legal privilege? Free choice or screened or assigned by
the state?
There are cases when the legislator thought that it is in the interest of the defendant and the criminal justice as
well if the defence lawyer takes part in the criminal procedure. These are cases when the offence allegedly
committed is a serious one or the defendant is not able to defend himself without professional help. To authorise
a lawyer on his own choice has priority. The court, the prosecutor or the investigating authority will appoint a
counsel for the defence only if the participation of a defence counsel is compulsory and the defendant has not
authorised a lawyer. As it was mentioned above, an appointed defence counsel may be appointed on request as
well if the defendant is not able to pay the costs on his own.
.. the right to remain silent (are there any limitations to the obligation to inform the accused of this right; are there
limitations to the right to remain silent)?
As it was mentioned above the investigating authority, the prosecutor and the court has to advise the defendant
that he has the right to remain silent (he is not under the obligation to testify) or even if he decided to make a
testimony he may refuse to answer any question.
.. Is it permissible to draw prejudicial conclusions from the fact that the accused refused to testify?
It is not permitted to draw any conclusion from the fact that the accused refused to testify. If the accused does not
wish to testify at the trial, the presiding judge shall order to read the former testimony of the defendant given in
the course of the investigation.
-the right of a higher court to review the sentence (appeal, cassation, constitutional review)?
The right of the higher court to review the sentence does not depend on the seriousness of the case.
It is forbidden that a defendant be tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. No criminal
proceedings may be initiated, and criminal process shall be terminated if a final court verdict has already been
delivered on the action of the defendant (except extraordinary legal remedies which may take place when the
final decision of the court is unlawful or when new evidence is found).
As a conclusion we can say that although some provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure emphasize the
seriousness of the case or the application of some rules depends on the punishment prescribed by the law to the
given offence, it is not typical at all that we use different procedural solutions for dealing with serious cases,
human rights are not only declared but also respected and protected.
LITERATURE
A legfontosabb kérdésekben nem értünk el eredményt. KIRÁLY Tibor akadémikussal és BÁRD Károllyal, az ELTE
Büntetőjogi Tanszékének vezetőjével Fahidi Gergely és Tordai Csaba beszélget Fundamentum, 2002/2 pp 41 45
- 190 -
Hungary
BÁRD, Károly: Demokrácia – tisztességes eljárás – megismerés a büntetőperben. In: FARKAS, Ákos (ed.): Emlékkönyv Kratochwill Ferenc (1933-1993) tiszteletére. Bűnügyi Tudományi Közlemények 5. Bíbor kiadó, Miskolc,
2003.
FARKAS, Ákos – RÓTH, Erika: The Constitutional Limits of the Efficiency of Criminal Justice. Acta Juridica Hungarica, 1995/96 37 No 3-4
FARKAS, Ákos: Jogharmonizáció és bizonyítási problémák a büntetőeljárásban. In: RÓTH, Erika (szerk.): Magyarország az európai uniós csatlakozás küszöbén. Miskolci Jogtudományi Műhely 3. Bíbor Kiadó, Miskolc, 2003
HALMAI, Gábor – TÓTH, Gábor Attila: Az emberi jogok korlátozása. In: HALMAI, Gábor és TÓTH, Gábor Attila
(szerk.): Emberi jogok. Isiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2003.
HERKE, Csongor: A letartóztatás. Dialóg Campus Kiadó, Budapest - Pécs, 2002
RÓTH, Erika: Az elítélés előtti fogvatartás dilemmái. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2000
RÓTH, Erika: Hungary. In VAN DER HULST, Jaap (ed.) ECHR and Criminal Proceedings. The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Criminal Proceedings in the European Union. Printed at the Erasmus
University Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2001.
Part II14
The criminal procedure usually starts with investigation, during which the authority does not have to intend on
discovering the factual state, but only to make the case suitable for the act of impeachment. This way,
• it has to discover the crime,
• its perpetrator,
• and ensuring the means of evidence.
Investigation is accomplished by the prosecutor, who can order the investigating authority to execute investigating actions in oral or written form. The authority is to accomplish them within the defined term by the prosecutor.
I. Initiating the criminal procedure
Anyone can report a crime (general reporting right). There are only two exemptions from this main rule:
a) criminal procedure in a crime to be punished by private motion can be started only by the report of a person
competent to present private motion (so in this case not anyone can denounce).
b) crimes to be punished by request (in cases of slander or insult against persons enjoying personal immunity
based on diplomacy or international law) criminal procedure starts only if the offended person claims so.
Besides the right to report, the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) state cases when it report a
crime is obliged as follows:
a) everybody is obliged to report in cases determined in the CPA (violent change of constitutional order, conspiracy against constitutional order, riot, destruction, treason, infidelity, supporting the enemy, espionage, violation of
state secrets, act of terrorism, infringement of international legal obligation, soldier’s escape to abroad)
b) member of authority, official person has to report if, under his competence, becomes aware of a crime (if the
perpetrator is known, specifying him).
There is also an exemption from the latter obligation to report: if a special regulation entrusts the report of an
authority. In this case the data emerging in connection with the crime are to be announced to this authority.
Report has no formal requirements, it can be accomplished both in oral and in written forms, even on phone or by
email, to any authority. If it is not an investigating authority, the report is transferred to the investigating authority
By Dr. HERKE Csongor, tanszékvezető egyetemi docens / ass. prof., head of department Pécsi Tudományegyetem /
University of Pécs Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar / Faculty of Law Büntető Eljárásjogi és Kriminalisztikai Tanszék / Department
of Criminal Procedure Law and Forensic Science H-7622 PÉCS, 48-as tér 1.
http://herke.hu
Tel.: +36 20 9875647
Mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
14
- 191 -
Hungary
having sphere of authority and competence in the case. In case of oral report, the authority has to register it with
no delay.
Investigation can be initiated
• officially (based on data coming to knowledge of the prosecutor or the investigating authority)
• following the report.
Investigation is ordered by the investigating authority, of which record is made, including:
• what crime
• against whom (if the person denounced is known)
• when investigation was started.
Investigation can be initiated without ordering it as a real act. Then the prosecutor or the investigating authority
accomplishes investigating actions in order to
• ensure means of evidence,
• establishing identity of the person can be suspected, and preventing him from hiding, finishing the crime or
committing another crime, or
• accomplish other investigating actions in a reason not bearing delay.
In the above mentioned cases record on starting investigation is accomplished afterwards, though as soon as
possible.
II. Starting the investigation
Investigation can be started following report, or notice of an authority. Then the authority accomplishes either
actions in their merits or those not in the merits.
The former actions include sending and transferring denounce, in issues as follows:
a) not postponable investigating actions,
b) refuse of report,
c) ordering the investigation.
ad a) Not postponable investigating actions are ordered either by the prosecutor or the investigating authority. In
this case some coercion measures (arrest, search, seizure, obligation to preserve data recorded by computer)
and single securing measures (site inspection, justification attempt, present for identification) can be accomplished.
ad b) When starting investigation, report can also be refused in the following three ways as:
1. simple,
2. combined, and
3. special refuse.
ad 1. Report coming known for the prosecutor can be refused within three days, if it can be stated from the denounce that
• the action is not a crime,
• the suspicion of crime is missing,
• grounds for the prosecution of punishability (lack of private proposal, report or request),
• some grounds for the termination of punishability (death, limitation, amnesty)
• final judgement has already been pronounced.
Apart from the more difficult reasons to exclude possibility to be punished, the investigating authority also has the
right to refuse in these cases.
ad 2. Combined refuse of report
- 192 -
Hungary
• refuse with notification (if the crime is only a misdemeanor),
• announcement with reprimand (insignificantly reckless act),
ad 3. Special refuse of report has three forms:
• refuse with investigating bargain (the prosecutor can refuse the proposal if the national security- or criminalinterests of the cooperation with the suspected person exceeds the interest of the state to practise its criminal
investigating request).
• refuse against the undercover agent, (if the crime was committed by a person at service and the criminal investigating interests are more significant than the request to punish him),
• investigation cannot be started because of public document forgery, if the forged document is used for entering
a foreign country (supposing that the office competent in cases related to aliens is conducting a procedure
against him, and there is no need to start investigating proceedings because of another crime).
In the first two cases the damage caused is burdened on the state.
ad c) Finally, the investigation is can be started if there is an established suspicion of committing a crime and
there is no obstacle of ordering.
III. Conducting the investigation
Conducting investigation has three rules by the CPA. During executing the investigating authority executes the
single investigating actions (interrogations, obtaining hard evidence and expertise, search, frisking, seizure and
other coercion measures, etc). The order of actions is not determined in the CPA.
From the rules of investigation, regulations concerning
a) term of investigation,
b) compiliation
c) interrogation of the suspect,
and the secret data collection depending on the judge’s permission are to be emerged here.
ad a) Investigation is to be accomplished in the shortest term as possible, but maximum 2 months. This basic
term can be prolonged if the case is difficult, or there is an unpreventable obstacle:
Investigating authority investigates
Prosecutor investigates
Basic term: 2 months
Can prolong with 2 months
the prosecutor
head of prosecution
After this can prolong until no more than
one year from the accomplishment
county chief prosecutor
superior prosecutor
Can prolong over one year from the accomplishment
State Superior Prosecutor
ad b) The investigating authority can obtain data after starting criminal procedure in order to state whether means
of evidence exist and if so, where (compiliation). During this the police can
• use criminal data bases as determined in the law,
• claim for inspecting in the documents, giving information, establishing damage or accomplishing examination,
• view the scene of the crime,
• employ an expert,
• check all information obtained.
- 193 -
Hungary
During compiliation an undercover agent can be employed and data collection can be accomplished independently from the court’s permission. A report is to be recorded about the inquiry which can be taken into consideration in the procedure as evidence.
ad c) The CPA emphasises the announcement of well well-founded suspicion and the intrrogation of the suspect.
The prosecutor (or if the prosecutor does not dispose other way the investigating authority) announces the established suspect, if based on the data available the defined person can be suspected well established with committing the crime. The arrested has to be interrogated within 24 hours after bringing him to the investigating authority, (later in any chosen time until finishing the investigation). The latest time for appointing a defense counsel for
the arrested suspected – if he has no authorised defense counsel – is following the first interrogation.
IV. Secret criminal technical means of information collection
4.1. The investigating judge
During the investigation duties of the court are fulfilled by the investigating judge. The investigating judge is appointed by the presiding judge of county court. The decision of the investigating judge is passed
a) on a session, or
b) based on documents.
ad a) Investigating judge passes decision on a session, in questions as follows:
• ordering coercion measures for incercaration or deprivation of personal liberty (preliminary arrest, order of
house arest, house arrest, confiscating travel documents, involuntary temporary treatment in a mental institution,
placing under strict supervision),
• longer than 6 months prolongation of preliminary arrest from the date of ordering,
• accepting bail,
• ordering observation of mental state (if the suspected cannot be present because of his health state or cannot
practise rights),
• presenting evidence for the case (interrogating a witness, under special protection, in a state endangering life
directly, under the age of 14, or such evidence which is supposedly could not be produced in the judicial procedure.
The prosecutor, the accused and the defender can be present on the session (in case of interrogating a witness
under special protection, only the prosecutor and the defense counsel proceeding in the interest of the witness, in
case of a witness under 14 only the legal representative). At the beginning of the session the proposing person
presents the proofs in written or oral form and it is possible to make notices on the proposal.
The resolution passed on the session has to be announced without delay.
ad b) The investigating judge passes decision based on documents
• on other coercion measures falling under the competence of the court before proposing the bill of indictment
(search in offices of public notaries or attorneys and in health care institutions, seizure of documents kept there,
preliminary selling of the seized documents, obligation to preserve data recorded by computer),
• on excluding the defendse counsel,
• on permitting or terminating secret data collection,
• on ordering to continue investigation after it had been abated,
• by the prosecutor’s proposal announcing the witness as especially secured,
• proposal for over-review,
• changing disciplinary penalty into arrest.
The investigating judge brings decision in a resolution within three days from the proposal. The resolution is to be
delivered by post with no delay.
- 194 -
Hungary
4.2. The types of secret criminal technical means of information collection
With view to the changes having taken place in delinquency in the country, the continent and the world in recent
decades, here we mean primarily the forceful advancement of organisation and globalisation, we can state for
certain that the traditional, open methods of investigation are not sufficient for the realisation of successful criminal prosecution. Against conspired networks (people) working in wide-scale distribution of work, with significant
human and material resources, one can step up successfully only with secret methods of uncovering, and human
and technical devices of an extensive spectrum. The detailed criminal tactical and criminal technical methodology
of these is defined by forensic science. Criminal procedures law provides the legal and statutory framework of
application.
Act no. XIX of 1998, on Criminal Procedures (the Criminal Procedure Act, CPA), already in harmony with the
requirements of the constitutional state, includes the regulations for secret obtainment of data, which is a novelty
as there had been no such directions in the criminal procedures codes. The investigative authorities acted on the
basis of secret, internal commands even though their operation affected basic human rights. The breakthrough
came with Act no X of 1990 (already annulled by Act no CXXV of 1995), which – at the dawn of the change of
regime – was the first to regulate the secret service means. This was followed by Act no XXXIV of 1994, on the
Police, Act no C of the year 1995, on Customs law, customs procedures, and customs administration, Act no
CXXV of the year 1995, on the National Security Services, and Act no XXXII of the year 1997, on the Border
Guard, then, most recently, the modification of the law on prosecutor’s offices, which gave authorisation for secret collection of information, which detailed and detail its rules. (Altogether, at present there are four bodies
performing investigative tasks, including the prosecutor’s office, five secret services, and the interior protection
(security) service of the police are entitled to collect secret information.)
Nowadays, the two secret methods can be distinguished in a well-confined manner, namely:
• secret collection of information (memo-technically SECOLLINF), and
• secret obtainment of data (memo-technically SEOBTDAT).
Their differences can be summed up in the following table:
The taxonomic distribution of secret means and methods
Secret collection of information
Secret obtainment of data
Requiring a warrant or the minister of
justice’s permit
Not requiring a warrant
Requiring a warrant
Can last until the investigation is ordered
Before and after the investigation is ordered
(even during the investigation!)
Only after the investigation is
ordered, until getting acquainted
with the documents the latest
• secret search and technical re- • the use of an informer, confidential per- • technical surveillance of private
cording of private residence
son, a person cooperating in secret (+ residence
• the surveillance and recording of prosecutor’s permit to person cooperating)
• mail
private residence
• the collection of information by scouting • telecommunication data
• getting acquainted with and re- investigator or a cover investigator hiding his • data forwarded by means of
identity (+ prosecutor’s permission)
cording mail (K-check)
computer systems
• getting acquainted with and techni- • checking data
cally recording long-distance communi- • the issuance of a cover document or the
cations
establishment of a cover organisation to
• getting acquainted with and applying cover the police nature
the data of Internet or other computer • the surveillance of persons, premises,
correspondence
buildings, other objects, terrain and vehicles,
as well as recording of sound and picture
• the application of traps
- 195 -
Hungary
• sample, fake, confidence shopping
• infiltration into conspiracy
• controlled shipping
• the role of the aggrieved party played by a
policeman
• the establishment of information systems
• tapping in addition to the cases requiring a
permit, the recording of data discovered with
technical devices
• the collection of information from communication devices and other data storage
devices requiring an official permit
(+prosecutor’s permission)
First, let’s review the concrete secret obtainment of data (SEOBTDAT) activities that belong under the auspices
of the CPA [a)-b)-c) of Paragraph (1) of Section 200]. We mean the following by the expression:
a) the surveillance and recording of events taking place in private residence
by means of technical devices,
b) getting acquainted with the contents of letters, other postal matters, as well as communications forwarded by
means of telephone cable or other communication systems, and the recording of these by means of technical
devices,
c) getting acquainted with and applying data forwarded and stored by computer systems.
In the first category, the investigative authority surveys and records the events taking place in the private residence by means of video(cameras) and listening devices (“bugs”, “sound guns”) installed in the interior space in
a secret manner, or used from the outside. In the second category, the “blocking” of communication devices
takes place, which includes the “tapping” of faxes, telegrams, and all kinds of telephones (hard wire, mobile,
etc.), the – to use an old phrase – ferreting out, at the same time, recording of data to be used as evidence later.
Finally, the third group contains the secret checking and disclosure of computer data, e-mails, internet data, and
connections.
As they affect basic human rights (e.g. the inviolable nature of private residence, private secrets), they can be
applied only with multiple restrictions. The restrictions are as follows:
a) in case of the existence of general basic requirements,
b) for a specific goal,
c) in case of special criminal offense, under special circumstances,
d) against particular individuals,
e) within time constraints,
f) according to strict formal requirements, with a warrant.
ad a) The application of SEOBTDAT has three general, basic conditions:
• necessity (there are sufficient grounds to assume that the obtainment of the evidence is hopeless in another
way)
• proportionality
• the likeliness of the result.
The conditions are conjunctive: all of them are to exist for the application. If any of them is absent, the secret
means cannot be applied. It may only occur in case of judgement on the motion of the prosecutor, because after
that – in case it is successful – it cannot be debated, the absence of any of the above mentioned conditions does
not exclude or make the evidence obtained unlawful.
- 196 -
Hungary
ad b) Unlike the means, the aims are not very special, we could say they are general. It is not difficult to satisfy
this restriction as we can list the same aims even in the case of open investigative acts:
• the establishment of the identity of the perpetrator,
• the establishment of the place of residence of the perpetrator,
• the arrest of the perpetrator,
• the uncovering of the means of evidence.
ad c) Secret devices can be applied only in relation to serial (deliberate) criminal acts of outstanding danger to
society, material or personal reasons, under special circumstances. It is fair that the law [Paragraph (1) of Section 201] lists these seriatim.
Is conducted due to a criminal act that is
• deliberate and is to be punished with imprisonment of five years or more, furthermore
• related to crime spreading across the country borders,
• against a minor,
• committed serially or is performed through organised commission (including habitual commission, in conspiracy or criminal organisation as well),
• related to drugs or materials constituting drugs,
• related to forging banknotes or securities,
• committed armed
or the suspicion of the attempt of or preparation for such criminal act.
ad d) The secret device cannot be applied against anybody, it can be used only in a defined circle. According to
the term used in forensic science, target person:
• is primarily the suspect (the comprehensive term “accused” cannot be applied here as the secret device can
exist exclusively in the investigative phase)
• may be the potential suspect (the person who can be suspected of the commission of the criminal act according to the data of the investigation so far but he has not been informed of this yet; that is, it can be applied in the
event of the existence of the simple personal suspicion),
• may be other individuals if there emerged information in connection with criminal relationship with individuals
of the previous two categories, or there are grounds to assume such a relationship (simple suspicion is enough
for this, too).
Among “other individuals” it is a further order of limitation that the above-listed secret means can be applied
against the lawyer acting as the attorney (defense counsel) in the case, as the target person, if the well-founded
suspicion of a criminal act in connection with the case undergoing against the accused has emerged against the
attorney. This restriction – absolutely correctly – extends to the private residence, office, all the telephone lines,
communication devices, both postal and electronic correspondence, as well as all the mail of the attorney. The
other restrictive institution meant to protect the defense’s secret is that this restriction extends to the holding cells
and the penitentiary institutions (including the houses of correction) as well.
As a marginal note, we would like to add that it is not necessary to use secret means in holding cells separated
with a glass-plexi wall as the dialogue between the defense counsel and the accused almost shouting with each
other, but forced at least to talk loudly due to the wall – thus violating the defense’s secret and intimacy – can be
heard with a naked ear.
In connection with the tapping of the defense counsels’ telephone lines, there have been decisions made in the
scope of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR). In the 1998 case of Kopp vs Switzerland, the
Court established the violation of law as the Swiss authorities violated the right to the respect to private and
- 197 -
Hungary
family life according to Article 8 when they unlawfully tapped the conversations in the law office of the applicant
(Bírósági Határozatok, hereinafter BH 1998/12. pp. 955-957).
ad e) The secret obtainment of data can only take place during the course of the investigation: the low end of its
spectrum is the order of the investigation, and the top is the introduction of the documents of the investigation.
