A carregar...
Publicação
A proteção contra a autoincriminação no Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos : críticas, contradições e perspectivas
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
O presente estudo tem como objetivo principal estabelecer o verdadeiro âmbito de tutela e as possíveis restrições da garantia contra a autoincriminação, a partir da análise da proteção conferida pela jurisprudência do Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos aos direitos ao silêncio e à não autoincriminação. Visa-se densificar o verdadeiro conteúdo, extensão e limites de uma garantia cuja falta de uma expressa previsão normativa no texto da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos Humanos, fez com que o reconhecimento e a tarefa
de demarcação de sua área de tutela coubessem ao Tribunal responsável por constatar e repreender as violações aos direitos nela consagrados.
Assim, o presente estudo procura perceber, à luz da jurisprudência desta Corte, as soluções e critérios operativos utilizados para identificar as espécies proibidas de intervenção estatal sobre o arguido e as modalidades de condutas probatórias incluídas no âmbito de proteção contra a autoincirminação. Nesse percurso, a delimitação da área de tutela desta garantia será buscada a partir do estudo de grupo de casos, consoante o objeto de ingerência em causa, distinguindo-se entre a extração de declarações (orais) e a
obtenção de contributos probatórios não comunicativos ou não orais, atendendo-se ainda à espécie de atuação e coerção estatal.
Nas questões atinentes a essa primeira dimensão da proteção contra a autoincriminação (direito ao silêncio), o estudo divide-se em analisar as situações envolvendo, primeiramente, coerções mais diretas, encontradas quando o não fornecimento de declarações potencialmente incriminadoras constitui, por si só, uma ofensa criminal ou uma infração administrativa, e, posteriormente, coerções de natureza mais indiretas, que estão em causa quando há a valoração desfavorável do silêncio no juízo decisório, quando inexiste a advertência ou instrução sobre o silêncio e, bem assim, quando o Estado lança mão de mecanismos, a primeira vista, não explicitamente coativos de obtenção de prova, a que se destacam os meios enganosos e os “interrogatórios ocultos” por agentes encobertos e “homens de confiança”.
Já no que toca à área mais periférica da garantia contra a autoincriminação (direito à não autoincriminação), o estudo centra-se em investigar outras formas de colaboração que podem ou não estar também incluídas no âmbito material desta garantia, entre elas, as obrigações de entrega de documentos, a sujeição coativa a intervenções corporais e a outras diligências de prova, como a recolha coativa de amostras corporais, as perícias de voz e de caligrafia, os reconhecimentos compulsivos. Nesse aspecto mais crítico da pesquisa, são interpeladas soluções normativas e jurisprudenciais estrangeiras e nacionais.
Contempla-se, ainda, nesse segundo contexto, uma referência a grupo de casos que em causa estava o dever de fornecer informações incriminadoras relacionadas à identificação do condutor infrator, no âmbito do Código de Estradas.
Por fim, será feita uma análise geral e sintetizada da jurisprudência do TEDH no âmbito desta garantia e na dogmática dos direitos fundamentais, alinhavando-se, ainda, uma proposta própria de compreensão e resolução dos conflitos emergentes dessa temática.
Considerando que a jurisprudência do TEDH se inclina a tentar conciliar as diversas soluções normativas dos países signatários da Convenção, de modo a alcançar um corpus iuris comum, constata-se que a proteção conferida pela garantia da não autoincriminação que é fornecida por este Tribunal não encontra respaldo em um critério unívoco e estático.
