Edicijska dolžnost domnevnega storilca v kazenskem postopku

slovenian

2014

volume 69, issue 5/6

Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica
(Obvezni izvod spletne publikacije)

Central issue of the paper is whether defendants in criminal procedures may be compelled to produce documents, data or other tangible evidence upon orders by criminal procedure bodies. Specifically, the article examines, whether privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence protect against such compulsion. The problem is tackled on different levels. First, the author attempts to deal with the problem at the level of statutory provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act. The wording of the statute's general duty to produce is so general, that it suggests that such compulsion is, indeed, possible under the Act's provisions. Second approach deals with the case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. Its case-law, too, can be interpreted as being in favour of such compulsion. However, the Court has not yet faced the issue directly. Quite a different conclusion, however, can be reached when we deal with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It shows that it may be necessary to mitigate the strict provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act and refrain from using compulsory measures against defendants that refuse to produce documents, data or tangible evidence upon request of the authorities.

20.01.2017