Within this period of time, it can last for 90 days, upon one extension for a maximum period of 180 days. With the
exception of unpostponable cases (periculum in mora), the notice ordering investigation is needed, without which
the motion for order cannot be formally accepted. At the introduction of the documents, it is the introduction of the
documents to the first accused (if there are more than one) that is to be taken into consideration; it is that point
until which the secret obtainment of data can be performed. If secret means had been used before the investigation was ordered, that could be performed lawfully only within the framework of secret collection of information
(SECOLLINF). If, in the meanwhile, the investigation is ordered, the secret collection of information is kind of
transformed, and only secret obtainment of data (SEOBTDAT) can be carried out according to the CPA [Paragraphs (3)-(4) of Section 200].
ad f) The most important formal requirement is that the secret obtainment of data be authorised by the court,
more precisely the investigative judge, upon the prosecutor’s motion. In his motion, the prosecutor, as the master
of the investigation (dominus litis) has to detail the following:
• the name of the prosecutorial body, the investigative authority,
• the date the investigation was ordered,
• the number of the case,
• if there has been or is secret collection of information, who performed it, what data was obtained,
• the place of the planned performance of secret data obtainment, in the case of telephone tapping, the telephone number (either hard wire or mobile),
• the name and identification particulars of the person affected (the target person),
• the name of the means and methods,
• the starting and ending date of the planned period, with the hour and day indicated,
• the existence of the restricting conditions detailed under points a)-b)-c)-d)-e),
• in the case of an unpostponable (emergency) order, its reason and time,
• with the documents providing grounds for the motion attached,
• upon a motion for extension the documents emerging since the earlier authorisation.
The investigative judge makes a decision about the motion within 72 hours. He either dismisses it, or adopts it
fully or partially. In case the motion is entertained, he defines the kind of secret means and methods can be used,
against whom, between what time constraints [Paragraph (4) of Section 203].
In unpostponable (emergency) cases, not only the judge but the prosecutor as well is entitled to order secret
obtainment of data for a period of 72 hours, however, the motion for authorisation is also to be put forward at the
same time. If the court dismisses it, there is no room for unpostponable order on the grounds of unchanged
factual basis, and – as referred to earlier in connection with legal remedies – there lies no appeal.
If we take a look at the six restrictions listed, we see that outside the first two (a-b) posing general specifications,
the violation of the other four points (c-d-e-f) all make the data obtained unlawful (not belonging in the chain of
evidence), thus they fall into the category of excluded evidence. We can determine the foregoing without the law
declaring this expressis verbis in all cases.
4.3. The execution of secret obtainment of data, getting acquainted with and using its results
Secret obtainment of data itself is carried out by the police and the special sub-units of the national security
services, whom – in the interest of this, in ways detailed in separate legal regulations – the telecommunication,
postal, computer network service providers are obligated to cooperate with.
- 198 -
Hungary
The prosecutor and the head of the investigative authority have several obligations in connection with secret data
obtainment. On the one hand, he has to terminate secret obtainment of data without delay if [Paragraph (3) of
Section 204]
a) in the event of unpostponable order, the court dismissed the motion,
b) it has fulfilled its objective determined in the permit,
c) the period of time determined in the permit has lapsed,
d) the investigation has been terminated,
e) it is obvious that no result can be expected from its further application.
With respect to these, the law named the excluded evidence only in case of points a) and e) – in Paragraph (4) of
Section 206 – however, our opinion is that unlawfulness prevails within the circle of all the obligations described
here and below.
The same individuals also have a data destruction obligation for the data without interest for the goal, and data
recorded in connection with individuals not involved in the case. An additional requirement in connection with the
secret data obtained subsequently, not permitted by the judge, in an unpostponable manner, is that they are to
be destroyed not within 8 days but without delay [Paragraph (4) of Section 204]. All these also belong to the
category of excluded evidence.
Thirdly, they have continuous data protection and confidentiality obligation, according to the regulations of the
state secret and service secret law. Upon the request of the investigative judge authorising secret obtainment of
data, the prosecutor is obligated to present the data obtained so far. As a control of legality, he examines application and if he establishes that the boundaries of the permission have been transgressed, he terminates – with a
resolution without legal remedy – and in the case of other violation law, may terminate the secret obtainment of
data [Paragraph (3) of Section 205].
Fourthly, the obligation of the prosecutor is to notify the party affected by the judge’s permit about the fact of the
secret obtainment of data, after its completion if there was no criminal procedure launched against him, and the
notification does not endanger the success of the criminal procedure. The notification is to be made only if both
conditions are satisfied. The measure often contested in the literature is a constitutional state requirement, while
we can definitely expect that the person notified about the tapping of his phone will fear using the telephone all
his life even though he might have only been “affected” by the case without committing or even planning anything
unlawful. Thus we consider the application of the legal requirements acceptable only with very serious restrictions.
It is already the fifth obligation that the head of the prosecutorial or investigative authority is to draw up a signed
report of the execution of the secret obtainment of data, which contains
• its progress,
• what means and methods were applied, for how long and where,
• who was affected by it,
• the place and time of the source of the data not destroyed
• the fact of the achievement of the goal, or the reason in case of its absence[Paragraph (5) of Section 204].
The report is unconditionally necessary for the prosecutor if he endeavours to use the result of secret data obtainment as documentary evidence in the open criminal procedure. Otherwise, he can make it evidence if it cannot be replaced by anything else. In this case, by its application, the state secret nature of the data ceases, except if the data is a state secret regardless of the manner of obtainment. In this case, the cancellation permission
of the master of the state secret is also required.
The permission is to be attached to the investigative documents together with the motion for permission and the
resolution of the court granting permission (the three documents) [Paragraphs (1)-(2) of Section 206].
The data obtained during the course of secret data collection, before the investigation was ordered – considered
a state secret – can also be made into chain of evidence if the master of the secret cancels the state secret
- 199 -
Hungary
classification and meets the general requirements listed under points a-f, and if the purpose of use is the same
as the original goal of secret obtainment of data or secret collection of information [Paragraph (4) of Section 206].
Finally, the comparison of (the execution) of secret collection of information requiring a permit (SECOLLINF) and
secret data obtainment (SEOBTDAT) activity is summed up by the following table.
(SECOLLINF)
Legal basis
Party ordering
Time of application
Secret obtainment of data
(SEOBTDAT)
Act on the Police (no. XXXIV of t 1994)
Act on State Security Services ( no.
CXXV of 1995)
Act on Border Guard ( no. XXXII of
1997)
Act on Customs ( no C of 1995)
Prosecutorial Act (no V of 1972)
CPA
Judge and Minister of Justice
Court (investigative judge)
before the investigation is ordered
after the investigation is ordered
during the investigation
until the introduction of documents
Period of time of application
90 days that can be extended by 90 days
Method, means
secret search and technical recording of
private residence
the surveillance and recording of a
private residence
mail (K-check)
getting to know and technically recording telecommunication messages
getting to know and using the data of
Internet or other computer technical
correspondence
the technical surveillance of a private
residence
getting to know and recording mail, telecommunication data, and data forwarded
by computer systems
Criminal acts
Act on Police Points a)-j) of Paragraph
(3) and Paragraph (4) of Section 69
National security interest as well
CPA Points a)-g) of Paragraph (1) of
Section 201
“potential accused”
the accused and the person in criminal
relationship with the accused
Target person (against whom)
General condition
Hopeless in other ways (necessary)
+ proportional (would propose disproportional difficulty in another way)
+ the result is rendered probable
Termination
Act on Police Paragraph (1) of section
73
CPA Paragraph (3) of Section 204
the achievement of the goal
the expiration of the deadline
no result can be expected
subsequently, the judge did not allow emergency
- 200 -
Hungary
+ is unlawful for some reason
Destruction of data
Use as evidence
Subsequent notification of the
party affected
+ the investigation was terminated
data without interest for the goal, and data recorded in connection with individuals
not involved in the case
inclusion into report document and attachment to investigation documents
None
the prosecutor notifies him if no criminal
procedure was launched against him and
is not endangering the success of the
procedure
4.4. Secret collection of information not requiring a judge’s permission
As we have already referred, to prevent, uncover, and interrupt the commission of crimes, to establish the identity of
the perpetrator, to locate wanted criminals, to establish their place of residence, and to obtain evidence, the police –
within the constraints of Act no. XXXIV of 1994, on the police – can collect data in secret.
During the criminal procedure, the data obtained during the course of secret collection of information – which is possible – as well as the identity of the person cooperating with the police, the fact and technical details of the collection of
information, constitute a secret until their use as means of evidence.
The aim of the application of the secret criminal-technical means is also criminal data collection, or one could say,
criminal intelligence service. In a wider sense, criminal intelligence service is the information collection activity carried
out under cover, in a hidden manner (conspiring), of an offensive nature, within the framework of which means and
methods defined (recorded) in the laws and other legal regulations coherently adjoining to them, as well as in norms,
can be used.
In a narrower sense, criminal intelligence service is the integration of the official staff of the police in criminally significant positions, projects, areas, and with regard to people in order to obtain the data necessary for uncovering and
proving (for the performance of the investigation).
The types of secret information collection not requiring a judge’s permission:
a) the police may employ an informer or a fiduciary person ("Informátor"),
b) may collect information by covering the police nature,
c) to cover the cooperating person, as well as to cover and protect the police nature, he can issue and use a cover
document, can establish and maintain a cover business,
d) can survey the person who can be suspected of the commission of the criminal act as well as the person in relation
with him (so-called target persons), as well as the premises, building, and other projects, section of terrain or road,
vehicle, event that can be associated with the criminal act, can collect information about it, and can record the findings
with technical devices suitable for the recording of sound, picture, other signs or traces,
e) in order to uncover the perpetrator of the criminal act or in the interest of proving, he is allowed to apply a trap – that
does not cause damage or harm to one’s health – can perform sample, fake or confidence purchasing, may carry out
controlled shipment, and can replace the role of the aggrieved party by a policeman,
f) may establish information systems,
g) apart from the cases requiring a permission, they can tap and record the findings with technical means (e.g.
conversation in a park),
h) may collect information from telecommunication systems requiring official permissions and other data storage
facilities.
The police can conclude a secret cooperation agreement with natural persons or legal entities occurring in the list, as
well as organisations without a legal entity (in practise, most often with the informer), and can give material remuneration – even in foreign currency.
The police can establish and maintain cover businesses indicated under point c) according to the legal regulations
with respect to business entities or private enterprises – at the expense of its own budget.
- 201 -
Hungary
A special combination of secret service devices is the so-called undercover agent and his activity. Due to its existence
and human nature, it is considered a criminal tactical device rather, at the same time, as he is planning to uncover a
criminal act as a flagrant delict, thus setting a “trap” to the real perpetrator, he is also in the role of an “agent provocateur”. Nowadays, the provocateur is used mostly as means in the fight against drug crime. The reason the provocateur is needed in these cases is that drug-related criminal acts typically do not have an aggrieved party, there
is no accuser at the police, no party filing a complaint. Thus the undercover agents pose as buyers, uncovering
the drug dealers with test purchases.
In addition to its usefulness for forensic science, we would like to mention the theoretical, ethical and possible
criminal law liability misgivings are to be mentioned in connection with the provocateur. Namely, as the police –
as it was pointed out earlier – in these cases practically sets a trap for the target person(s). They create a situation in which the target person thinks that the provocateur getting in touch with him is an accomplice, that is the
situation is, so to say, “ideal” for the commission of the crime. The classical example of the provocateur is the
plain-clothes policewoman who poses as a prostitute in the street, or the policeman posing as a drug dealer,
dealing in drugs.
The primary ethical problem in connection with the provocateur is posed by the possibility that the provocateur
might even get the target person to commit a criminal act that he would not have committed by himself. In this
case, the investigation did not uncover but create a criminal act, as the provocateur is able to influence the target
person directly. The correct attitude is that the police establish the situation favourable for the commission of the
criminal act, but the decision with respect to the commission of the criminal act is made by the target person
independently, without the influence of the provocateur.
4.5. Secret collection of information requiring a warrant
Secret collection of information requiring a warrant may have the following types:
a) may search a private residence in secret (secret house search: "Titkos:házkutatás"), and can record the findings
by technical means,
b) may survey and record the events taking place in a private residence with technical means,
c) can get acquainted with letters, other mail, as well as the contents of communication forwarded by means of telephone wire or a telecommunication system in the place of that, and can record that by means of technical devices
(e.g. telephone tapping: "Telefonlehallgatás ).
The police can use these special (so-called operative) means only during the persecution of certain criminal acts of
outstanding dangerousness. These are:
a) can be associated with international crime,
b) aimed against an infant,
c) is realised serially or by organised commission,
d) is related to drugs or materials constituting drugs,
e) is related to forging money or securities,
f) is realised by armed commission,
g) terror or of terrorist nature,
h) seriously disturbs public safety.
4.6. Particular criminal technical secret devices for the collection of information
The different secret tapping, surveillance and search activities are carried out by the investigative authorities with
the special secret service devices of criminal technical nature, listed in the appendix of 135/1997. (VII. 29.) Kormányrendelet [Government Decree number 135/1997. (VII. 29.)]. Such are
a) tapping devices;
b) the means of secret visual surveillance;
c) secret means of entry;
- 202 -
Hungary
d) other criminal technical devices.
ad a) Tapping devices are constituted by any ("Lehallgatás")electronic, mechanical or other device, method or “technology”, and software that can be used in secret without those with legal access to the information and those taking
part in the communication knowing about it, and have one of the following characteristic features:
aa) They have been designed, or produced for the secret tapping, forwarding, or recording of direct speech
("Beszéd:közvetlen lehallgatása"), or they can be used for it without significant transformation. Thus especially
• wall (contact) microphones and stethoscopes provided with electronic amplifiers
• tapping systems and their elements using laser or infra red radiation, or based on ultra sound principle,
• miniature transmitters that can be built in or may be remote controlled, and their special receivers,
• small-size transmitters built into different hiding devices or that can be hidden under clothing, the receivers and
sound recording devices belonging to them,
• miniature sound-recording devices with a recording capacity of over 10 hours,
• high-sensitivity parabola- and gun microphones,
• sub-miniature electret microphones and acoustic probes.
ab) Things that have been designed or produced for any method of the secret obtainment, forwarding, or recording of
data stored on digital ("Beszéd:közvetlen lehallgatása") or analogue information storage and/or processing computers, computer or other devices, or information carriers used with them, or that can be used for this without significant transformation.
ac) Things that have been designed or produced for the secret tapping of telecommunication systems forwarding
hard-line and/or wireless speech and non-speech information by a third party, or that can be used for this without
significant transformation.
ad b) Secret visual surveillance devices are constituted by all the optical, mechanical, electronic and other devices
and their accessories, as well as the software operating these, that have one of the following characteristic features:
ba) Things that have been designed or produced for the secret surveillance or recording (documentation) of people,
human activities or related acts ("Cselekmények titkos megfigyelése"), or for the forwarding and processing of the
information obtained thus, or that can be used for this without significant transformation. Thus especially:
• small-sized, high resolution and sensitivity CCD cameras and their accessories,
• miniature cameras that can be hidden into hiding devices or under clothing and their accessories,
• video sign forwarding devices operating in micro-wave range, and their receivers,
• video sign forwarding devices using the electric network, and their receivers,
• fibrescopes with small entry openings, and systems using glass fibre optics enabling secret surveillance, and
adapters enabling connection to cameras or video cameras.
bb) Operate under restricted light conditions (do not require secondary lighting) and contain special photo-multiplying
tubes or optical elements, parts. Thus especially generation light-enhancing devices that can be used for night photography and video recording ("Generációs fényerősítő berendezések").
bc) Special night vision device operating in infra red range.
ad c) Secret devices of entry are constituted by all mechanical, electronic, optical and software devices that have been
produced for the purposes of secretly entering closed premises (enclosed area of land, building, vehicle, etc.), and
have one of the following characteristic features:
• devices, “technologies” designed and produced for the replacement of the proper opening device of locks, padlocks, bolts, etc. operating on the basis of mechanical, electronic or other principles, for their destructive and destruction-free opening, as well as their accessories and parts,
• devices and software influencing the proper operation of electronic security systems or resulting in their inability to
operate.
- 203 -
Hungary
ad d) Other secret service devices can be:
da) coding or crypting devices,
db) communication system that can be hidden under clothing, provided with a wireless ear piece,
dc) miniature transmitters that can be used for direction and position definition, and their special receivers.
In our opinion, this latter one may have a rather large role in the fight against car thefts with the use of the socalled “beeper” ("GREMELA Zoltán")
The head of the investigative authority terminates the use of the special devices promptly if the authorised objective
has been achieved, if the judge-authorised term is up, if no result can be expected from its further application, or if
application ordered through emergency was not authorised by the judge.
From among secret service devices, most probably, the largest amount is spent on tapping all over the world: according to the estimates, 15-20 billion EUR annually, primarily from the budget of the USA and Great Britain. It was revealed in 1999 that an American tapping system under the cover name “Echelon” was, as a matter of fact, able to
survey every civilian purpose satellite, every under-sea cable, as well as Internet mail and sound forwarding. The
American secret service got as far as “convincing” the largest software manufacturers, Microsoft, Lotus, Netscape to
write their Internet products manufactured for export according to the requirements of the authorities of the USA.
Namely, to use only the kind of coding that can be decoded and tapped without any particular effort.
V. Legal remedy during investigation
During investigation (depending on against which resolution or measure of which authority it is directed),
a) complaint,
b) proposal for review,
c) appeal for continuing investigation and
d) appeal
can be requested.
ad a) Considering whom the resolution of the investigating authority includes regulation, may appeal with complaint within 8 days from delivery. The complaint usually does not have postponing effect. With an approval, the
authority against whom the complaint was proposed, also can decide on it. If not so, it has to be submitted within
three days to the competent authority. Complaint can be claimed by the prosecutor against a resolution of investigating authority, and against a resolution of the prosecutor by the superior prosecutor, within 15 days.
ad b) Against the resolution rejecting complaint for search, frisking, confiscation of the not delivered postal consignment or the documents of a person having right to refuse to testify, an appeal for review can be proposed to
the prosecution, which sends the proposal together with the documents to the investigating judge.
ad c) If the investigation was terminated because the punishability had been terminated based on procedural
mercy, the continuation of investigation can be claimed within 8 days. In this case the investigation must be
continued.
ad d) Appeal can be proposed against a resolution of investigating judge within 3 days from delivery. The investigating judge sends the appeal to the council of the second instance county court, which decides on the appeal on
a session.
There is no room for appeal against
• resolution on search accomplished in offices of public notaries or attorneys and in health care institutions,
confiscation of documents kept there or seizing documents of a person having right to refuse to tetify,
• resolution concerning secret data collection,
• judgement of review appeal,
• changing disciplinary penalty into arrest,
- 204 -
Hungary
• resolution on interrogating an especially secured witness, being in a state endangering life directly, under the
age of 14, or
• resolution considering accomplishment of an evidentary action.
With no respect to the appeal, coercion measures considering personal freedom can be executed. Against the
termination of such coercion measures based on documents the prosecutor may propose an appeal with suspensory effect.
VI. Closing the investigation
Closing the investigation can be accomplished two ways:
a) with termination, if it was not successful
b) by finishing it, if it was successful.
ad a) Termination of investigation can happen with reasons similar to refuse of reports, and the same way, there
are simple, combined and special resolutions it. Although, if investigation is only partially terminated, after interrogating the suspect, the prosecutor can disregard further investigation in a crime which – regarding impeachment- has no importance compared to the committed more significant crime
Rules of refusing denounce are also valid when abating investigation.
Only the prosecutor is entitled to decide
Both prosecutor and investigating
authority may decide
Simple reasons to terminate the • based on information from the investiga- • action in point is not a crime
investigation
tion no commission of a crime can be
• grounds for the preclusion of punishabilestablished
ity (minor age
• not the suspected committed the crime • death, limitation, amnesty
or it cannot be established from investiga• procedure obstacle
tion
• grounds for the preclusion of punishabil- • res iudicata
ity (apart from expectable involuntary
treatment in a mental institution)
• other grounds for the termination of
punishability
• two years have past since ordering
investigation against the given person
Combined reasons to terminate • abating with reprimand
the investigation
• abating with announcement
–
Particular reasons to terminate • investigation bargain
the investigation
• undercover agent
–
Resolution to terminate investigation is not a non-appealable judgement, so in case of new data or new proofs
appearing, new investigation can be ordered again against the same person.
ad b) Finishing of the investigation has three sections:
1. disclosure of investigation files, about which the suspected and the defender are informed. During disclosure
of investigation files the suspected or the defender may propose post-investigation inquiry, may make notices
and other proposals, or ask for copies of documents;
2. if post-investigation inquiry is not proposed, or the proposal is refused, or investigation was completed, the
investigating authority announces the suspected and defender about the finishing of investigation;
- 205 -
Hungary
3. at last investigating authority sends all documents together with the proposal for indictment to the (public)
prosecutor within 15 days from the announcement of the finishing of investigation.
Literature
• CSONKA Istvánné - MÁRAMAROSI Zoltán: Az operatív munka gyakorlata külföldön (The practise of operative
work abroad). Belügyi Szemle 1991/7;
• FARKAS Ákos: A szervezett és a kábítószer-bűnözés elleni különleges nyomozási eszközök alkalmazásának
problémái (The problems of the application of special investigative devices against organised and drug crime).