This study main goal is to establish the true range of protectorship and all possible restrictions of the privilege against self-incrimination, from the analysis of the protection conferred from the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence concerning the rights to silence and to not incriminate oneself. It aims to densify the real content, extension and limitations of a privilege which lack of express normative prediction on the European Convention on Human Rights, making it’s acknowledgement and the task of limiting it’s protectorship range a task of the Court responsible to state and reprehend the violations on the rights consecrated in it. Therefore, this study seeks to perceive, in light of this Court’s jurisprudence, the solutions and operative criteria used to identify the forbidden species of state intervention against the defendant and the modalities of probative conducts included in the privilege’s protection range. In this course, the delimitation of the protection range of this privilege will be pursued from group case studies, according to the object of interference in case, differentiating amongst excerpt of declarations (statements) and the obtainment of non-oral or non- communicative probative contributions, also complying the sort of state procedure and coercion. In the matters related to this first dimension of the protection against selfincrimination (right to silence), this study divides itself in analyzing the situations involving, firstly, more direct coercions, found when the absence of giving potentially incriminating declarations constitutes, by itself, a criminal offense or an administrative infraction, and, posteriorly, more indirect nature coercions, that are in case when there is an unfavorable valuation of the silence in the decision-making discretion, when there is no warning or instruction on silence and, as well, when the state utilizes mechanisms, at first, not explicitly coactive of proof obtaining, which stands out the deceitful means and the “offscreen interrogations” by undercovered agents and “trustful men”. Concerning the more peripheral zone of the privilege against self-incrimination (right to no self-incriminate), this study focus on investigating other forms of collaboration that may or may not be included in this privilege range, among which, the obligation of delivering documents, coactive submission to corporal interventions and other proof diligences, like the coactive gathering of body samples, voice and handwriting expert analysis, and mandatory recognitions. In this more critical aspect of the research, national and foreign normative and jurisprudential solutions are interpellated. It is also contemplated, in this secondary context, a reference to a group of cases in which the devoir of providing incriminating information related to the identification of the driver offender, in the range of the Road Code, was in case. Lastly, a broad and synthesized analysis of the ECtHR jurisprudence concerning this privilege and the fundamental rights dogmatic will be presented, also tackling a fitting proposal on the comprehension and conflict resolution concerning the emergent conflicts on this theme. Considering that the ECtHR jurisprudence tends to try to conciliate several normative solutions of the Convention’s signatory countries, seeking to reach a common corpus iuris, we can verify that the protection conferred by the privilege against selfincrimination and provided by this Court does not find support in an unequivocal and static criteria.
This study main goal is to establish the true range of protectorship and all possible restrictions of the privilege against self-incrimination, from the analysis of the protection conferred from the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence concerning the rights to silence and to not incriminate oneself. It aims to densify the real content, extension and limitations of a privilege which lack of express normative prediction on the European Convention on Human Rights, making it’s acknowledgement and the task of limiting it’s protectorship range a task of the Court responsible to state and reprehend the violations on the rights consecrated in it. Therefore, this study seeks to perceive, in light of this Court’s jurisprudence, the solutions and operative criteria used to identify the forbidden species of state intervention against the defendant and the modalities of probative conducts included in the privilege’s protection range. In this course, the delimitation of the protection range of this privilege will be pursued from group case studies, according to the object of interference in case, differentiating amongst excerpt of declarations (statements) and the obtainment of non-oral or non- communicative probative contributions, also complying the sort of state procedure and coercion. In the matters related to this first dimension of the protection against selfincrimination (right to silence), this study divides itself in analyzing the situations involving, firstly, more direct coercions, found when the absence of giving potentially incriminating declarations constitutes, by itself, a criminal offense or an administrative infraction, and, posteriorly, more indirect nature coercions, that are in case when there is an unfavorable valuation of the silence in the decision-making discretion, when there is no warning or instruction on silence and, as well, when the state utilizes mechanisms, at first, not explicitly coactive of proof obtaining, which stands out the deceitful means and the “offscreen interrogations” by undercovered agents and “trustful men”. Concerning the more peripheral zone of the privilege against self-incrimination (right to no self-incriminate), this study focus on investigating other forms of collaboration that may or may not be included in this privilege range, among which, the obligation of delivering documents, coactive submission to corporal interventions and other proof diligences, like the coactive gathering of body samples, voice and handwriting expert analysis, and mandatory recognitions. In this more critical aspect of the research, national and foreign normative and jurisprudential solutions are interpellated. It is also contemplated, in this secondary context, a reference to a group of cases in which the devoir of providing incriminating information related to the identification of the driver offender, in the range of the Road Code, was in case. Lastly, a broad and synthesized analysis of the ECtHR jurisprudence concerning this privilege and the fundamental rights dogmatic will be presented, also tackling a fitting proposal on the comprehension and conflict resolution concerning the emergent conflicts on this theme. Considering that the ECtHR jurisprudence tends to try to conciliate several normative solutions of the Convention’s signatory countries, seeking to reach a common corpus iuris, we can verify that the protection conferred by the privilege against selfincrimination and provided by this Court does not find support in an unequivocal and static criteria.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito penal Direito ao silêncio Direito à não auto-incriminação Meios de prova Julgamento Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos Teses de mestrado - 2019