Belügyi Szemle 2000/2.;
• FENYVESI Csaba-HERKE Csongor-TREMMEL Flórián: Új magyar büntetőeljárás (New Hungarian Criminal
Procedure) Dialóg Campus Kiadó, Budapest-Pécs, 2004;
• FINSZTER Erika: A telefonlehallgatás az Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága gyakorlatának tükrében (Telephone
tapping as reflected by the practise of the European Court of Human Rights). Belügyi Szemle 1997/5;
• FRANCESCON, Ivo Ottavio: Les nouvelles techniques d’information et de communication. Revue
Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique, 1996/1;
• GREMELA Zoltán: A titkos információgyűjtésről (About the secret collection of information). Rendészeti Szemle
1993/3;
• HAAS, H.: Kriminalistischer Erkenntnisgewinn durch „systematisches Beobachten”. Kriminalistik, 2003/2;
• KERTÉSZ Imre: Rendőrség, rendőrállam, jogállam II. rész (lehallgatás, informátorok) (Police, police state,
constitutional state, part II [tapping and informers]). Belügyi Szemle 1989/11;
• LAKATOS János: Bevezetés a kriminalisztikába (Introduction to Criminalistics). Rejtjel, 1999;
• MISKOLCI László: Az anyagi jog és eljárásjog határán: a rendőrség által provokált bűncselekmények megítélése
egyes common law jogrendszerű országokban (Along the borderline of material law and procedural law: the
judgement of police-provoked crimes in certain common law countries). In: Bűnügyi Tudományi Közlemények,
Miskolc, 2002;
• MEYER, J.: Verdeckte Ermittlungen. Kriminalistik, 1999/1;
• NACK, A: Verdeckte Ermittlungen. Kriminalistik, 1999/3;
• NYIRI Sándor: Gondolatok a titkos információgyűjtésről (Thoughts about the secret collection of information).
Rendészeti Szemle, 1993/8;
• NYIRI Sándor: Ismét a titkos információgyűjtésről (Yet again about the secret collection of information).
Rendészeti Szemle, 1995/7-8;
• NYÍRI Sándor: A titkos adatszerzés (Secret obtainment of data). BM Kiadó, Budapest, 2000;
• TREMMEL, Flórián – FENYVESI Csaba – HERKE Csongor: Kriminalisztika Tankönyv és Atlasz. (Criminalistics
Textbook and Atlas) Dialóg Campus Kiadó, Budapest-Pécs, 2005;
• WAGNER, N.: V: Personen und Zeugenschutz. Kriminalistik, 2000/3;
• WANNER, Stephan: Die negative Rasterfahndung. Eine moderne und umstrittene Methode der regressiven
Verbrechensbekämpfung. Wiesbaden 1995.
- 206 -
Section III
ITALY*
Renzo ORLANDI / Roberto E.KOSTORIS**
I. Reform of legal framework: special measures with regard to prevention, investigation, and prosecution***
conventions) apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of these international standards in your country? Can citizens (suspects, accused, victims, witnesses..) derive rights from these
In relation to the protection of human rights Italy has signed and implemented the following international covenants and conventions:
a) Law 27 October 1951, n. 1739 has ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (concerning “the treatment
of prisoners of war”, “the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field”, “the
amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea” and “the protection of civilian persons in time of war”). The two additional protocols to the four Geneva conventions signed in
Geneva on 8 June 1977 have been adopted by Law 11 December 1985, n. 762;
b) The European Convention of Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, has been ratified by Italy
without reservations and it has been implemented in the Italian Law by Law 4 August 1955, n. 848. It entered into
force on 26 October 1955. Italy has also implemented all the following additional protocols to the ECHR.
c) The International Covenant on civil and political rights adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966, has been implemented by Law 25 October 1977, n. 881 and it entered into force on 15 December
1978. Italy also recognized the competence of the Committee on Human Rights, elected on the basis of Art. 28 of
the Covenant, for receiving and examining the complaints raised by one of the contracting State on the violations
of the Covenant’s obligations perpetrated by another contracting State.
At the time of ratification, Italy advanced declarations and reservations to the Covenant: in particular, with a view
to excluding possible difficulties in the interpretation, it declared the words “unlawful arrest or detention” spelled
out by Art. 9, para. 5, to be interpreted as related only to cases of arrest and detention contrary to the provisions
of Art. 9, para. 1.
Furthermore, it declared the provision of Art. 14, para. 3, lett. d) to be interpreted as plainly consistent with the
existing Italian rules on the presence of the accused at trial and on the right to self-defence or to legal advice.
It also stated that para. 5 of Article 14 is not of obstacle to the application of the existing Italian provisions which
govern, in conformity with the Italian Constitution, the procedures in front of the Constitutional Court for the judgments on criminal allegations against the President of the Republic and the Ministries.
Finally Italy declared to consider the last phrase of Art. 15, para. 1 (“if, after the commission of the crime, the law
provides for the application of a more lenient sentence, the person condemned shall take benefit of it”) as appliImportant notice: this text is the last original version of the national report sent by the author. The Review has not assured
** Prof. Renzo Orlandi..University of Bologna. Prof. Roberto E.Kostoris. University of Padua.
*** Paragraphs I to III, by Prof. Renzo Orlandi. University of Bologna.
*
- 207 -
Italy
cable only to pending proceedings. As a consequence a person considered guilty and sentenced by a decision
not subject to further remedies cannot take advantage of the more favorable provisions as to sentencing of a
posterior law.
The provisions of the international instruments just cited cannot be directly applied by the Italian judge. Serious
violations of the Geneva Conventions may be denounced in front of the International Criminal Court, whose
Statute was ratified by Italy with Law 12 July 1999, n. 232. In relation to the infringements of the International
Covenant of New York Italy is subject to the control of the Committee of Human Rights, whose competence Italy
recognized (Articles 28, 40, 41 of the Covenant).
A slightly different approach applies to the ECHR. Its provisions also are not directly applicable by the Italian
judge. However two recent decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court have deemed the provisions of the ECHR,
insofar as they protect individual rights compatible with the Italian Constitution, to be parameters for evaluating
the lawfulness of internal laws. In other words, the provision of the ECHR compatible with the Italian Constitution
are “incorporated” in the Italian Constitution. Needless to say, the violations of those provisions are still subject to
the scrutiny of the Strasbourg Court.
The first reforms which deserve to be mentioned date back to the 70’s. The Italian Parliament intended to respond to threats related to political violence and internal terrorism. Law 22 May 1975, n. 152 (titled “Provisions to
assure public order”) widened police powers to search, arrest and stop and introduced harsher rules on pre-trial
detention. It also extended the applicability of incarceration of non-accused people for preventing the commission
of crimes which had originally been introduced in 1965 (Law n. 575 of 1965) only in relation to crimes related with
mafia association.
A few days after Aldo Moro (an eminent deputy of the Christian-democrat party) was kidnapped, a bill was
passed (decree law 21 March 1978, n. 59, Substantive and procedural provisions for the preventions and repressions of serious crimes) which gave a further contribution to the enlargement of police investigative powers (interrogation of the accused without the presence of a defence counsel, searches in urgent cases, preventive wiretappings).
Lastly decree law 15 December 1979, n. 625 (Urgent measures for protecting democracy and public safety)
raised significantly the penalties for terrorism crimes and increased the maximum terms for detention pending
trial in a way which violated the ECHR and exposed Italy to the risk of a conviction in front of the Strasbourg
Court.
In the early 80’s, terrorist organizations lost ground. Nearly all their members were arrested and the ideologies on
which they were based fell apart. This gave the impression that the emergency was coming to an end and a
return to normality seemed possible with the consequent abandon of extraordinary measures. In the meantime
however mafia connections gained power and became protagonists of episodes of violence and of sorts of terrorist actions (murder of military men, journalists, judges and prosecutors, policemen). Parliament reacted to this
threat by passing bills which introduced other special measures.
Decree law 6 September 1982 (Urgent provisions for coordinating the fight against mafia connections) and Law
13 September 1982, n. 646 (Provisions related to preventive measures on property) established the “Alto Commissario per la lotta alla mafia (High Commissioner for the fight against mafia) and strengthened the so called
“preventive measures”, directed to prevent the commission of certain crimes, by permitting investigations on nonaccused people suspected of being somehow connected to mafia organizations, and even on their relatives. A
new crime was introduced which punished the promotion of a mafia organization or the participation to it (Art.
416-bis criminal code).
The scenario remained unchanged with the entry into force of the new code of criminal procedure (October
1989). Nearly all the extraordinary provisions of the anti-mafia bills were kept in place. Furthermore a new wave
of emergency came along in the 90’s when serious terrorist actions were undertaken by mafia groups (murder of
the two prosecutors Falcone and Borsellino, bomb attacks in Rome, Florence, Milan).
- 208 -
Italy
This led to the adoption of a new bill (decree law 8 June 1992, n. 306, Urgent amendments to the new code of
criminal procedures and provisions to contrast mafia delinquency). The statute sets out special rules for trials on
mafia related crimes. In particular it introduced special investigative powers and it widened the range of admissible evidence at trial.
The same goal of contrasting organised and transnational delinquency was taken up by law 3 August 1998, n.
269 (Provisions against new forms of slavery: exploitation of prostitution, pornography, sexual tourism against
minors). Apart from the introduction of several new crimes, the statute had provisions to permit under cover
investigations on the internet to search for people who exchange child pornography or organize forms of sexual
exploitation through the internet.
In the beginning of the new century after the events of 11 September 2001 Islamic international terrorism becomes the new emergency to contrast. The Italian Parliament passed Law 18 October 2001, n. 374 (Urgent
provisions to contrast international terrorism) which provides for harsher punishments against those who set up in
Italy organizations for committing terrorist actions abroad: in particular, the statute introduces a new crime which
consists in associating for committing terrorist actions (art. 270-bis criminal code). Since the crime is punished
with a very harsh punishment, the whole range of investigative instruments is available, including several forms
of intense restrictions of fundamental liberties (e.g. a wider possibility to intercept communications, longer periods
of pre-trial detention). Moreover all the special provisions set out to contrast mafia crimes are applicable to investigate on this new crime.
Law 11 August 2003, n. 228 (Measures against trafficking in human beings) is specifically focused on transnational crimes. The statute introduces new hypotheses of crime as well. It punishes conducts related to new forms
of human slavery and it eases investigations on such conducts both by allowing for a larger possibility to intercept
communications, both by providing for special forms of undercover investigations.
Following the bloody terrorist acts in the London Underground (July 2005) a new bill was passed by the Government (decree law 27 July 2005, n. 144, Urgent measures to combat international terrorism) which again
strengthened the police investigative powers, including powers to prevent the commission of crimes. The statute
also encourages cooperation between police forces and secret services, creates special antiterrorism units, gives
the Minister of the Interior special powers to expel foreigners suspected of supporting terrorist organizations,
permits the police to collect body samples for identifying suspects through genetic tests.
In the last two years three bills in particular deserve to be mentioned. Law 16 March 2006, n. 146 (Ratification
and implementation of the UN Convention and Protocols against transnational organized crime, adopted by the
General Assembly on 15 November 2000 and 31 May 2001) spells out the definition of transnational crime (art.
3) and contains a comprehensive set of rules on undercover investigations (art. 9), which are permissible only for
contrasting organized crime. Law 3 August 2007, n. 124 (Information system for the protection of the safety of the
Republic and new rules on executive privilege) provides for innovative forms of cooperation between the police
and the secret services in the fight against terrorism. Lastly, law 18 March 2008, n. 48 (Ratification and implementation of the Convention of the Council of Europe on cybercrime, signed in Budapest, 23 November 2001,
and provisions for adjusting internal rules) does not contain special provisions on investigative powers but it
amends the criminal code by introducing new crimes typical of globalized world which essentially protect the
privacy in the use of computers. As for the code of criminal procedure the statute simply adds a few words in the
texts of the rules on search and seizure of documents.
- Did the reforms amend the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement, or did they elaborate
Yes, the laws for combating organized and transnational crime contain rules which are special/exceptional compared to those which apply to the ordinary action of the police, prosecution and criminal judges.
They are special in the sense that in most cases they allow police forces and prosecutors to undertake “preventive actions”, i.e. they can take action before the commission of a crime and in order to prevent it. Since the goal
is to prevent the crime, police and prosecutors can act on the basis of suspicions (i.e. a person is linked with
delinquent environments) and not on the basis of a notice of a crime.
- 209 -
Italy
But also the provisions concerning the investigations on committed crimes are special in the sense that the powers assigned to the police or the prosecutor differ in some way from the powers to which they are usually entitled.
Instead the rules which govern the duties of the judge at trial are those which undergo fewer exceptions albeit
there being some distance between trials on organized/transnational crimes and all other trials.
No. The Italian Constitution does not provide for the use of exceptional powers in case of emergency. As for war,
the Constitution expressly condemns the use of war as a means for offending other nations’ freedom or as a way
to solve international controversies (disputes) (Art. 11).
- Did criminal justice practice play a role in defining and carrying out the reforms? Did, e.g., higher courts (cassation or constitutional court) reverse elements of these reforms?
The Italian Parliament proves to be very sensitive to the current events reported by the press and especially to
those news items which shock the public opinion. The majority of the emergency bills cited above was adopted in
the aftermath of tragic events (terrorist actions, kidnappings, cruel homicides) on the emotional distress arisen in
consequence.
High courts’ decisions instead did not play any role in the adoption of the emergency bills. In some occasions the
judges (expecially in the absence of a timely intervention by Parliament) created tools for fighting mafia organized
crimes by delivering innovative interpretations of the law. This happened, for example, in relation to the crime of
mafia-association. The judges stretched the text of the legal rule provided for by Article 416 of the criminal code
and created the so called (and highly controversial) “crime of external participation to a mafia association”, thus
enlarging the numbers of subjects who could be prosecuted for mafia crimes. Instead of being prosecuted for
aiding and abetting, the “external participants” are charged of being a member of the mafia association. As a
consequence their position is strongly aggravated both at substantive and procedural level.
The Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court (Corte di cassazione) did not challenge the laws for contrasting
transnational and organized crimes, with the only exception of some provisions on illegal immigration which were
declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (decisions 222 and 223 of 2004).
The first provision quashed (Art. 13, sections 4, 5 and 5-bis of legislative decree 25 July 1998, n. 286, as later
amended by decree-law 4 April 2002, n. 51) gave the administrative authority the power to expel the immigrant
without a valid permit of residence immediately and without any defence power to contradict. According to the
Constitutional Court the provision limited personal liberty and the right of defence to an extent which is incompatible with Art. 13 and 24 of the Fundamental Chart and was thus void.
The second provision (art. 14, section 5-quinquies, legislative decree 25 July 1998, n. 286, introduced by Art. 13,
section 1 of Law 30 July 2002, n. 189) permitted the arrest of the immigrant found guilty of the crime of illegal
immigration. Since the crime of illegal immigration is a minor crime (misdemeanor) the arrest could not be followed by a detention order (since detention pending trial may be issued only for serious crimes). The Court found
this to be unreasonable and thus quashed the provision.
The special bills cited above have never undergone a real public debate. As it was previously said, such laws
were passed in the aftermath of tragic events under the emotional pressure created by brutal acts and thus in
situations not favorable to a free and comprehensive discussion of opinions. In those occasions even political
debate dismissed its typical contentious attitude for leaving room to an unproblematic bipartisan approach.
arms) and what is their legal source (e.g., constitution, statute)?
As it was said for criminal procedure in other countries, Italian criminal procedure can be considered constitutional law in action.
The guide lines for the judicial process are set out in the 1948 Constitution.
- 210 -
Italy
The Constitution recognizes (in the sense that such rights are considered to exist before the creation of the
State) the fundamental rights of the person (Art. 2) and, in particular, it declares the right to personal liberty (Art.
13), the right to respect for one’s home (Art. 14), the freedom to communicate (Art. 15), the right to defence (Art.
24 section 2) and the right to a previously established judge (Art. 25) be inviolable.
Moreover the Constitution affirms the principle of the presumption of innocence, stating that nobody can be considered guilty until a decision of guilt not subject to further remedies is given (Art. 27 section 2). Moreover a recent reform (constitutional law 23 November 1999, n. 2) has amended Art. 111 of the fundamental Chart spelling
out the principles of fair trial: the right to an impartial judge, the equality of arms, the reasonable time (delay) of
judgments, the right of the accused to be informed as soon as possible of the accusation against him, the right to
confrontation with prosecutors’ witnesses, the right of the parties to participate directly at the collection of evidence at trial.
Constitutional provisions on the organization of judicial authorities are also of high importance. The Italian Constitution proclaims the autonomy and independence of the judiciary, including judges and prosecutors. It prohibits to
establish special or extraordinary judges (art. 102 comma 2), such as the Military Commission of the United
States. Judges are bound only by the law (art. 101). Prosecutors are independent from the Government and
have the power to direct the actions of the police (Art. 109). They are bound by the principle of legality in bringing
formal charges and, consequently, in investigating on crimes (Art. 112).
The provisions of the European Convention on human Rights hold a role close to that of the Constitutional rules.
Formally they are at the same level of the laws but as we noted above the Constitutional Court has recently
affirmed that the principles spelled out in the provisions of the ECHR can be parameters for judging the validity of
the laws, just as Constitutional principles are (see decisions n. 347 and 348 cited above).
Judicial authorities (judges and prosecutors) have to follow and apply the law and they cannot apply neither the
Constitution nor the ECHR directly. If the judge or the prosecutor believes a provision of the law to be in contrast
with the rules of the Constitution or of the ECHR he or she should bring the case in front of the Constitutional
Court for deciding on the matter, so to dissolve all doubts on the validity of the law.
Albeit being formally unquestioned, the central role of the law in governing judicial procedures is challenged by
the growing importance of the case-law. Precedents of the courts are more and more treated as a new source of
legal rules.
The principle apply at all stages of criminal proceedings. Art. 27 section 2 of the Constitution proclaims that “the
person accused cannot be considered guilty until a final decision is given (i.e. a decision not subject to further
appeals)”. This rule prohibits the execution of the sentence while appeals (appello or ricorso per cassazione) are
still underway.
The Constitutional principle also implies that while criminal proceedings are pending a detention order may be
issued only for protecting trial needs (i.e. in order to avoid suppression, manipulation or withholding of the evidence, or in order to prevent the accused from fleeing) or to neutralize the dangerousness of the accused as it
appears from his or her criminal record and from the alleged conduct.
- the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to
confess guilt?
Just as the presumption of innocence, the right to silence apply at all stages of criminal proceedings. The principle protects both the defendant from answering on the charges brought against him or her both the codefendants (even if tried in separate trials) from answering on the allegations concerning the accomplice.
In other words the accessory to a crime has a right to silence even when interrogated on the responsibility of his
or her accomplices. Nevertheless, the co-accused who agrees to answers on the facts concerning the responsibility of the others loses his or her right to silence on those facts and cannot later refuse to answer on those
circumstances (Art. 64 section 3 code of criminal procedure).
- 211 -
Italy
Formally all citizens are equal in front of the law, as it is stated by Art. 3 of the Constitution. There is no difference
between Italian citizens and other EU citizens. However there are some legal provisions applying only to EU non
Italian citizens which may discriminate them from the nationals well beyond the limit permitted by a wise political
reasoning and by the Constitutional principle of non discrimination (which is inferred from Art. 3 of the Constitution).
Italy has started to experience relevant migration flows starting from the end of the 80’s in connection with the
collapse of Socialist countries in Eastern Europe. The first bill trying to govern the entry and residence of immigrants dates back to end of that decade (decree law 30 December 1989, n. 416 – Urgent provisions on political
asylum, entry and residence of immigrants, regularization of immigrants already staying on Italian soil).
The statute, conceived in times of little immigration flows, essentially had a humanitarian approach: it governed
the right of asylum and limited the return (deportation) of immigrants to their own country to few particular cases
(conviction for serious crimes, suspicion of dangerousness of a person).
The scenario changes radically and dramatically in the following decade. The migration flows grow enormously
and run out of control. This new reality induces a normative change which takes place in 1998 and 1999, first
with legislative decree 25 July 1998, n. 286 (Consolidation of the provisions concerning illegal immigrations and
rules on the status of immigrant) and then with the following implementing regulation (Decree of the President of
the Republic, 31 August 1999, n. 394).
The amount of illegal entries in Italy is such that it becomes difficult to manage the administrative procedures for
the expulsion in reasonable times. It arises therefore the need to keep the immigrants involved in expulsion’s
procedures in closed areas under surveillance called ““centri di permanenza temporanea”, CPT (centres for
temporary stay, see Art. 14 legislative decree n. 286/1998). The centres soon become places for detention where
people are kept often in terrible hygienic conditions and sometimes without even being charged of any crime.
In 2002, in connection with a change in the political lead of the Government, a new reform is passed (Law 30 July
2002, n. 189 – Amendments to the provisions on immigration and asylum) which makes the treatment of illegal
immigrants harsher and even more discriminating. In the new rules the intervention of administrative and judicial
authorities is inspired to extreme and unusual severity. For example, the law allows for the immediate arrest of
the illegal immigrant even for minor crimes such as the re-entry of the immigrant in the national soil (which is
conceived as a misdemeanour). Moreover the Statute provides that the typical immigration crimes (re-entry on
the Italian soil without residence permit, illegal stay on the Italian soil) should be dealt with in the shortest time
possible and it provides for faster procedures (speedy trial). Lastly the immigrant can be excluded even when a
trial against him or her is underway, with the consequence of making defence almost impossible in that trial.
A fair treatment of immigrants is a new serious and challenging task for Italy. At present Italian political forces at
the Government tend to face the problem with a demagogic approach which is partly encouraged by television
media. Almost every night television news and magazines report crimes (burglaries, brutal sexual assaults, violent homicides) committed by young Rom people (gipsies) and focus on them. The perception of fear and insecurity of the population has grown enormously and so has the demand for greater protection from the public authorities. The Government is just now (May 2008) trying to meet people’s expectations by adopting a number of
harsher measures than those presently available. These measures are aimed at facilitating criminal prosecutions
against illegal immigrants. They are the expression of a criminal policy which shows some xenophobic features.
The recent decree law 23 May 2008, n. 92 falls perfectly within this philosophy and more bills are announced to
come in the next months for tackling illegal immigration.
- Can emergency serve as a ground to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings (military
- 212 -
Italy
No suspension of fundamental right is permitted by our Constitution. And no laws or practices have in the past
decades infringed such a rule.
The only known episode where a violation of fundamental rights might have occurred concerns a case of extraordinary rendition. Abu Omar, an Egyptian citizen, over whom the Milan prosecution office was investigating,
was kidnapped on 17 February 2003 in Milan by CIA agents with the support of the Italian secret services.
Brought to Egypt, Abu Omar was interrogated for long and he claims of having been tortured by the Egyptian
police during interviews on his relationships with Islamic fundamentalist groups.
At present a trial is taking place in Milan for the Abu Omar affair on charges of kidnapping. It would therefore be
inappropriate to consider this incident as a case of violation of human rights permitted by the Italian legal system.
Nevertheless it must be admitted that the activity of ascertainment at trial meets quite a few obstacles raised by
the Italian Government through the opposition of the executive privilege to all requests of information filed by the
Milan prosecutors.
7. Does your legal system recognize special measures by which parts of the legislation and/or parts of the criminal process may be classified (classified legislation, secret procedures, secret actors of justice, secrecy in the
administration of criminal justice)?
The answer is negative. There are no secret provisions giving the police or the judiciary powers to investigate or
to ascertain crimes.
All people involved in criminal proceedings either as judges, prosecutors or expert witnesses need to be identifiable.
Evidence from anonymous witnesses is inadmissible (Art. 195 section 7 and Art. 203). Nevertheless the law
provides for some protection to the people who agree to collaborate with the judicial authorities in proceedings on
organized crime (cooperating witnesses). Such witnesses may be examined outside of court through audio-visual
links with the courtroom (Art. 147-bis implementing provisions to the code of criminal procedure). Only in exceptional cases can the judge order a compulsory attendance of the “cooperating witness”; if that is the case the
hearing must be held in camera (art. 147-ter implementing provisions to the code of criminal procedure).
The actions and operations conducted by the secret services are instead fully secret. Secret services are not
formally given duties to prevent or repress crimes albeit their activities being somewhat very close to that of the
police especially in the field of contrasting international terrorism.
8. Does your legal system allow for the use of intelligence information (e.g., general police intelligence, national
or foreign intelligence services information) in criminal proceedings, such as
- evidence for probable cause for using coercive measures on goods and on persons (e.g., search and seizure,
arrest, and detention);
In order to ensure a more efficient action against organized crimes (mafia crimes, drug trafficking, weapon trafficking, national or international terrorism), the executive authorities (Minister of the Interior and police) and the
judicial authorities may undertake investigative acts even before a crime occurs.
In particular they can
a) interview detained people who are willing to offer their contribution (Art. 18-bis law 26 July 1975, n. 354 – Law
on the prison system);
b) intercept communications with the purpose of preventing crimes (Art. 226 implementing provisions to the code
of criminal procedure);
c) undertake investigations on the assets of people who are suspected of being collateral to mafia groups or
terroristic circles and of their relatives (sons, spouse) or live-in partners (Art. 2 section 3 Law 31 May 1965, n.
575 and art. 25 Law 13 September 1982, n. 646).
- 213 -
Italy
The information acquired during these preventive investigations cannot be used in criminal proceedings as a rule:
they can neither be used at trial as evidence of guilt, nor in the investigations as elements for issuing a detention
order or for any other purpose. An explicit prohibition is provided for the interceptions of communications by Art.
226 section 5 of the implementing provisions to the code of criminal procedure. The Courts believe a similar
prohibition to apply to all acts of preventive investigations, thus excluding any admissibility at trial of the gathered
materials (e.g., see Cass. Sez. V, 14 ottobre 1996, n. 873, in CED, Rv. 206904, ruling inadmissible the information acquired through investigative talks with possible “cooperating witness”).
On the opposite it is permissible to use the information gathered in preventive investigations for starting a repressive investigation. In other terms, the activities for preventing crimes may lead to discover elements of a committed crime and thus give rise to ordinary investigations (see R. Orlandi, Inchieste preparatorie nei procedimenti di
criminalità organizzata: una riedizione dell’inquisitio generalis?, in Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale,
1996, 568-592).
A similar discipline applies to information acquired by Italian or foreign intelligence services: such elements cannot be used as evidence at trial, they can instead be of impulse for starting an investigation on a committed
crime. A recent example of this concerns the case of the Italians holding bank accounts in Liechtenstein. The
German intelligence collected all the names of the account holders at LGT Bank and the Italian prosecutors
immediately started an inquiry to discover possible tax offences.
9 a. Do intelligence forces, regular police forces, or administrative enforcement agencies (such as customs or tax
agencies) have the competence in your country to use coercive powers in a pro-active way?
If yes,
- under which conditions?
- must there be a suspicion based on probable cause to use these coercive powers or are indications of dangerousness for the national security or public interest sufficient? Has the definition of suspicion been changed for
serious offences?
- can these coercive powers be used for persons other than suspects/accused of crimes (e.g., enemy combatants, enemy aliens, persons having no right to the protection of regular criminal procedure, etc.)?
- can the information obtained through the pro-active enforcement by means of use of coercive measures be
shared between intelligence, police, administrative enforcement agencies, and judicial authorities?
This question was partially answered under the previous point. We can add here that proactive (or preventive)
operations are provided for by some special laws which empowers the police to make searches apart from any
investigation on a perpetrated crime.
We can remember here:
a) the searches conducted by the Polizia tributaria (Police for fiscal violations) under the mere suspicion of a
fiscal breach (art. 33 legge 7 gennaio 1929, n. 4);
b) the police searches for finding weapons, ammunitions or explosives which can be undertaken under mere
suspicion (art. 41 regio decreto 18 giugno 1931, n. 773 e art. 4 legge 22 maggio 1975, n. 152);
c) the searches conducted by police boats or by war ships on national vessels suspected of carrying drugs (art.
100 D.P.R. 9 ottobre 1990, n. 309);
d) the searches and inspections run in customs’ areas by the Guardia di Finanza (Financial Police) in order to
find drug substance (art. 103 D.P.R. 9 ottobre 1990, n. 309);
e) the visits, inspections and controls discharged by custom officers under mere suspicion of irregularities (art. 19
D.P.R. 23 gennaio 1973, n. 43).
As it can be easily understood from the above list, the philosophy of police proactive operations is to prevent
situations of emergency or of real and objective danger, connected with the risk of illicit use of particular things
- 214 -
Italy
(e.g., explosives or drugs). The police intervention is instead not connected with situation of subjective danger
arising from the features of a particular person (the Islamic fundamentalist, the terrorist, the drug dealer).
These operations are special in the sense that they do not need a previous authorization from the judicial authority. When the operations are carried out all other rules of the code of criminal procedure apply. In particular, the
operations must be recorded in a report which is to be transmitted within 48 hours to the prosecutors for validation (art. 352 comma 4 c.p.p.).
Information acquired through proactive operations follow the regime of secrecy typical of investigative acts: they
are secret until the investigation is running (Art. 329). Nevertheless such information may be transmitted to other
public authorities (e.g., the Minister of Interior or the Prime Minister, see Article 118 and 118-bis of the code of
criminal procedure) under authorization given by the prosecutors. As previously noted, information coming out of
proactive (preventive) operations cannot be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.
9 b. Does your legal system allow for the use of tough forms of investigation techniques (torture or cruel, unusual,
or inhuman treatment) during pro-active enforcement, and, if yes, under which conditions? What is the practice of
your country in this field?
The answer is absolutely negative. Inhuman and degrading punishments are strictly forbidden by constitutional
as well as by procedural law. The Italian Constitution bans every degrading and inhuman punishment (art. 27,
Par. III). The code of criminal procedure protects the moral liberty of any person involved in the investigations run
by the public authorities (Art. 188) and not only of people who are accused of a crime (Art. 64 section 2). It is
prohibited to use any method or technique which might affect the liberty of self determination of a person: not
even the person’s consent could overcome such a prohibition. In order to prevent violations of such a principle
and in order to sweep away all doubts on certain investigative practices, the questioning of the accused detained
pending trial must be recorded through audio as well as audiovisual recorder (Art. 141-bis code of criminal procedure).
This of course does not exclude that in some occasions the police might strong-arm the accused in order to
obtain from him the information they expect to collect. In fact some episodes of tortures occurred in the past
albeit very seldom. A big scandal blew up, for example, in 1982, around the brutal questioning of some members
of the red brigades conducted by the special corps of the police who had arrested them. The police officers were
consequently prosecuted and convicted for acts of assault and battery and molestation; though the sentence was
very mild since the statutory sentencing regime for those crimes is quite low and there is not a crime of torture in
the Italian legal system yet. Italy has signed in 1988 the UN Convention against torture of 10 December 1984, but
it has not fully implemented it yet by introducing the crime of torture in its criminal code.
- the right to habeas corpus (arrest, detention, deportation, extraordinary rendition, etc.)?
The protection of personal data in Italy has quite a recent history, since the right to privacy does not carry in the
Italian legal system the same importance as in North-european countries.
The first law to set out clear and comprehensive rules in this field dates back to 1996 and it is important to underline that the law was passed under the impulse of the European institutions [Recommendation of 17 September
1987, R(87)15 of the Council of Europe] at the time when Italy was entering the Schengen Area.
The rules presently in force (legislative decree 30 June 2003, n. 196 – Code for the protection of personal data
code) affirm the individual right to the protection of data concerning the person (Art. 1) but they permit operations
on personal information quite broadly when data are processed in order to protect public safety and to prevent,
ascertain, repress crimes (Art. 53).
A specific attention is paid to traffic data of telephonic and electronic communications. The companies providing
such services (telephonic and digital services) are required to retain traffic data stored for the needs of criminal
justice. In general, traffic data of telephonic communications must be kept for 24 months, while traffic data of
electronic communications for six months (Art. 132 section 1). An exception was provided for the ascertainment
of the most serious crimes (e.g. organised crimes): in such cases the provider of communication services was
- 215 -
Italy
supposed to retain traffic data for further 24, or further 6, months (Art. 132 section 2). Such a rule was in clear
contrast with directive 2006/24/EC (adopted by the European Parliament on 15 March 2006) which only permitted data to be stored for a maximum period of two years. The contrast with EU law was eliminated by legislative
decree n. 109 of 30 May 2008 (Implementation of directive 2006/24/CE on the retention of data generated or
processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public
communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC).
As for what regards the right of habeas corpus, it does not suffer specific restrictions when investigations concern
the most serious crimes. Every person arrested or stopped by the police must be brought in front of a judge
within the next 48 hours. The judge has to validate the arrest (Art. 13 Cost. and Art. 380-391 code of criminal
procedure).
Every person placed in detention pending trial has the right to be heard by the judge within 5 days from the beginning of the restriction (Art. 294 code of criminal procedure). Such rules apply in all cases, regardless of the
seriousness of the crime.
IV. Pre-trial setting (common criminal proceedings, specialproceedings)*
11. Did your legal system experience an increase of
- investigative powers and coercive powers (search and seizure, bugging and tapping, freezing orders, evidence
production orders, arrest and detention, infiltration, etc.) of the investigation authorities? If yes, in which way?
Our legal system experienced an increase of investigative powers and coercive powers, both in the ante delictum
stage and during the criminal proceedings. This increase was especially due to the legislation bound to the
events of September 11th: in particular, the decree-law n. 369/2001 and, notably, the decree-law n. 144/2005,
which led to the first significant changes.
It introduced the Italian Financial Security Committee to ensure the fulfilment of international duties to which Italy
is bound in the area of strategies to control and combat terrorism; the aim of these provisions relating to preventive measures against mafia was expanded also to subjects acting on purpose to commit crimes of international
terrorism. This is the case of the application to natural and legal persons of the provisional suspension of property administration on report of the United Nations Committee or of other international body which is eligible to
order the freezing of funds/property in the presence of well-founded suspicions of dispersion, concealment and
use of funds/resources to finance terrorist organizations/activities (even acting on international level): see article
22 of Law n. 152/1975.
A power and duty to advise the public prosecutor, responsible for requesting the application of a preventive
measure, was attribuited to the President of the Financial Security Committee; this legislative choice has carried
out a link between the system of property freeze and the procedure of patrimonial prevention (seizure and confiscation).
Moreover, a specific case of mandatory confiscation was provided: it applies, during the trial, as patrimonial
measure to the person convicted of organised crime of terrorism (even of international terrorism).
New forms of preventive wire-tapping and bugging were provided in cases they appear necessary to prevent
activities of terrorism or directed to subversion of the constitutional system: see article 226 of legislative decree n.
271/1989 (provisions for the coordination at the criminal procedure code) and article 4 of decree-law n. 144/2005.
A specific type of police search of suspects,“on the spot”, was introduced to control the possible detention of
weapons, explosives, housebreaking tools, in cases of necessity and urgency which do not allow a quick intervention of the judicial authorities.
As for coercive powers, the maximum terms of the provisional arrest for identification purposes were extended in
consequence, again, of decree-law n. 144/2005; as it concerns the efficacy of the provisional arrest of a suspect
for an offence of terrorism (even international terrorism) or of democratic system subversion, the statutory penalty
limits are no more relevant and the existence of a terrorist or subversive purpose is enough. Mandatory arrest in
flagrancy of crimes committed for purposes of terrorism or subversion of the constitutional system was introduced
*
Paragraphs IV to VI, by Prof. Roberto E. Kostoris.University of Padua.
- 216 -
Italy
through a reduction of the statutory penalty (in the minimum); cases of arrest, not in flagrancy, were provided for
those suspected of doing preliminary acts with the purpose of terrorism (even international terrorism).
Finally, as far as coercive powers are concerned, it has to be pointed out that decree-law n. 144/2005 enabled
the police to take biological samples compulsorily, for purposes of identification and urgent investigation (see the
new wording of articles 349 and 350 of the code). All the same, in Italy a DNA data bank has not been set up yet
(however, see the following answer).
There are not specific cooperation duties of the investigated persons. Nevertheless, in consequence of the
above-mentioned decree-law n. 144/2005, which considers the residence permit as a rewarding means to obtain
important information for investigation, the accused could be indirectly “induced” to give up his/her right ro remain
silent.
With regard to the existence of new international cooperation duties, according to the Prum Treaty, Italy is trying
to conform itself by creating a DNA data base, in order to exchange genetic profiles.
There was a sort of reinforcement/shift of powers in favour of the police and of the ante delictum prevention
procedure (refer to what is stated in the previous answer).
Particularly, there was a strengthening of the judicial police in its function of “information receptive”, as if it was
turned into an intelligence service. The expansion of the power to talk with prisoners for investigative purposes
takes its place in this perspective: it is recognized to those been in charge of the offices in State Police or in
Carabineers Service, to meet needs of prevention and punishment of crimes committed for purpose of terrorism
(even international terrorism) or subversion of democratic system (see article 1 of decree-law n. 144/2005).
Moreover, the decree-law n. 144/2005 provided for the exclusion of non-EU nationals, whose presence in the
State could favour terrorist organizations and activities. In this context, there was an increase in the powers of
Minister of Interior and of prefects, who can withdraw or suspend the exclusion when it is necessary to know if a
crime was committed or to carry on investigation about terrorist facts. From this point of view the powers of executive bodies can affect the work of the judiciary dealing with the investigation.
The decree-law n. 92 on May 23, 2008 increased the powers of mayors, who have to supervise the surveillance
over all regarding safety and public policy and the performance of police duties.
In our country article 5 d.l. n. 144/2005 introduced the "unità antiterrorismo interforze”. Home office is competent
to establish these units. They are entitled to investigate on " terrorism crimes", but only for those of "remarkable
gravity" (due to the vagueness of this expression, it is not clear which are the powers of these units). They can
also be used for undercover operations ex article 9 Law n. 146/2006.
- the conditions to approve coercive measures (warrants) of the judiciary? If yes, how and to what extent? Has
there been a redefinition of the probable cause for warrants?
No provision allows forms of secret arrest, secret detention or of deportation. In relation to mafia crimes and
similar, the dangers which legitimate pretrial detention are object of a presumption of law.
- 217 -
Italy
thus not available for the defence?
From 1995 it is possible for the accused to know that he is under proceeding, except for the most serious crimes.
The discovery of the investigation file is allowed only at the end of the investigations (art. 415 bis and 416 criminal procedure code).
Evidence law has not changed as far as the questioning of the defendant is concerned. In our system the accused could testify in the public trial. In these cases, however, his silence could be used against him.
15. Were specific production orders (subpoena or not) introduced in your country for stored information at disposal of the service providers (internet providers, travel agencies, air companies, credit card companies)?
Article 132 of the legislative decree n. 196/2003 (“privacy code”) regulates the retention of data related to telephone and elettronic communication services for criminal justice purposes.
The provision, as recently amended by the Law n. 48 of May 18, 2008 (ratification and enforcement of Budapest
Convention on cybercrime), provided (paragraph 1) the maximum terms of retention: 24 months (telephone data)
and 6 months (information data), that could respectively be postponed of further 24 months and 6 months for
those crimes listed in art. 407 paragraph 2, lett. a) of criminal procedure code, as well as in damage of computer
systems (paragraph 2).
Article 132 also provided how to obtain data:
- before the expiration of terms indicated in paragraph 1 = it requires a motivated decision of the public prosecutor (see paragraph 3);
- after the expiration of terms indicated in paragraph 1 = it requires a motivated decision of the judge (or of the
public prosecutor just in case of an urgent need, to be validated by the judge – see paragraphs 4 and 4 bis).
Moreover, the Minister of the Interior (or other specific delegated subjects) could issue retention and preservation
orders to service providers with the view to carry out the preventive investigations provided by article 226 of
legislative decree n. 271/1989 (provisions for the coordination at the criminal procedure code), or for the purpose
of investigation and prosecution of specific criminal offences (see paragraphs 4 ter, 4 quater, 4 quinquies, recently introduced).
However, the recent. legislative decree n. 109 of May 30th, 2008, has transposed the European Directive
2006/24/EC (on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks). The Directive provides that data
cannot be stored for more than two years.
With legislative decree n. 144/2007 Italy transposed the Directive 2004/82/EC on the obligation of air carriers to
communicate passenger data to the border police (API – Advance Passenger Information).
According to the decree, this data collection aims at improving border controls and combating illegal immigration.
It imposes on air carriers, on specific request, to transmit passenger data electronically to the authorities responsible for carrying out checks on persons at external borders. After passengers have entered, these authorities
shall save the data temporarily, providing for their deleting within 24 hours after transmission, unless the data are
needed for the purpose of combating illegal immigration. Nevertheless, if public authorities need these personal
data for an investigation in progress or for the protection of public policy and national security, they can be preserved for no more than six months.
In the Italian system the only evidence on which a decision can be based was the evidence collected orally at
trial. The investigative evidence collected by the prosecutor is useful to file a formal charge against the defendant
or to dismiss the case. But the results of the investigative efforts displayed by the parties should be kept outside
of court. If the proceedings go on to trial, the case shall be deemed with the sole evidence produced in front of
- 218 -
Italy
the impartial presiding judge.
However, the Code provides some exceptions and allows some records to be removed from the investigativedossier and placed into the trial-dossier before the beginning of trial. These exceptions include evidence which is
objectively impossible to reproduce in court; evidence which has been produced by the parties during their confrontation in front of a judge during the investigation (“incidente probatorio”) because of a serious risk of not reproducing it at trial; records regarding the corpus delicti; records of prior convictions of the accused. In other
words, the magistrate can select from the investigative-dossier the few records that the Code allows the judge
access to and place these records in the trial-dossier.
A special rule doesn’t concern the admissibility of the proof before the trial, but the right of the accused to introduce his own witnesses for the debate. Art. 190 bis c.p.p. provides that, for the most serious crimes, both the
prosecutor and the defence have to face some limits in asking to examine those witnesses who have already
been questioned during the investigations.
Yes, it does. Under article 431 of the code the following records are expected to be included in the trial-dossier
and, after their reading, they can be used for the decision:
- those documents gathered by foreigner public authorities under request of mutual assistance of the Italian
judicial authorities (see artt. 727 ss. criminal procedure code) and non repeatable records of evidence obtained in
the same way (see lett. d);
- evidence gathered abroad with a request of mutual assistance in which the defence had the right to take part
(see lett. f).
Moreover, article 78 of the legislative decree n. 271/1989 (provisions for the implementation of the code) allows
the introduction of those documents collected by a foreign judicial authority in criminal proceedings, in accordance with article 238 of the code. Also, it provides that “unrepeatable” records of evidence collected by foreign
police officers can be included in the trial-dossier after their examination as witnesses or if the parties give their
consent.
Finally, art. 512 bis of criminal procedure code (abbr. c.p.p.) provides that out-of-court statements made by foreigner citizens can be used in trial only if it is not possible for these foreigners to be present at trial.
No recent measure definitely precludes fair trial norms. However, some restrictions have been introduced. Article
10, paragraph 1 of decree-law n. 144/2005 amended art. 349 of the code, providing for the extension from 12 to
24 hours of the maximum period of police custody of the investigated person or of the informed sources, for
identification purposes (the amendment has a general scope, not being limited only to proceedings for crimes of
international terrorism, which are the main object of the decree-law).
The provision, given such an extension in time, could be incompatible, first, with the rights laid down in respect of
personal freedom by article 5 ECHR and then, indirectly, with those indicated in article 6 ECHR. In fact, the accused could not be assisted by a lawyer; there is no judicial control (except for a notification to the public prosecutor, who can order the release of the person if he considers that there are not the conditions for the custody);
finally, there is possibility that, at the expiration of 24 hours of detention, a provisional arrest is ordered and the
prosecutor decides also to postpone the exercise of the defendant’s right to consult his lawyer (see art. 104 of
the code).
judges, etc.?
Considering that in our legal system anonymous witness is not allowed, it is only possible to refer to some protection measures for certain witnesses.
Article 392 of the code allows both the prosecutor and the defence, during the investigation, to collect evidence in
case of :
- 219 -
Italy
- testimony of a person exposed to violence, threat, promise of money or other utility not to depose or to commit
perjury;
- testimony of a child aged less than 16 years in proceedings for sexual crimes.
The provision applies both to witnesses and to victims of the crime.
During the trial, it is possible to question the “collaboratori di giustizia” (co-defendants who decided to collaborate
with the prosecutor); they can join specific protection programs and they can be questioned using technological
solutions, such as a at-a-distance audiovisual connection: see art. 147 bis of the legislative decree n. 271/1989
(provisions for the implementation of the code).
20. When dealing with serious offences, does your legal system foresee special rules concerning - jurisdiction? If
yes, what is the jurisdiction rationae materiae?
‘Corte di assise’ (art. 5 c.p.p.) is competent for the most serious offences. It is formed by eight judges (two professional judges and six lay judges, who have to decide both on the matters of fact and on the law). Other serious crimes, such as organised crime and terrorism, are devolved to the Court of three professional judges.
There is a specific prosecution office for organised crimes (“mafia crimes”): the ‘procura nazionale antimafia’ and
the ‘direzione investigativa antimafia’. The aim is to centralize powers and functions of the investigation authorities. The ‘procura nazionale antimafia’ is the only national prosecution office, and it has the duty to coordinate the
‘direzioni investigative’.
There is no similar body for terrorism. As a consequence, there is no central body to be entitled to be the contact
point with Eurojust. It means that all the twenty-six general attorneys have to be considered national referents.
The rules concerning the ‘Corte d’assise’ offer the maximum standard of guarantees to the defendant: at the end
of the investigation, the formal indictment is controlled during the preliminary hearing. After that, evidence have to
be collected in the public trial following the cross examination rules.
Because of the prohibition indicated in art. 102, par. 2 of Constitution, Italian system does not provide for special
courts (see also point II, 3).
Anonymous witnesses are not allowed in Italian system. There are, instead, specific protection programs for the
“collaborators of justice” (l. n. 82 of 1991 and n. 45 of 2001), and special rules for the cross examination of children (art. 498 par. 4 ter c.p.p.), and for the co-defendants who decided to collaborate with the authorities (art. 147
bis c.p.p.).
Specific measures can be guaranteed to those people who are in danger or have been threatened (such as a
police escort).
- evidence and proof at trial? Can shielded or secret evidence be used in ex parte proceedings? Is there a public
Anonymous witnesses are not allowed in Italian criminal system: they won’t comply with the adversary principle
(see art. 111 par. 4 Cost.). All the witnesses have to be questioned in public trial, following the cross examination
rules. There are only three legitimate exceptions to the substantive use of evidence collected outside of the trial:
when the parties agree; when illicit conduct against the witness is proven; when it is unavoidable and impossible
to collect the evidence at trial.
Assumption of evidence can be anticipated following the procedure of “incidente probatorio” in the cases of art.
392 c.p.p.
It is not possible to delete defense evidence, because this would breach the public interest to the discovery of the
truth. See also point II, 7.
- 220 -
Italy
The Italian system provides the principle of the free evaluation of evidence (intime conviction); exceptions deal
with circumstantial evidence and with the statements of the co-defendant. These rules apply in every criminal
trial, with no exception due to the seriousness of the crime.
21. When dealing with serious offences, does your legal system fully provide for - the right of the suspect/accused/detained person to an independent and impartila tribunal?
Many measures are provided to protect and to assure the impartiality of the court: the ‘ricusazione’, the ‘astensione’, the ‘incompatibilità’ of the judge, and the ‘rimessione’ of the trial.
- the presumption of innocence at the trial or does it foresee special rules (presumption of liability or accountability, reverse of the burden of proof)?
There is the presumption of innocence, which is both a treatment rule of the accused and an evaluation criterion.
Nevertheless, the burden of the proof is placed on the defence as far as the pretrial detention for mafia crimes
are concerned.
- the right to be tried without undue delay and the right to have the lawfulness of detention determined as soon as
There are time limits for the investigations and for the pretrial detention, but not for the trial. Anyway, the terms of
limitation of the crime must be respected. These terms go on running also after the indictment.
Yes, see articles 530 par. 2 and 533 par. 1 c.p.p.
The principles of fair trial can be found in art. 111 Cost. Many rules have been written down into the criminal
procedure code. See also point II, 3.
the right to a public trial with an audience;
the right to an oral, fair hearing and adversarial proceedings;
Yes, most serious crimes have to be treated in a public and oral trial, following the adversarial rules. The defendant can choose to be judged with a special procedure called ‘giudizio abbreviato’, a speedy trial which could be
not public.
the right to be present at the trial;
Yes, it is a right of the accused. Nevertheless, the defendant can decide not to take part to the trial.
the right of the counsel to have access to all criminal case records;
Yes, the discovery of the investigation file occurs at the end of the investigation. The prosecutor has the duty to
alert the defendant of the end of the investigation, giving him the possibility to come in contact with the file. Later
on, at least seven days before the trial, both the prosecutor and the defence have to list the witnesses they will
ask for the admission in trial.
the right to be informed without delay of the offence charged;
Yes, during the preliminary hearing and during the trial the prosecutor is allowed to change the indictment if the
gathering of evidence shows that facts are different. The accused has the right to know the accusation (art. 416
c.p.p.), since the end of the investigations (art. 415 bis c.p.p.). If the prosecutor does not comply with these rules,
the trial will be quashed.
the right to full disclosure of the state's case and to adequate time to prepare a defence;
The accused has the right to ask for information concerning the existence of an investigation against him. But for
the most serious crimes public authorities are not obliged to give an answer. The defendant has the right to receive an ‘informazione di garanzia’. As far as the time schedule of the trial is concerned, the defendant has the
right to a delay.
the right to internal (between parties involved) and external publicity of the proceedings;
- 221 -
Italy
The discovery is guaranteed by the rules above mentioned. Some rules provide the time to give for the external
publicity: it exists an investigative secret and the prohibition to publish the results.
the right to examine the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witness on his
behalf under the same conditions as the witness against him; special measures for new cyber techniques (videoconferencing, etc.); special measures concerning shielded or protected witnesses (undercover agents, agents of
The right to confrontation is fully guaranteed. On the contrary, anonymous witnesses are not allowed. Undercover investigations and intelligence activities are useless if the agents are not crossexamined in a public hearing
(art. 203 par. 1 c.p.p.).
Italian system provides the possibility to use the videoconferencing (art. 146 bis disp. att. c.p.p.).
the right to have free assistance of an interpreter;
The criminal procedure code provides this right for free, but art. 111 Cost. does not oblige the law to guarantee
the right to an interpreter for free.
the right not to be a witness in proceedings against oneself;
Yes.
the right to counsel (mandatory or not?), changes to legal privilege? Free choice or screened or assigned by the
state?
Yes, in the Italian system the legal assistance is a duty. Defendants are not allowed to defence themselves.
the right to remain silent (are there any limitations to the obligation to inform the accused of this right; are there
limitations to the right to remain silent)?
Art. 64 c.p.p. provides the obligation to inform the accused of the right to silence. If however, after the information, he does not use this right, it could be heard as witness in trial.
Is it permissible to draw prejudicial conclusions from the fact that the accused refused to testify?
No (see art. 274 lett. a c.p.p., that specifies a general principle). However, if the accused accepts to be heard in
the public trial, the silence can be used against him.
22. When dealing with terrorism and serious offences, did your legal system modify - the right of a higher court to
review the sentence (appeal, cassation, constitutional review)?
No. There is only an exceptional ‘revision in peius’ for the co-defendant that, once he decided to collaborate with
the prosecutor, has not declared the truth.: see art. 16 septies d.l. n. 8 of 1991, as modified by l. n. 45 of 2001.
No.
- 222 -
Section III
NETHERLANDS*
Peter BAL / Martin KUIJER / Karin VEEGENS**
The national report is based on the questionnaire provided by Professor John A.E. Vervaele.
Question 1: To what extent do international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law treaties
(Geneva conventions) apply in your domestic legal system? Are there any limitations to the application of these
international standards in your country? Can citizens (suspects, accused, victims, witnesses...) derive rights from
these treaties in your domestic legal order?
Both international human rights treaties and international humanitarian law1 treaties directly apply in the Dutch
legal system. This is reflected in article 93 of the Constitution, which provide for the direct effect (self-execution)
of treatyprovisions and provisions of resolutions of international organisations which may be binding on all persons by virtue of their contents. When a Dutch judge rules that such a provision has direct effect, a citizen can
invoke the provision in his or her case. No additional act of implementation is required. The Dutch Constitution
(article 94) also states that self-executing international provisions prevail over Dutch law in case of any conflict
between the two.
Question 2: What important legislative reforms were carried out in your country in the last decades in the interest
of national/global security and public safety? Are there currently any such reform plans? Did the reforms amend
the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement, or did they elaborate an alternative track of
special proceedings (military justice, police justice, administrative justice, military commissions, etc.) outside the
regular criminal justice system? Are these legislative reforms governed by constitutional provisions on emergency (including war)? Did criminal justice practice play a role in defining and carrying out the reforms? Did, e.g.,
higher courts (cassation or constitutional court) reverse elements of these reforms? Were the reforms subject to
political or public debate?
Legislative reforms regarding national security or public order that entered into force from 1999-2007
Article 141 Dutch Criminal Code (DCC) – public joint assault – has been amended in 2000 to the extent that
persons who do not physically commit the assault are still to be held criminally liable once they contribute to the
assault through other means, such as verbally inciting the assault or planning the attack.2
** Peter Bal is associate professor of criminal law and procedure at the Law Faculty of Maastricht University. Martin Kuijer is
professor human rights law at the Free University of Amsterdam and senior legal adviser human rights affairs to the Netherlands Minister of Justice. Karin Veegens is a junior researcher at the Law Faculty of Maastricht University and is currently
writing a Ph.D. thesis on antiterrorism legislation in The Netherlands and The USA.
1 Some provisions of the Geneva Conventions have explicitly been implemented in the Dutch legal order within: The Criminal
Code, The International Crimes Act, the International Criminal Court Implementation Act, The Wartime Offences Act, the Act
of 19th May 1954 relating to surrender in respect of war crimes, Provisions relating to the establishment of the International
Tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the
former Yugoslavia since 1991, Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
2 Staatsblad 2000, 173. Wet van 25 april 2000 tot Wijziging van artikel 141 van het Wetboek van Strafrecht.
*
- 223 -
Netherlands
In 2000, the power for investigative judges to preventively detain a person3, who has been caught red-handed
while committing a criminal offence which severely disturbs public order, has been broadened. This used to be
applicable only in case of criminal offences for which pre-trial detention was not allowed.4 Currently, this preventive detention may be applied with respect to all criminal offences as long as the measure is used to safeguard
public order in accordance with articles 540 up to 550 of the Dutch Criminal Code of Procedure (DCCP).5
Furthermore, in 2000 rules regarding the preliminary judicially supervised investigation were amended drastically.6 The role of investigative judges during the pre-trial phase has been decreased; they are no longer necessarily involved in employing many (far-reaching) coercive or investigative measures.
The Special Investigative Powers Act entered into force in 2000,7 codifying various investigative techniques such
as infiltration, surveillance and wiretapping.8
For the implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the
criminal liability for preparatory acts has been expanded in 2001.9 Preparatory acts are currently also liable to
punishment when committed by one single person (article 46 DCC), while before 2001 one was only punishable
when committing the acts in an organized context.10
In 2002, the new Statute for the secret intelligence services, comprising far-reaching investigative powers, entered into force.11 At present, this Statute is being amended again to improve cooperation and informationexchange between the secret intelligence forces and administrative and investigative authorities.12
In 2004 the DCC and the DCCP were amended to preventively detain perpetrators who, within a period of 5
years, committed at least three criminal offences – as security measure.13 In that year, the Dutch Government
See articles 540 up to and including article 550 DCCP.
Stbl. 2000, 174. Wet van 25 april 2000 tot Wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering tot verruiming van de strafrechtelijke mogelijkheden tot handhaving van de openbare orde met het oog op grootschalige ordeverstoringen. The criminal law
system of preventive detention in order to safeguard public order is closely linked to the comparable administrative law system of the preventive detention in accordance with articles 154a up to and including 176a Council Act (Gemeentewet). It is
allowed to first preventively detain a person under the administrative law system after which the person remains in preventive
detention under the criminal law system. See W. Wedzinga, Rechterlijke bevelen tot handhaving der openbare orde, in: Tekst
& Commentaar Strafvordering, 5th edition, Kluwer, p. 1335.
5 This measure is comparable to the Burgomaster’s power to hold persons in administrative detention for a maximum period
of 12 hours in order to prevent those persons from jointly disturbing public order. See article 154a Local Council Act.
6 Staatsblad 1999, 243. Wet van 27 mei 1999 tot partiële wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering (herziening van het
gerechtelijke vooronderzoek). This is quite contrary to the trend in the 90ties when the Van Traa commission had taken the
view that all police investigative powers should be given a statutory basis and that the position and control powers of the
investigative judge should be reinforced, especially with regard to preliminary investigations. See in this respect also N. Keijzer, J.F. Nijboer, H. Sanders, A. Sennef and P.J.P. Tak, Organized Crime & Criminal Procedure in The Netherlands, in:
International Review of Penal Law 1994, Vol. 69, p. 959.
7 Staatsblad 1999, 245. Wet van 27 mei 1999 tot Wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering in verband met de regeling
van enige bijzondere bevoegdheden tot opsporing en wijziging van enige andere bepalingen (bijzondere opsporingsbevoegdheden). See in this respect also N. Keijzer, J.F. Nijboer, H. Sanders, A. Sennef and P.J.P. Tak, Organized Crime &
Criminal Procedure in The Netherlands, in: International Review of Penal Law 1994, Vol. 69, pp. 957-986.
8 See for further remarks regarding this Act question 11.
9 Staatsblad 2001, 675. Wet van 20 december 2001 ter uitvoering van het op 9 december 1999 te New York totstandgekomen
Internationaal Verdrag ter bestrijding van de financiering van terrorisme (Trb. 2000, 12). See also Staatsblad 2002, 270. Wet
van 16 mei 2002 tot wijziging van de Sanctiewet 1977 met het oog op de implementatie van internationale verplichtingen
gericht op de bestrijding van terrorisme en uitbreiding van het toezicht op de naleving van financiële sanctiemaatregelen.
10 In 2000 stalking was criminalized as well. Staatsblad 2000, 282. Wet van 27 juni 2000 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van
Strafrecht en het Wetboek van Strafvordering (strafbaarstelling van belaging).
11 Staatsblad 2002, 148. Wet van 7 februari 2002, houdende regels met betrekking tot de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten
alsmede wijziging van enkele wetten (Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2002).
12 TK vergaderjaar 2005-2006, 30 553, no. 2, Wijziging van de Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2002 in verband
met de verbetering van de mogelijkheden van de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten om onderzoek te doen naar en maatregelen te nemen tegen terroristische en andere gevaren met betrekking tot de nationale veiligheid alsmede enkele andere
wijzigingen.
3
4
- 224 -
Netherlands
also expanded powers to demand information (about telecommunication and persons’ financial whereabouts)
from telecommunication- and financial companies throughout criminal investigations.14
To implement the European Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the Dutch Government statutorily provided for joint investigative teams to better tackle international (organized) crime.15 Also, the Dutch Terrorism Act entered into force in 200416 as implementation of the European Framework Decision to Counter Terrorism.
In 2005, article 226k DCCP entered into force making it possible for the public prosecutor to use as evidence
statements by crown witnesses – i.e. perpetrators who testify in exchange for a favourable (or lesser) custodial
sentence.17
Furthermore, statutory sentences for various criminal offences have been increased in 2005.18 Also, cameraobservation in public places was made possible through an amendment of the Council Act in 2005.19
In 2006, the Protected Witnesses Act came into force which statutorily provides for the use of secret intelligence
information as evidence in trying terrorist offences.20
In 2007 the Dutch Procedural Terrorism Act, providing for broadened investigative and coercive techniques in
fighting terrorism, entered into force.21 Next, the decision to improve the exchange of information from criminal
records was taken in 2007.22
Lastly, the Netherlands ratified several international and regional conventions on countering terrorism (UN, CoE,
EU) such as: EU European Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002)23, the Council of Europe Guide-
Staatsblad 2004, 351. Wet van 9 juli 2004 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, het Wetboek van Strafvordering en
de Penitentiaire beginselenwet (plaatsing in een inrichting voor stelselmatige daders).
14 Staatsblad 2004, 105. Wet van 18 maart 2004 tot Wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering en andere wetten in verband met de aanpassing van de bevoegdheden tot het vorderen van gegevens terzake van telecommunicatie (vorderen
gegevens telecommunicatie). Staatsblad 2004, 109. Wet van 18 maart 2004 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering
in verband met de regeling van bevoegdheden tot het vorderen van gegevens van instellingen in de financiële sector (vorderen gegevens financiële sector).
15 Staatsblad 2004, 107. Wet van 18 maart 2004 tot wijziging van enige bepalingen van het Wetboek van Strafvordering en de
Wet Politieregisters en aanvulling van het Wetboek van Strafrecht met het oog op de uitvoering van de op 29 mei 2000 te
Brussel tot stand gekomen Overeenkomst, door de Raad vastgesteld overeenkomstig artikel 34 van het verdrag betreffende
de Europese Unie betreffende de wederzijdse rechtshulp in strafzaken tussen de Lidstaten van de Europese Unie.
16 Staatsblad 2004, 290. Wet van 24 juni 2004 tot wijziging en aanvulling van het Wetboek van Strafrecht en enige andere
wetten in verband met terroristische misdrijven (Wet Terroristische Misdrijven).
17 Staatsblad 2005, 254. Wet van 12 mei 2005 tot Wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht en het Wetboek van Strafvordering met betrekking tot verklaringen van getuigen die in ruil voor een toezegging van het Openbaar Ministerie zijn afgelegd
(toezeggingen aan getuigen in strafzaken). This is quite remarkable as in the 90ties the use of crown-witnesses was considered unacceptable. See in this respect also N. Keijzer, J.F. Nijboer, H. Sanders, A. Sennef and P.J.P. Tak, Organized Crime
& Criminal Procedure in The Netherlands, in: International Review of Penal Law 1994, Vol. 69, p. 959 and 976-980.
18 Staatsblad 2006, 11. Wet van 22 december 2005 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht en de Wegenverkeerswet
1994, in verband met de herijking van een aantal wettelijke strafmaxima.
19 Staatsblad 2005, 392. Wet van 30 juni 2005 tot wijziging van de Gemeentewet en de Wet politieregisters in verband met de
invoering van regels omtrent het gebruik van camera’s ten behoeve van toezicht op openbare plaatsen (cameratoezicht op
openbare plaatsen).
20 Staatsblad 2006, 460. Wet van 28 september 2006 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van strafvordering in verband met het
treffen van een regeling inzake het verhoor van afgeschermde getuigen en enkele andere onderwerpen (afgeschermde
getuigen).
21 Staatsblad 2006, 580. Wet van 20 november 2006 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering, het Wetboek van
Strafrecht en enige andere wetten ter verruiming van de mogelijkheden tot opsporing en vervolging van terroristische misdrijven.
22 Staatsblad 2007, 40. Besluit van 26 januari 2007 houdende wijziging van het besluit justitiele gegevens in verband met
onder andere de implementatie van het besluit nr. 2005/876/JBZ van de Raad van de Europese Unie van 21 november 2005
inzake de uitwisseling van gegevens uit het strafregister (PbEU L322).
13
- 225 -
Netherlands
lines on Combating Terrorism and respect for Human Rights and Freedoms (2002 and 2005)24 and the European
Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism (2003).25
Proposals for future reforms
Several legislative proposals regarding national security or public order are currently pending in Parliament. Most
of these proposals concern antiterrorism legislation in the field of criminal law, administrative law and public order
law.
First, there is a Bill regarding administrative injunctions for persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. This legislative proposal provides for the introduction of a periodical reporting duty or an area ban or personal ban for persons associated with terrorist activities or the facilitation of terrorist activities.26
Furthermore, a Bill regarding obligations for certain (telecommunication) companies to store data is sent to the
Council of State for advice.27 This Bill is an implementation of the EU-Directive regarding data-retention.
Lastly, there is a Bill that has been sent to the Council of State regarding international cooperation in criminal
matters. This Bill primarily aims at improving joint efforts within the EU to counter terrorism, illegal migration and
cross-border crime.28
Did these reforms amend the existing common legal framework of criminal law enforcement?
The new statutory measures (meant to safeguard national security and/or public order) are situated in all areas of
the existing Dutch legal system: criminal law, administrative law, public order law and private law. The Dutch
Government has not (yet) drafted a separate, Statute to prevent, investigate and prosecute serious crimes such
as terrorist crimes – except for the International Crimes Act. So, the abovementioned reforms have amended the
existing common legal framework instead of elaborating an alternative track of special proceedings outside the
regular criminal justice system. In countering terrorism, all reforms have been introduced into the common criminal law system (substantive and procedural). Special procedural law provisions to counter terrorism are however
exclusively applicable when it concerns terrorist crimes in accordance with article 83 and 83a DCC.
Are these legislative reforms governed by constitutional provisions on emergency (including war)?
No. The Netherlands has not declared a State of Emergency – as provided for in article 15 ECHR. The abovementioned legislative reforms are therefore not governed by constitutional provisions on emergency.
Did criminal justice practice play a role in defining and carrying out the reforms?
No.
Were the reforms subject to political or public debate?
Yes. Political and public debate in the Netherlands regarding new legislation to safeguard national security has
been – and still is – fierce. Persons in favour of such legislation refer to the increased threat of (international)
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on Combating Terrorism, 2002/475/JHA, Official Journal of the European
Communities 22 June 2002, L 164/3.
24 Council of Europe Guidelines on Human rights and the fight against terrorism, Directorate General of Human Rights, Council
of
Europe
March
2005.
Find
at:
http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_cooperation/fight_against_terrorism/2_adopted_texts/Guidelines%20HR%202005%20E.pdf.
25 Staatsblad 2005, 640. Rijkswet van 1 december 2005 tot goedkeuring en uitvoering van het op 15 mei 2003 te Straatsburg
tot stand gekomen Protocol tot wijziging van het Europees Verdrag tot bestrijding van terrorisme (Trb. 2003, 133).
26 The Bill has been accepted by the House of Commons and is pending in the Upper House. TK vergaderjaar 2005-2006, 30
566, no. 2, Regels inzake het opleggen van beperkende maatregelen aan personen met het oog op de bescherming van de
nationale veiligheid en inzake het weigeren of intrekken van beschikkingen met het oog op de bescherming van de nationale
veiligheid (Wet Bestuurlijke Maatregelen Nationale Veiligheid).
27 TK vergaderjaar 2006-2007, 31 145, no. 3, Wijziging van de telecommunicatiewet en de Wet op de economische delicten in
verband met de implementatie van Richtlijn 2006/24/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van de Europese Unie
betreffende de bewaring van gegevens die zijn verwerkt in verband met het aanbieden van openbare elektronische communicatiediensten en tot wijziging van Richtlijn 2002/58/EG (Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens).
28 TK vergaderjaar 2007-2008, 30 881, Goedkeuring Verdrag met enkele staten inzake intensivering van de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking.
23
- 226 -
Netherlands
terrorism and the consequent need for adequate measures to counter and foremost prevent acts of terrorism,
severe forms of organized crime. Fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to liberty of person
and the right to a fair trial, should be interpreted in the light of safeguarding national security. Conversely, persons acting against such legislation underline the far-reaching intrusion on fundamental rights of suspects, and
non-suspected civilians.29 They argue that the effectiveness of the legislative reforms in the field of national
security has not been demonstrated convincingly.
Most political parties are in favour of the recent legislative reforms. Some argue that the reforms are not farreaching30 enough, others accept the reforms but claim that increased counterbalancing aspects – such as improved judicial control and a temporal limitation through enactment of sunset provisions – ought to be introduced
in the legislation.
Advisory organizations like the Raad voor de Rechtspraak (RvdR31), the Nederlandse Vereniging voor
Rechtspraak (NVvR32), the Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (NOvA33), the Raad van State (Council of State34)
and privacy-watchdog College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens (CBP35), argue that the recent legislation comprises provisions that are too vaguely edited and equip the investigative authorities with powers that are too wide
and moreover resemble those of the secret intelligence services. They also argue that the necessity of such
reforms has not been demonstrated sufficiently. The reforms are deemed disproportional, even if they serve to
counter serious crimes such as terrorism.
In sum, the legislation is often considered incompatible with international human rights standards as guaranteed
by, for example, the ECHR and the ICCPR. Even members of the judiciary – among whom judges at the Supreme Court – cast doubts on the necessity, the effectiveness and the convention-proof character of the new
legislation.
Question 3: What are the general principles of your criminal procedure (e.g., principle of legality, fair justice,
equality of arms) and what is their legal source (e.g., constitution, statute)?
In general all explicit and implicit principles of a ‘fair trial’ embodied in article 6 ECHR apply to the Dutch criminal
procedure (like independence and impartiality of the judiciary, equality of arms, presumption of innocence, privilege against self-incrimination, right to remain silent, right to legal assistance, right to confront witnesses).36 The
legality principle is laid down in article 1 DCC (substantive law) and article 1 DCCP (procedural law). The expediency principle, regulating the discretionary powers of the prosecution to decide whether or not (and on what
grounds) to prosecute, is codified in article 167 DCCP.
Next to these written principles, there are several unwritten principles acknowledged in Dutch criminal procedure,
like the principle of immediacy, of non-arbitrariness, of internal and external publicity, of fair balancing of interests, of trust and good faith and of proportionality and subsidiarity (for example in weighing the need for applying
certain coercive powers and investigating techniques).
29 See, among others, A. Vedder, L. van der Wees, B.J. Koops, P. De Hert, Van Privacyparadijs tot controlestaat? Misdaaden terreurbestrijding in Nederland aan het begin van de 21ste eeuw, Den Haag Rathenau Instituut/TILT 2007, studie 49.
30 See in this respect also the advise of the national public prosecutor’s office with respect to the Statute regarding the broadened
investigative
and
coercive
powers
to
counter
terrorism
at
http://www.recht.nl/artikel/index.html?nid=19185&RNLSESSION=5a28e2a3ce267a3be80f2411373ba8c1.
31
Find
the
report
at
http://www.rechtspraak.nl/NR/rdonlyres/8B9DF1E0-78E7-4C6A-9A68CFA05C29DA0C/0/5402Adviesinzakewetsvoorstelantiterrorisme.pdf.
32 Find the report at http://www.nvvr.org/Documents/278%20advies%20terrorismewetgeving.pdf.
33 Find the report at http://www.advocatenorde.nl/wetenregelgeving/adviezen.asp.
34 TK vergaderjaar 2004-2005, 30 164, no. 5, Advies Raad van State en nader rapport bij het wetsvoorstel tot wijziging van
het Wetboek van Strafvordering, het Wetboek van Strafrecht en enige andere wetten ter verruiming van de mogelijkheden tot
opsporing en vervolging van terroristische misdrijven.
35 Find the report at http://www.cbpweb.nl/downloads_adv/z2006-01337.pdf.
36 See among others articles 1 DCC, article 1 DCCP, article 16 Dutch Constitution, article 7 ECHR, article 271, section 2
DCCP, article 6 ECHR, article 167, section 2 DCCP and article 242, section 2 DCCP, article 148 DCCP, article 271, section 2
DCCP, article 18 Dutch Constitution, article 29, section 1 DCCP. See more elaborately the answer to question 21.
- 227 -
Netherlands
Question 4: At what stage(s) of the criminal process does your legal system provide for the presumption of
innocence, the right of the suspect/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against
himself or to confess guilt?
The presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence is not explicitly mentioned in the DCCP. The only reference to this principle is in
article 271, section 2 DCCP, prohibiting the court from showing any conviction of a suspect’s guilt or innocence
prior to passing a final judgment in his case. This principle, however, is codified in the ECHR (article 6, section 2)
and the ICCPR (article 14, section 2) and, consequently, directly applicable in Dutch criminal procedure. It applies throughout all stages of the criminal process, until the suspect is convicted or acquitted by a competent
court.37 This means that the prosecution shoulders the burden of proof and that the suspect should not be forced
to deliver proof of his innocence.
The right of suspects/accused to remain silent and the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to
confess guilt
From the moment someone is legally considered a suspect, in accordance with article 27 DCCP, he has the right
to remain silent during interrogations and cannot be forced to testify against himself in accordance with article 29
DCCP.38 This article also comprises the nemo tenetur principle. In practice, this implies that the investigative
authorities, as well as the judiciary, are obliged to inform a suspect of his right to remain silent prior to each interrogation in the criminal process.39
Question 5: Does your common criminal procedure or special proceedings provide for a distinction between
citizens and non-citizens, nationals or non-nationals, or specific categories of subjects (aliens, enemies, nonpersons)?
No.
Question 6: Does your legal system allow for the suspension of human rights in emergency situations (including
war)? Who has the power to make this decision and which control mechanisms apply? What safeguards may be
suspended? Does your legal system distinguish between derogable and non-derogable human rights? Can
emergency serve as a ground to shift from common criminal proceedings to special proceedings (military forum,
police procedure, administrative procedure, military commissions)?
Declaring a state of emergency is regulated in Article 103 of the Dutch Constitution.40 41 Declaring a state of
emergency can be done by Royal Decree, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (see Article 1 CWU).
Declaring a state of emergency does not automatically entail the possibility to use emergency powers. A sepaSee in this respect also article 2, section 4 Penitentiaire Beginselenwet.
See also article 14, section 3 sub g ICCPR.
39 With regard to the General Tax Law see also article 67j which explicitly grants suspects of tax-offences the right to remain
silent with regard to the accusations in that respect.
40 The full text reads:
“Article 103
1. The cases in which a state of emergency, as defined by Act of Parliament, may be declared by Royal Decree in order to
maintain internal or external security shall be specified by Act of Parliament. The consequences of such a declaration shall be
governed by Act of Parliament.
2. Such a declaration may depart from the provisions of the Constitution relating to the powers of the executive bodies of the
provinces, municipalities and water boards (waterschappen), the basic rights laid down in Article 6, insofar as the exercise of
the right contained in this Article other than in buildings and enclosed places is concerned, Articles 7, 8, 9 and 12 paragraph 2
and 3, Article 13 and Article 113 paragraphs 1 and 3.
3. Immediately after the declaration of a state of emergency and whenever it considers it necessary, until such time as the
state of emergency is terminated by Royal Decree, the States General shall decide the duration of the state of emergency.
The two Houses of the States General shall consider and decide upon the matter in joint session.”
See also the Coördinatiewet uitzonderingstoestanden (CWU), the Wet buitengewone bevoegdheden burgerlijk gezag (Wet
bbbg) and the Oorlogswet voor Nederland (OWN) which entered into force on 1 May 1997.
41 See also J.P. Loof, Mensenrechten en staatsveiligheid: verenigbare grootheden, Wolf Legal Publishers 2005, pp. 68-75.
37
38
- 228 -
Netherlands
rate Royal Decree is necessary to activate the use of emergency powers. The States General shall then decide
whether the state of emergency may continue (Article 2 CWU). The two Houses of the States General shall
consider and decide upon the matter in joint session. A state of emergency can be abolished as a result of (a) a
decision by the States General or (b) a Royal Decree on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (see Article 3
CWU).
Paragraph 2 of that provision clarifies that only certain human rights may be suspended in case of a state of
emergency: the right to profess freely his religion or belief (insofar as the exercise of the right contained in this
Article other than in buildings and enclosed places is concerned), freedom of expression, right of association, the
right of assembly and demonstration, entry into a home against the will of the occupant no longer requires prior
identification and notice of purpose nor a ex post facto written report of the entry issued to the occupant and the
privacy of correspondence (including telephone and telegraph). Ergo: the legal system does distinguish between
derogable and non-derogable human rights.
The provision also offers the possibility to derogate from Article 113 § 1 and 3, which read: “1. The trial of offences shall also be the responsibility of the judiciary. […] 3. A sentence entailing deprivation of liberty may be
imposed only by the judiciary.” A state of emergency could therefore be a ground for making ordinary criminal
proceedings inoperative. Mobile courts martial – not belonging to the judiciary – should during a state of emergency be entitled to adjudicate perpetrators of criminal offences and to impose imprisonment.42
The Netherlands have not used the applicable emergency legislation. After the murder of Theo van Gogh in
November 2004 the Government declared that the incident had not upset the internal security of the country to
such an extent that a state of emergency should be declared.43
Question 7: Does your legal system recognize special measures by which parts of the legislation and/or parts of
the criminal process may be classified (classified legislation, secret procedures, secret actors of justice, secrecy
in the administration of criminal justice)?
There is no possibility under Dutch law to introduce classified legislation. In the Bekendmakingswet (Law of 4
February 1988, Staatsblad 18; amended by Law of 26 April 1995, Staatsblad 250) it is stated that generally
applicable rules must be – without exception – published in either the Staatsblad (for which the Minister of Justice
is responsible) or the Staatscourant (for which the Minister of the Interior is responsible). Further rules on the
publication of legislation can be found in the Aanwijzingen voor de Regelgeving (Instructions 186-192 and 246).44
Prosecution of terrorist suspects is therefore based on generally applicable and publicly known procedures.
There are no secret actors of justice and there is no secrecy in the administration of criminal justice. However.
the judiciary may use secret intelligence information as evidence during trial regarding terrorist offences (see
question 8).45
Question 8: Does your legal system allow for the use of intelligence information (e.g., general police intelligence,
national or foreign intelligence services information) in criminal proceedings, such as (a) preliminary information
for opening a criminal investigation; (b) evidence for probable cause for using coercive measures on goods and
on persons (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, and detention); and (c) evidence of liability/guilt in criminal proceedings?
The use of information from intelligence agencies in judicial proceedings could have an impact on the right to
adversarial proceedings and the equality of arms principle.46 Counterterrorism measures are often based on
Kamerstukken II 1979-1980, 15 681, nr. 12, p. 1.
Kamerstukken II 2004-2005, 29 754, nr. 6, p. 9-10.
44 Published in Staatscourant 2002, 97.
45 See Staatsblad 2006, 460. Wet van 28 september 2006 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van strafvordering in verband met
het treffen van een regeling inzake het verhoor van afgeschermde getuigen en enkele andere onderwerpen (afgeschermde
getuigen).
46 According to Strasbourg case-law the right to adversarial proceedings implies the opportunity for the parties to a trial to
have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed (ECHR, 20 February 1996, Vermeulen –
Belgium (appl. no. 19075/91), § 33). According to the equality of arms principle “each party must be afforded a reasonable
42
43
- 229 -
Netherlands
confidential information from intelligence services. In view of that fact, an absolute prohibition on using information available to intelligence services in judicial proceedings would be undesirable and make it all but impossible
to fight terrorism effectively. Furthermore, the public would regard it as inexplicable if a public authority in possession of highly relevant evidence did not share this evidence with the courts because of the confidential nature
of the work of intelligence services. It would be equally undesirable to require an intelligence service to disclose
in full the manner in which certain information is collected. That would interfere with its ability to do its work effectively in an unacceptable way.
This tension is recognised in the Court’s case law. In the Al-Nashif case, the Court states: “Where national security considerations are involved certain limitations on the type of remedies available to the individual may be
justified […] Article 13 requires a remedy ‘as effective as it can be’ ”.47 One could also refer to the 2002 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on human rights and the fight against terrorism,
which state that “the imperatives of the fight against terrorism may . . . justify certain restrictions to the right of
defence, in particular with regard to: . . . (ii) the arrangements for access to the case-file”.48
Dutch criminal procedural law was amended so that official reports of the General Intelligence and Security Service could be used as evidence in criminal trials.49 The Act amending the DCCP relating to an arrangement for
interviewing protected witnesses and a number of other subjects (Protected Witnesses Act; afgeschermde
getuigen) came into effect on 1 November 2006.50 This Act aims to broaden the usability of official reports of the
General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) by allowing the information contained in official AIVD reports to
be investigated further by means of the hearing of witnesses. The Act broadens the possibilities for considering
‘the interest of national security’ when interviewing witnesses. The Act provides a method for the secluded interviewing of witnesses by the examining magistrate. The defence in criminal cases retains the right to interview
witnesses. However, the examination of the witness in open court by the defence is only possible in highly exceptional circumstances in light of state security considerations. Therefore, in most instances the defence will only be
able to check the reliability of the witness by submitting questions to the examining magistrate who will serve as
an intermediary. These questions must be submitted in a manner tailored to the circumstances of the interview
(now that the defence will not be permitted to attend the examination of the witness in the interest of national
security, or will only be permitted to do so in highly exceptional cases). The statement of a protected witness who
was interviewed in this manner will be included in a report of the witness interview, which will be drawn up by the
examining magistrate after he has ascertained that the text of the statement included in the report does not
threaten national security. Because ultimately only the General Intelligence and Security Service can fully assess
whether the publication of certain information documented in the report of the witness interview may be a threat
to national security, consolidation of the report formulated by the examining magistrate will subsequently only
take place subject to the witness’s consent. This is, therefore, an exceptional deviation from the starting point that
it is the examining magistrate who determines which information becomes part of the procedural documents. An
additional guarantee is that a conviction may not be solely or to a decisive extent be based on the report. Sentencing based mainly on the report as only evidence is not possible. In addition, the Act adapts the statutory law
of evidence in the sense that official reports of the Intelligence and Security Services can, henceforth, be legally
opportunity to present his case – including evidence – under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage
vis-à-vis his opponent” (ECHR, 27 October 1993, Dombo Beheer – The Netherlands (appl. no. 14448/88), § 33).
47 ECHR, 20 June 2002, Al-Nashif – Bulgaria (appl. no. 50963/99), § 136.
48 Adopted on 11 July 2002 at the 804th session of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, Principle IX, paragraph 3.
49 There is a lively debate in Dutch literature. See, among others, M. Alink, “AIVD-informatie als bewijs in het strafproces”, in:
P.D. Duyx en P.D.J. van Zeben (red.), Via Straatsburg – Liber Amicorum Egbert Myjer, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers,
2004, pp. 155-179; Y. Buruma and E.R. Muller, “Wet Terroristische Misdrijven in perspectief”, in: NJB 2003, p. 2144; E.
Prakken, “Terrorisme en het strafproces”, in: Strafblad 2004, pp. 228-236; and L. van Wifferen, “Intelligence in het strafproces”, in: NJB 2003, p. 617.
50 See the explanatory memorandum to the bill (Kamerstukken 2003-2004, 29 743, no. 3). The legislative proposal coincided
with some court rulings in which the issue of the use of information from intelligence agencies was discussed: a ruling by the
Regional Court of Rotterdam of 18 December 2002 (LJN AF2141) and a ruling by the Court of Appeal of The Hague of 21
June 2004 (LJN AP2058).
- 230 -
Netherlands
classed as valid written documentation in all circumstances. The situation whereby these written documents can
no longer be used solely as evidence in relation to the content of other evidence is excluded.
Even though the European Court of Human Rights prefers a direct confrontation with a witness at a public hearing, it has allowed the use of anonymous witnesses under certain specific circumstances in its case-law. The
Court has acknowledged that considerations of state security may justify a limitation of the right to question witnesses.51 In its Edwards and Lewis judgment52, the Court stated that the entitlement to disclosure of relevant
evidence is not an absolute right. In any criminal proceedings there may be competing interests, such as national
security or the need to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals or keep secret police methods of investigation of
crime, which must be weighed against the rights of the accused. In some cases it may be necessary to withhold
certain evidence from the defence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard
an important public interest. The Court will only allow measures restricting the rights of the defence which are
strictly necessary. Furthermore, any difficulties caused to the defence must be sufficiently counterbalanced by
the procedures followed by the judicial authorities.
There are various ‘counterbalancing measures’ provided for in the law. Most importantly, the hearing of the protected witness is handed over to the independent courts. From the Edwards and Lewis judgment it can be concluded that the European Court of Human Rights is of the opinion that if certain information is withheld from the
defence, the deciding body may not take note of that information either. Therefore, the questioning of the protected witness is left to the examining judge, and not (one of) the judges hearing the case. Equally important is
the fact that the defence must have an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witness,
directly or on his behalf. The new law deliberately copies the legal framework which is in place for ‘ordinary’
anonymous witnesses which is strongly influenced by Strasbourg case-law53 and which has (eventually) been
found in conformity with Strasbourg standards54. As mentioned before, in most instances the defence will only be
able to check the reliability of the witness by submitting questions to the examining magistrate who will serve as
an intermediary. In our opinion, practice will have to be as ‘interactive’ as possible in order to ensure compatibility
with ECHR standards. Another safeguard was already mentioned before: a conviction may not be solely or to a
decisive extent be based on the report. Yet again this safeguard is copied from Strasbourg case-law.55 Other
guarantees include: the requirement that the examining magistrate must be able to inform himself of the full
identity of the witness, the requirement that the witness be sworn in, and the obligation for the judge to carefully
motivate the use and reliability of the evidence56. Taking into account the various safeguards in the new law, we
do not share the opinion of those who argue that the law as such is in breach with Strasbourg requirements.
However, much will depend on the manner in which a judge handles a specific case.
Question 9 (I): Do intelligence forces, regular police forces, or administrative enforcement agencies (such as
customs or tax agencies) have the competence in your country to use coercive powers in a pro-active way? If
yes, under which conditions? Must there be a suspicion based on probable cause to use these coercive powers
or are indications of dangerousness for the national security or public interest sufficient? Has the definition of
suspicion been changed for serious offences? Can these coercive powers be used for persons other than suspects/accused of crimes (e.g., enemy combatants, enemy aliens, persons having no right to the protection of
regular criminal procedure, etc.)? How is division of labour regulated within the investigative authorities? Can the
ECHR, 24 June 2003, Dowsett – the United Kingdom (appl. no. 39482/98), § 42.
ECHR, 22 July 2003, Edwards and Lewis – the United Kingdom (appl. nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98), § 53. See also
ECHR, 16 February 2000, Fitt – the United Kingdom (appl. no. 29777/96), § 45.
53 ECHR, 20 November 1989, Kostovski – the Netherlands (appl. no. 11454/85), ECHR, 27 September 1990, Windisch – the
Netherlands (appl. no. 12489/86), and ECHR, 23 April 1997, Van Mechelen a.o. – the Netherlands (appl. nos. 21363/93,
21364/93, 21427/93 and 22056/93), §§ 50-55.
54 ECHR (admissibility), 4 July 2000, Mink Kok – the Netherlands (appl. no. 43149/98).
55 For example, ECHR, 20 November 1989, Kostovski – the Netherlands (appl. no. 11454/85).
56 Cf. ECHR, 27 January 2004, Lorsé – the Netherlands (appl. no. 44484/98) and ECHR, 27 January 2004, Verhoek – the
Netherlands (appl. no. 54445/00). In both cases this proved to be an important element in the assessment whether a trial
could be deemed a fair trial in the sense of Article 6 ECHR.
51
52
- 231 -
Netherlands
information obtained through the pro-active enforcement by means of use of coercive measures be shared between intelligence, police, administrative enforcement agencies, and judicial authorities?
Secret intelligence forces and administrative services are authorized to impose coercive measures on noncriminally suspected persons57 during the pro-active phase.58 Normally, the police need to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion to lawfully apply coercive measures on a person, but within criminal investigations into terrorism there merely need to be indications of a terrorist offence. This new suspicion criterion has not been introduced with respect to all available coercive measures. Special investigative measures, such as infiltration and
observation, may only be applied whenever there are indications of a terrorist offence, whereas arrest and pretrial detention still require reasonable suspicion in accordance with article 27 DCCP.
Intelligence forces
The intelligence forces’ main task is to safeguard national security by investigating organizations and/or persons
who, through their activities or through the goals they aspire, may pose a danger to the existence of the democratic rule of law, to security or to other important State interests (article 6, section 2 under a Secret Intelligence
Forces’ Act 2002, SIA).59 In enforcing that task, the forces primarily use various methods of informationgathering. Summarizing, the secret intelligence forces’ main task is to process information on persons or organizations giving rise to a serious suspicion of posing a threat to national security.60
Their working-area is situated in the pro-active phase and no concrete specific suspicion is needed for using
coercive measures. It is important to note that intelligence forces are not authorized to factually investigate criminal offences (article 9 SIA) and, therefore, may not use coercive or investigative measures in the DCCP (article 9,
section 2 SIA). In practice, however, the intelligence forces and the investigative authorities increasingly exchange information on criminal investigations into terrorism. It may, therefore, be argued that the Dutch secret
intelligence forces indirectly contribute to the effective course of criminal investigations.61
The intelligence forces have the following coercive measures at their disposal6263:
1. The intelligence forces may observe persons or objects, if necessary through use of technical devices (article
20, section 1 under a SIA). The gathered information may be recorded and stored.
2. They may follow – also through technical devices – persons or objects and subsequently record and store any
resulting information (article 20, section 1 under b SIA). Entering non-public places is only allowed after approval
by the Minister of the Interior or the head of the department concerned (article 20, section 2 SIA). Observing and
The notion of ‘non-suspected’ persons refers to persons who cannot (yet) be considered as a suspect in accordance with
article 27 DCCP.
58 See in this respect also N. Keijzer, J.F. Nijboer, H. Sanders, A. Sennef and P.J.P. Tak, Organized Crime & Criminal Procedure in The Netherlands, in: International Review of Penal Law 1994, Vol. 69, pp. 957-986.
59 Article 6 SIA also mentions 3 other tasks of the intelligence forces, but these tasks are not of direct importance in this
writing. Focus will therefore be put on the above described task of safeguarding national security. See furthermore TK vergaderjaar 2005-2006, 30 553, no. 3, p. 3. Memorie van toelichting bij wijziging van de Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2002 in verband met de verbetering van de mogelijkheden van de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten om onderzoek
te doen naar en maatregelen te nemen tegen terroristische en andere gevaren met betrekking tot de nationale veiligheid
alsmede enkele andere wijzigingen.
60 See article 13, section 1 under a, see also article 17 SIA.
61 This argument will further be elaborated on henceforth.
62 The question of who is authorized to order application of coercive measures differs depending on the intrusiveness of the
measure concerned. Each provision which comprises a coercive measure prescribes whether the Minister of Interior or the
head of a department of the intelligence forces is the competent authority. The head of a department may also allocate his/her
power to another person working for the intelligence services in accordance with article 19, section 2 SIA. It is furthermore
important to note that the Dutch intelligence forces consist of a Military secret intelligence service and a General secret intelligence service. Each department has its own head. See articles 6 and 7 SIA.
63 Generally speaking, when application of coercive measures is necessary (article 18 SIA), the intelligence forces may employ such measures during periods of three months following an order of the Minister of Interior or an order of the head of
department (article 19 SIA). There are, however, exceptions to the 3-months-time-limit. If so, these exceptions are mentioned
in the provision which provides for the coercive measure concerned.
57
- 232 -
Netherlands
following persons or objects in (private) houses is only allowed after written approval by the Minister of the Interior. The employment of these measures should be narrowly circumscribed and justified (article 20, section 4
SIA).
3. According to article 21 SIA, persons working for the intelligence forces may infiltrate, set up a company or lend
particular services as long as such activities are deemed to contribute to the gathering of information in the interest of national security. They may not incite others to commit offences.64 Any act of infiltration requires a detailed
warrant ex ante. This written order must comprise precise rules on the scope of the operations.65
4. Article 22 SIA authorizes intelligence forces to search non-public places, non-opened objects and to examine
objects in order to determine a person’s identity. Objects may furthermore (temporarily) be seized for inspection.66
5. The intelligence forces are furthermore authorized to open letters or parcels without permission of the addressee or the sender. In order to lawfully do so, the head of the intelligence forces needs approval by the The
Hague District Court.67 68
6. According to article 24 SIA, intelligence services are empowered to enter computers, if necessary through
technical devises, fake signals, fake keys, or fake identities. In order to do so, the services may break through or
decode security systems and they may copy any information they find in a computer.
7. Article 25 SIA authorizes intelligence forces to tap, receive, tape and wiretap any form of conversation, telecommunication or data-transfer by means of automated means. The head of the intelligence forces’ department
needs approval by the Minister of the Interior and his request must be well-founded.69
8. Article 26 SIA empowers the intelligence forces to intercept and tape telecommunication – other than through
the cable – coming from a foreign country. This power mostly serves to identify the user(s) of the telecommunication-service abroad. If the intelligence forces then, in addition, want to listen to the intercepted and taped communication, they must lodge a request with the Minister of the Interior in accordance with article 25 SIA. Such a
request may exclusively be lodged when taping and listening to the telecommunication is necessary for the
proper enforcement of the intelligence forces’ tasks.70
9. According to article 27 SIA, intelligence services are authorized to intercept and tape telecommunication –
other than through the cable – without prior knowledge of what information will be found.
10. Article 28 SIA attributes the intelligence forces a power to request a public telecommunication-company to
provide information regarding the telecommunications which have taken place with a certain telephone number
or by a specified person/organization. The warrant request must contain in detail what information is sought, how
it is gathered and why.71
11. Article 29 SIA allocates intelligence forces a right to demand information connected to a certain telephone
number from public telecommunication companies – i.e. information such as a person’s name, address, zip code,
place, telephone number and user information. If such information is not available with the company concerned,
and the information is needed for enforcement of articles 25 or 28 SIA, that company is allowed to retrieve the
information through application of technical devices.72
See further article 21, sections 3, 4 and 5 SIA.
See article 21, section 6 SIA.
66 See article 22, section 4 SIA. Note also that the request to enter a (private) house while searching places or objects, must
indicate the address of the house that needs to be searched and the reason for the search in accordance with article 22,
section 6 SIA. The permission to enter a house is granted for a maximum period of three days (see article 22, section 5 SIA).
67 See article 23, section 1 and 2 SIA.
68 See article 23, section 4 SIA.
69 See article 25, section 4 SIA. And see further for exceptions article 25, sections 5 and 6 SIA.
70 See article 26, sections 4 and 5 SIA.
64
65
- 233 -
Netherlands
Article 31 SIA obliges the intelligence forces to comply with principles of proportionality and subsidiarity when
making use of the coercive measures.
Whenever application of such a measure causes disproportional damage to the person involved, the application
should be renounced.73
It is important to note that for lawful application of all the above-mentioned coercive/investigative powers, the
intelligence forces do not need to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion. Indications of dangerousness for national
security are sufficient to lawfully apply the measures. It is the intelligence forces’ task to discover whether a person in fact poses a risk to (national) security. After all, the intelligence services do not act within the context of
criminal investigations but within the general context of safeguarding national security.
Administrative forces
There are several administrative enforcement agencies (like the tax inspector, customs officers and regular police officers) responsible for controlling whether legal obligations flowing from special laws (like the Tax Act, the
Economic Offences Act and the Traffic Regulations Act) are being complied with. In doing this, they have at their
disposal various coercive measures.
The following coercive measures can be applied by administrative authorities throughout the pro-active phase:
1. The Tax Act empowers tax inspectors to demand access to any information, documents, books or other data
that may be important in levying taxes.74 They can also require third parties to disclose data needed in carrying
out their tasks.75
They have access to any place (private or public) and can confiscate items in accordance with the provisions in
the DCCP.76 Taxpayers are obliged to cooperate and comply with these demands, but once they have a wellfounded reason to believe they will be fined, they are no longer obliged to make any further oral statement.77
2. Police officers have a power to stop any means of transportation in accordance with the Traffic Regulations
Act (article 160) without a reasonable suspicion of a violation of this Act. The person driving the vehicle must then
show the officer his vehicle registration certificate and driving licence. The driver may also be obliged to take an
alcohol-control test. The police can direct the vehicle to another place to perform a (technical) search.
3. Since January 2007, police officers are also authorized to demand any person of 14 years and older to hand
over his identity card.78. No reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of a criminal offence is required to
lawfully demand a person’s ID-card. It must, however, be reasonably necessary for the police to properly perform
their tasks and safeguard public order.
4. The City Council may issue a local act to grant administrative enforcement agencies the right to enter private
houses, without prior permission, to control compliance with local acts regarding public order or security or concerning the protection of another person’s life or health.79 Furthermore, the City Council is authorized to issue a
local act granting the Burgomaster to detain persons for a maximum period of 12 hours whenever those persons,
as a group, do not comply with specific rules safeguarding public order and security.80 The Burgomaster may
only order this (administrative) detention, when this is strictly necessary in preventing continuation or repetition of
non-compliance with the rules concerned and no other means are available.81 He is authorized to close houses,
non-public places or premises deemed necessary to end or prevent disturbances of public order.82
See article 31, sections 3 and 4 SIA.
See article 47, section 1 AWR.
75 See article 48, section 1 AWR. See for comparable obligations under the Customs Act articles 9 and 12-19 CA.
76 See article 81 AWR.
77 See articles 47-57 and 67j AWR.
78 Article 8a Police Act in conjunction with article 2 Identification Duty Act.
79 See article 14a City Council Act.
81 See also article 176a City Council Act.
73
74
- 234 -
Netherlands
5. The Burgomaster is authorized to appoint an area as risk-area when there is a disturbance of the public order
or when there is serious fear for such disturbance due to the presence of weapons.83 Subsequently, a public
prosecutor is allowed to order that in such a risk-area, during a maximum period of 12 hours everyone’s luggage/objects/goods/means of transport/clothes may be searched without there being a reasonable suspicion or
probable cause of a violation of the Weapons and Ammunition Act.84 The public prosecutor is obliged to describe
in detail which facts and circumstances may lead criminal investigators to conduct those searches. That obligation can, however, not be compared to the common requirement of a particularized reasonable suspicion prior to
lawfully frisking a person and searching his means of transport or any object he carries.
Public prosecutors are also allowed to order the police to search anyone, objects and means of transport in a
(temporary or permanent) risk-area when there are indications of a terrorist offence.85 Although an area may only
be appointed as risk-area following such indications, the factual search takes place without reasonable suspicion
or indications vis-à-vis a particular person. When it concerns terrorist offences, it is the public prosecutor who
appoints a risk-area instead of the Burgomaster. Some areas/places can be appointed as permanent risk areas
like Schiphol Airport, Rotterdam Harbour and several State institutions among which the intelligence forces’
office.86
6. Administrative enforcement agencies have in accordance with the Administrative Law Act the following coercive powers at their disposal during the pro-active phase87:
The right to access any place (except for a house) if necessary with help of proportional violence (article 5:15
ALA), the right to demand information (article 5:16 ALA), the right to demand a person’s identification-card, the
power to inspect objects and take samples if necessary (article 5:18) and the power to inspect means of transport
(article 5:19 ALA). Civilians are obliged to lend their full cooperation to such measures. Again, no reasonable
suspicion or probable cause is required to apply these coercive measures. After all, the purpose of using those
measures is controlling compliance with special legislation instead of conducting a criminal investigation under
the DCCP.
Under the Economical Offences Act (EOA), the competent criminal investigators have the following coercive
measures at their disposal to control compliance with the Act. First, they are authorized to confiscate objects in
the interest of the investigation.88
Second, they are empowered to demand access to data and documents.89 Criminal investigators may in addition
enter any non-public place.90 The EOA also provides for a power to seize, search and inspect objects and take
samples thereof.91
Third, they may stop and search means of transport in order to control compliance with articles 1 and 1a of the
EOA.92 All these measures can be applied under the general condition that they are necessary for the proper
fulfilment of the administrative forces’ tasks.93 Everyone is obliged to cooperate with the competent administrative
enforcement agencies in applying the above-described coercive measures.
Regular police forces
See article 151b, section 1 City Council Act.
See article 50 up to and including 52 of the Weapons and Ammunition Act.
85 See articles 126zk, 126zl and 126zm DCCP. See in this respect also Staatsblad 2006, 730. Besluit van 21 december 2006
houdende voorschriften ter uitvoering van enkele bepalingen van het Wetboek van Strafvordering in verband met de opsporing van terroristische misdrijven (Besluit opsporing terroristische misdrijven).
86 See article 126zk, section 4 DCCP.
87 See article 5:12 and further Administrative Law Act (ALA).
88 Article 18 EOA.
89 Article 19 EOA.
90 Article 20 EOA.
91 Article 21 EOA.
92 Article 23 EOA.
93 See article 24a EOA
83
84
- 235 -
Netherlands
For the police forces to lawfully use coercive powers there must normally be some level of suspicion – either a
reasonable suspicion94 or serious objections95 - that a crime has been committed. This implies that police forces
are in principle not authorized to use coercive powers in a pro-active way. However, since 9/11 a whole set of
antiterrorism measures has been introduced in the common criminal law system making it currently possible to
apply various special investigative techniques upon fulfilment of a lighter suspicion-criterion. To this end, the
notion of ‘indications of a terrorist offence’ has been introduced in the DCCP. The indications-criterion means that
information is available suggesting the commission of a terrorist offence.
Compared to the common reasonable suspicion-criterion, less (as to quantity and quality) information is required
to fulfil the criterion of indications. Information which may sufficiently demonstrate such indications is, for example, rumours about a conspiracy to commit a terrorist offence, anonymous information or even information stemming from general risk-analysis made by the secret intelligence services. Non-specific information which is nevertheless verifiable in terms of content may also provide indications of a terrorist offence. In sum, the amount,
nature and verifiability of information which may lead to indications of a terrorist offence is marginal – especially
compared to other suspicion criteria such as the reasonable suspicion-criterion. When there are indeed such
indications, police forces are allowed to apply the following coercive/investigative powers:
•
Consistently following a person or observing a person’s presence or behaviour (also by civilians)96;
•
Lending services to a person or buying goods from a person (also civilians)97;
•
Consistently gathering information about a person without revealing one’s identity98;
• Entering a non-public place – not being a house – without permission of the legal owner in order to inspect
that place by using a technical devise, to secure tracks or to install a technical devise in order to establish and
monitor the presence or movement of an object99;
•
Infiltration (also civilians)100;
•
Recording of confidential communications101;
•
Taping of telecommunication102;
• Demanding information from a telecommunication-company regarding information of the telecommunications linked to a telephone number103;
•
Demanding personal details of a telephone number104;
•
Searching a person, and object or a vehicle within a permanent or temporary risk-area105;
•
Demanding all kinds of (confidential, non-public) information106.
In accordance with article 27 DCCP. Having a reasonable suspicion presupposes the existence of facts or information from
which a reasonable suspicion flows that a certain person is guilty of committing a criminal offence.
95 The notion of serious objections denotes a higher level of suspicion against a suspect than having merely a reasonable
suspicion. See for example article 67, section 3 DCCP. Fulfilment of this criterion implies that it is almost sure that a suspect
has committed the criminal offence of which (s)he is suspected. Serious objections is a requirement which must be fulfilled
when investigative authorities want to apply more far-reaching coercive/investigative measures in terms of interferences with
fundamental rights and freedoms.
96 Article 126zd, section 1 under a DCCP.
97 Article 126zd, section 1 under b DCCP.
98 Article 126zd, section 1 under c DCCP.
99 Article 126zd, section 1 under d DCCP.
100 Article 126ze and article 126zo DCCP.
101 Article 126zf DCCP.
102 Article 126zg DCCP.
103 Article 126zh DCCP.
104 Article 126zi DCCP.
105 Article 126zk-126zm DCCP.
106 Article 126zk-126zp DCCP.
94
- 236 -
Netherlands
Tapping and consequently recording confidential communications and telecommunication are powers that must
be ordered by an investigative judge. The other powers may be ordered by the public prosecutor and some by
common criminal investigators.
In sum, within criminal investigations into terrorism, requirements of reasonable suspicion have indeed been
lowered for application of special investigative powers: indications of a terrorist offence suffice. Preventive
searching powers within risk-areas have been introduced in the criminal law system as well. Searching persons’
clothes, objects and means of transport within a temporary or permanent risk area is allowed upon order by the
public prosecutor once there are indications of a terrorist offence. It is important to remember that the regular
police forces may only apply the above described special investigative techniques and preventive searching
powers in a pro-active way within criminal investigations into terrorism.
Must there be a reasonable suspicion based on probable cause to use these coercive powers or are indications
of dangerousness for the national security or public interest sufficient? Furthermore, has the definition of suspicion been changed for serious offences?
The intelligence forces are not allowed to investigate criminal offences in the sense of the DCCP. Therefore, no
suspicion-criterion is needed in employing the coercive measures. They only need to be necessary in safeguarding national security.
For investigative authorities to employ coercive powers, there needs to be some form of suspicion. With regard to
criminal investigations into common crimes there must always be a reasonable suspicion in accordance with
article 27 DCCP.107 Coercive measures that imply prolonged periods of pre-trial detention require a higher level
of suspicion against a suspect, i.e. serious objections.108 A suspect of a terrorist crime as defined in article 83 and
83a DCC may be kept in remand for a period of 14 days without there being such serious objections.109 However,
there must be a reasonable suspicion against the suspect – which may be based on merely one anonymous
statement. For application of special investigative techniques within investigations into terrorism, such as infiltration, observation or wiretapping, there just need to be ‘indications’ instead of reasonable suspicion.110
Can these coercive powers be used for persons other than suspects/accused of crimes?
No, coercive measures in the DCCP may only be applied to persons who are considered suspects according to
article 27 DCCP or – with regard to some measures – following indications of a terrorist offence. The Dutch legal
system does not employ notions such as enemy combatants.
How is division of labour regulated within the investigative authorities?
The public prosecutor is responsible for the investigation of criminal offences in accordance with article 148
DCCP. In that respect he is in charge of any criminal investigation and responsible for the ensuing criminal proceedings. It may be necessary within some criminal investigations, to conduct a preliminary investigation in accordance with article 181 DCCP. An investigative judge is in charge of such an investigation.
The police are responsible for safeguarding public order. They perform this task under responsibility of the Burgomaster.111 In addition, the police are responsible for enforcing the criminal law in subordination to the public
prosecutor.112 The intelligence forces are not authorized to conduct criminal investigations, but they are responsible for safeguarding national security, the democratic legal order and consequently for thwarting any danger to
the Netherlands as a democratic state.
Can the information obtained through the pro-active enforcement by means of use of coercive powers be shared
between intelligence, police, administrative enforcement agencies and judicial authorities?
See articles 52 until 67b DCCP and articles 94 until 124 DCCP.
See article 63 DCCP. Confirmed suspicion of more likely than not that a suspect committed the crime he is suspected of.
109 Since the 1st February 2007.
110 See article 126za and further DCCP.
111 See article 12 Police Act.
112 See article 13 Police Act.
107
108
- 237 -
Netherlands
Yes, information sharing between the secret intelligence services, the police, the prosecution, administrative
services and other State authorities is allowed.
With regard to the secret intelligence services, articles 17 and 36 Secret Intelligence Act (SIA) are of importance.
The first article allocates the secret services a power to demand information from administrative services, any
civil servant and any other person who may be able to supply the required information to the secret intelligence
services. The latter article enables the secret intelligence services to provide information to other (foreign secret)
services, civil servants, investigative authorities, other persons etc.113 Articles 60 until 64 SIA further elaborate on
cooperation between the secret intelligence services and investigative services. The information-flow may thus
go both ways: from the secret intelligence services to other State authorities and vice versa.114
Secret intelligence information is nowadays frequently used in investigations into terrorism. Such information
may, according to the judiciary, lead to the start of a criminal investigation, to determine reasonable suspicion
and to lawfully apply various coercive or investigative measures. Furthermore, specifically to counter terrorism,
there is a Contraterrorism-Infobox for gathering all sorts of information. The following State authorities/services
take part in this cooperative network of antiterrorism services: Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst
(AIVD), Militaire Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (MIVD), Openbaar Ministerie (OM), Korps landelijke politiediensten (KLPD), Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst (IND) and the Fiscale Inlichtingen en Opsporingsdienst
(FIOD/ECD). These authorities gather information, within their respective working-area. After comparison, analysis and evaluation of all the information available within the CT-Infobox the participating authorities/services
decide what action should be taken in preventing terrorist offences (criminal law, aliens law, public ordermeasures etc.). The Government intents to even further enlarge the number of authorities participating in this CTInfobox. The judiciary may also use secret intelligence information as evidence during trial regarding terrorist
offences.115
Question 9 (II): Does your legal system allow for the use of tough forms of investigation techniques (torture or
cruel, unusual, or inhuman treatment) during pro-active enforcement, and, if yes, under which conditions? What
is the practice of your country in this field?
No. With regard to the use of force there are no specific regulations dealing with terrorism cases. The monopoly
of the use of force rests with the police. Section 8 of the Police Act (Politiewet) deals in general terms with the
use of force.116 Of particular importance is paragraph 5 of that provision which specifies that the use of force must
under all circumstances “be reasonable and moderate and in proportion to the objective”.
Pursuant Section 9 of the Police Act, further official instructions have been drawn up concerning the permissible
modalities of the use of force.117 ‘Force’ has been interpreted as any inexorable power of more than minor importance wielded over a person or an object.118 The official instructions empower an officer (under specified conditions) to use a firearm, non-penetrating munitions, pepper spray, tear gas, water cannon, police dog, (electric)
baton. Section 17 of the instructions regulate that any use of force needs to be reported to a superior, who informs the public prosecutor within 48 hours.119 The instructions equally regulate the use of searches and the use
of handcuffs. With regard to persons deprived of their liberty the instructions mention the possibility of taking
charge of clothing and objects and permanent camera surveillance.
See articles 8, 34 and 60-64 SIA
http://www.nctb.nl/Images/KST85416_tcm111-85285.pdf. See article 38 for public prosecution office and article 36 for
administrative services.
115 See the answer to question 8.
116 Section 8, paragraph 1 reads: “Police officers appointed for the performance of police tasks shall be authorised to use
force in the lawful execution of their duties if, bearing in mind the dangers accompanying the use of force, their objective
justifies the use of force and cannot be achieved in any other way. Where possible, a warning shall be issued prior to the use
of force”. See mutatis mutandis Article 6 of the Wet op de bijzondere opsporingsdiensten of 29 May 2006.
117 Ambtsinstructie voor de politie, de Koninklijke Marechaussee en andere opsporingsambtenaren of 8 April 1994.
118 See Article 1, paragraph 3 sub b, of the Ambtsinstructie: “elke dwangmatige kracht van meer dan geringe betekenis uitgeoefend op personen of zaken”.
119 See the Aanwijzing handelswijze bij geweldsaanwending (politie)ambtenaar of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (2006A007),
to be found at its website (www.om.nl).
113
114
- 238 -
Netherlands
Other forms of using violence are not permitted. The same holds true in terrorism cases. The prohibition of Article
3 ECHR is equally absolute in the field of anti-terrorism measures.
There are no indications that practice would not be in conformity with this legal framework. While educating police officers attention is paid to human rights issues and integrity issues.
There have been allegations of waterboading by members of the armed forces in Iraq in 2003, which have been
examined by two independent commissions (the Commissie Van den Berg and the Commissie van Toezicht
betreffende de Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdiensten). Both commissions came to the conclusion that the allegations were false.120
In June 2007 the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) visited the Netherlands and
(as was the case in previous visits to the Kingdom in Europe) the CPT’s delegation received no allegations of illtreatment of persons detained by law enforcement agencies during the June 2007 visit.121 The CPT also visited
the high-security terrorist departments at ‘De Schie’ and ‘Vught’ Prisons. It has recommended that placement in
such departments be based upon a comprehensive, individual risk assessment. Further, every placement in a
terrorist department should be regularly reviewed, based upon criteria clearly laid down in law. In addition, the
CPT has concerns about the very restrictive regime in these departments, which may in certain cases lead to de
facto isolation of a prisoner.
Question 10: In case of serious offences, does your legal system allow for limiting (a) the right to habeas data
(data protection, private life) and (b) the right to habeas corpus (arrest, detention, deportation, extraordinary
rendition, etc.)?
The right to habeas data
Yes, on the basis of article 30, section 2 DCCP, the case-file may be withheld from any suspect whenever this is
deemed to be in the interest of the investigation. This can last for a maximum of 110 days and 15 hours. In case
of terrorist offences, that period can be extended with an additional 2 years (see article 66, section 3 DCCP).
The right to habeas corpus
No, statutorily speaking suspects can always invoke their right to habeas corpus in challenging the lawfulness of
their deprivation of liberty.122 In case of terrorist offences, however, the above mentioned extended period of
withholding insight in the case-file can make it difficult for such suspects to effectively and timely invoke their right
to habeas corpus. After all, neither the suspect, nor the judge has access to the whole case-file.
Question 11: Did your legal system experience an increase of
- investigative powers and coercive powers (search and seizure, bugging and tapping, freezing orders, evidence
production orders, arrest and detention, infiltration, etc.) of the investigation authorities? If yes, in which way?
Increase of investigative and coercive powers of the investigative authorities
In 1999 special investigative techniques, like observation, infiltration, wire-tapping and (systematic and electronic)
surveillance, were introduced in common criminal procedure.123 Those techniques can only be applied once there
is a reasonable suspicion that one or more persons have committed criminal offences or are preparing or plotting
to commit (serious) criminal offences.124
See the letter of the Minister of Defence of 18 June 2007 to Parliament (C/2007014862).
CPT/Inf (2008) 2, § 10, to be found on www.cpt.coe.int. The report was made public by the Netherlands Government on 29
January 2008 (ref.no. 5523152/07/6).
122 See article 15 Dutch Constitution, article 5, section 4 ECHR and article 69 DCCP.
123See articles 126g up to and including article 126ij DCCP. Staatsblad 1999, 245. Wet van 27 mei 1999 tot wijziging van het
Wetboek van Strafvordering in verband met de regeling van enige bijzondere bevoegdheden tot opsporing en wijziging van
enige andere bepalingen (bijzondere opsporingsbevoegdheden).
124 Special investigative techniques to investigate the plotting and/or preparing of criminal offences may only be applied when
detention on remand is allowed for those criminal offences in accordance with article 67 DCCP. When an investigation re120
121
- 239 -
Netherlands
In this last scenario, the special investigative techniques can only be employed when there is a suspicion of
serious forms of organized crime, carrying a penalty of at least 4 years imprisonment and severely threatening
the legal order.125
The term during which suspects may be kept in remand in custody has been extended from 10 days to 14 days
in 2004, although the required reasonable suspicion for lawful remand in custody remained unchanged.126
In 2005-2006 the system of special investigative techniques was expanded to better tackle computer-related
crimes. They include powers to retrieve and confiscate all kinds of data from computers and/or networks. These
powers were considerably expanded with enactment, respectively amendment, of various articles within the
existing system of special investigative powers.127 128
As mentioned above, since 2007 all special investigative techniques may be applied (pro-actively) in criminal
investigations into terrorism based on indications of a terrorist offence.129 In this respect we also have to refer to
the above-mentioned administrative preventive searches. (see question 9).
The period of pre-trial detention for terrorist suspects was furthermore prolonged in 2007 from a maximum of 110
days and 15 hours to 2 years, 110 days and 15 hours – i.e. with 2 years.130
Remand in custody (14 days) of terrorist suspects can currently be ordered on the mere basis of reasonable
suspicion, whereas for common crimes there still must be serious objections against the suspect.131
In 2007 powers to demand information from public and private companies during an exploring inquiry have been
broadened if it concerns the preparation of a criminal investigation into terrorist offences.132 The information
gathered can be processed and compared in preparing criminal investigations into terrorism.
In substantive criminal law, preparation of serious criminal offences has been criminalized in 1994.133 As a consequence, coercive measures and special investigative techniques can increasingly be applied throughout the
pro-active phase. Formally speaking, however, it concerns a criminal investigation into a ‘full’ – completed –
gards criminal offences for which detention on remand is not allowed (in general those are offences with a sentencing clause
of less than 4 years imprisonment) a more limited set of special investigative techniques is available to the investigative
authorities.
125 See articles 126o until article 126za DCCP.
126 Staatsblad 2004, 578. Wet van 10 november 2004 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering houdende enkele
wijzigingen in de regeling van de voorlopige hechtenis.
127 See articles 125k, 125i, 125j, 125n, 125o, 126i, 126la, 126m, 126ma, 126n, 126na, 126nb, 126nc, 126nd, 126ne, 126nf,
126ng, 126nh, 126ni, 126nq, 126t, 126ta, 126u, 126ua, 126ub, 126ug, 126uh, 126ui and 126ij DCCP.
128 Staatsblad 2006, 300. Wet van 1 juni 2006 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, het Wetboek van Strafvordering
en enige andere wetten in verband met nieuwe ontwikkelingen in de informatietechnologie (computercriminaliteit II). And
Staatsblad 2005, 390. Wet van 16 juli 2005 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering en enkele andere wetten in
verband met de regeling van bevoegdheden tot het vorderen van gegevens (bevoegdheid vorderen gegevens). And Staatsblad 2004, 394 and Staatsblad 2004, 105. Besluit van 3 augustus 2004/ wet van 18 maart 2004 houdende aanwijzing van de
gegevens over een gebruiker en het telecommunicatie-verkeer met betrekking tot die gebruiker die van een aanbieder van
een openbaar telecommunicatienetwerk of een openbare telecommunicatiedienst kunnen worden gevorderd (besluit vorderen
gegevens telecommunicatie). And Staatsblad 2004, 109. Wet van 18 maart 2004 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering in verband met de regeling van bevoegdheden tot het vorderen van gegevens van instellingen in de financiële sector
(vorderen gegevens financiële sector).
129 Articles 126za up to and including article 126zo DCCP. Staatsblad 2006, 580. Wet van 20 november 2006 tot wijziging van
het Wetboek van Strafvordering, het Wetboek van Strafrecht en enige andere wetten ter verruiming van de mogelijkheden tot
opsporing en vervolging van terroristische misdrijven.
130 See article 66, section 3 DCCP.
131 Compare article 67, section 3 and article 67, section 4 DCCP.
132 See article 126hh DCCP.
133 Staatsblad 1994, 60. Wet van 27 januari 1994 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht inzake algemene strafbaarstelling van voorbereidingshandelingen. See in this respect among others P.L. Bal, Remoralisering van het strafrecht: een discourstheoretische benadering en D. Roef, Strafrechtelijkr verantwoordelijkheid in de risicomaatschappij, both in: P.L. Bal, E.
Prakken, G.E. Smaers (ed.), Veiligheid of Vergelding?, Kluwer Deventer 2003, pp. 3-57.
- 240 -
Netherlands
criminal offence.134 The scope of application of such powers is increased through criminalization of behaviour that
does not (yet) amount to a criminal offence in the ordinary sense of the word. Therefore, the broadened criminal
liability (i.e. covering preparatory acts) has equally broadened the scope of State powers.135
Did the legal system experience an increase of cooperation duties of the investigated persons?
No.
Question 12: Did a shift of powers occur in your country
Shift of powers from the judiciary to the executive?
The role of investigative judges throughout criminal investigations and – proceedings has been decreased in
favour of the power of public prosecutors. Since 2004, public prosecutors are no longer obliged to request the
opening of a preliminary investigation,136 to employ certain investigative or coercive powers, like searching
houses, confiscating objects, retrieving stored data or interrogating witnesses.137
Since 2006 public prosecutors are statutorily138 authorized to dispense of criminal cases (out of court settlement)
like petty offences and offences carrying a maximum prison sentence of 6 years (article 257a DCCP). They139
can now impose sentences – except prison sentences - without any interference by the judiciary. Hence, the
judiciary has been forced to give up part of her monopoly in imposing sentences. Public prosecutors may impose
the following sentences: a working sentence of maximum 180 hours, a fine, confiscation of certain objects, an
obligation for the perpetrator to pay damages to the victim(s) and withdrawal of a perpetrator’s driving license
during a maximum period of 6 months.140 They can also impose additional (personal) mandatory duties on the
perpetrator such as an obligation to attend a drug rehabilitation course or an injunction to appear in a certain area
respectively in the vicinity of a certain person.141 Such additional conditions may not restrict the perpetrator’s
social and cultural rights. A person who is convicted by a public prosecutor can lodge an appeal against the
imposition of the sentence with the competent court. Then his case will be dealt with through regular criminal
proceedings.142
Shift of powers from the public prosecutors to the police?
No.
Question 13: Did a specialization and/or centralization of the judicial investigative authorities take place in your
country?
See in this respect also N. Keijzer, J.F. Nijboer, H. Sanders, A. Sennef and P.J.P. Tak, Organized Crime & Criminal Procedure in The Netherlands, in: International Review of Penal Law 1994, Vol. 69, pp. 957-986.
135 This has become very clear throughout the trial regarding the ‘Hofstadgroep’. See in this respect also F. Jensma, De
strafbare woorden van de Hofstadgroep, NRC-Handelsblad 11th May 2007 and A. Olgun, OM rekt het strafrecht bewust op, in:
NRC-Handelsblad 11th February 2006.
136 See articles 181 up to and including 241c DCCP.
137 See Staatsblad 2004, 577. Wet van 10 October 2004 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafvordering in verband met
inbeslagneming and doorzoeking door de rechter-commissaris.
138 Staatsblad 2006, 330. Wet van 7 juli 2006 tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Strafrecht, het Wetboek van Strafvordering en
enige andere wetten in verband met de buitengerechtelijke afdoening van strafbare feiten (Wet OM-afdoening). See for
comments on OM-afdoening, among others, J.F. Nijboer, Plea Bargain en OM-afdoening als functionele equivalenten?,
WODC-publicatie, pp. 128-137.
139 Through an Order in Council other (low-ranking) investigative officers may also be appointed to impose one of the sentences as comprised in article 257a, section 2 DCCP.
140 Article 257a, section 2 DCCP.
141 Article 257a, section 3 DCCP.
142 See article 257f DCCP.
134
- 241 -
Netherlands
Yes. Terrorism cases are dealt with by the National Prosecutor’s Office (Landelijk Parket), located in Rotterdam.
Within the structure of the Public Prosecution Service, the National Prosecutor’s Office is positioned as a first-line
organisation alongside the 19 district Public Prosecutor’s Offices and the Functional Prosecutor’s Office. The
National Prosecutor’s Office is in direct charge of the criminal investigations by the National Criminal Investigation Service, part of the National Police Agency (KLPD). In 2006, the National Prosecutor’s Office employed
some 150 employees (public prosecutors, junior clerks, policy workers and (legal) administrative employees)
actively involved in criminal proceedings and policy. The organisation is structured in three teams. Terrorism and
other extreme forms of ideologically-motivated crime is dealt with by the National Criminal Investigation Team.
Question 14: Were the rules in your legal system changed on
- the conditions to approve coercive measures (warrants) of the judiciary? If yes, how and to what extent? Has
there been a redefinition of the probable cause for warrants?
thus not available for the defence?
Were the rules in the legal system changed on the conditions to approve coercive measures of the judiciary?
Criminal investigations into terrorism require a lower threshold of suspicion for the application of certain coercive
and investigative measures

revue internationale de droit pénal / international review of penal

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

15 March 2015 Bulletin - Saint Ambrose Catholic Church

07102016 Bulletin - Corpus Christi Catholic Church