During the investigation the authorities did not even consider asking Mr. Virabyan’s side of the case or take a look at his medical records. The investigating authority did not question the police reports and did not allow Mr. Virabyan to justify his actions. The police were only seen as victims or witnesses (Virabyan v. Armenia, 2012, p. 47). The Court ruled that Mr. Virabyan’s right to being innocent until proven guilty; Article 6 section 2 was breached and he should have been given the chance to justify himself and prove that he was in fact innocent and not guilty. Mr. Virabyan made a statement saying that he was ill-treated because of his political opinion; therefore he felt that Article 14 with Article 3 was breached. Article 14 …show more content…
They would get away with using their authority to do what they want including torturing others, even when it is against the law. If Mr. Virabyan did not push his case further to the European Court of Human Rights he would had have to suffer the pain inflicted on him and would not get justice. In Mr. Virabyan’s case the police were not questioned as much as Mr. Virabyan was because they are the authority. If citizens do not appeal their case or fight for their rights the police will be able to continue to abuse power affecting the citizens and affecting foreigners. Another possible outcome that could arise if matters are not taken seriously, is that citizens will begin to torture each other. Citizens will begin to feel if the authority can get away with such acts of torture so can I. They will begin to harm each other, either to show who is more powerful or for interrogation purposes, to be able to obtain what they want. If torture became a norm in Armenia, the state would become chaos because everyone would begin to torture each other resulting in
...arately from the length of the delay, the prejudice towards the accused can be inferred from the length of the delay as established in R. v. Morin. Examining the Morin guidelines made the decision and since the guidelines set out an 8 to 10 month institutional delay and in this case the court deemed that the Crown was responsible for 23 months of delay. The court failed to justify the reason for the 23-month delay and since it exceeded the Morin guidelines the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and the accused’s right under Section 11(b) of the Charter has been violated and the trial within a reasonable time was infringed and negated.
... The offenders’ rights to a fair trial were upheld under s 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1980) which can be seen in that she had adequate time to prepare her defence (1 year, 8 months and 27 days) and that she had the right to presumed innocent until proven guilty. The offender also had adequate legal representation and didn’t require any legal aid.
In 2 years the trial ended with the verdict of guilty on the account of
...nd evidence related to his charge. Because neither of these requirements was met, the search in Gant’s situation was not constitutional.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
First and foremost, is the case of Peter Reilly. Peter Reilly was convicted of manslaughter at the age of nineteen in 1974 (Lender, 2011). Reilly had found his mother dead in their home (Lender, 2011). Peter Reilly was interrogated without legal council for over an entire day’s t...
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
On the morning of May 17th, 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two-car collision. Police and Ambulance were dispatched and arrive on scene at the intersection of Kenny and Fernley Street. Ambulance conducted various assessments on Ms. Walker which revealed no major injuries and normal vital signs. Mrs walker denied further medical investigation and denied hospital treatment. Later on, Queensland police conducted a roadside breath test that returned a positive reading, police then escorted Ms. Walker to the cairns police station. Ms. Walker was found to be unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. An ambulance was called but attempts to revive her failed (Coroner’s Inquest, Walker 2007). The standard of Legal and ethical obligation appeared by paramedics required for this situation are flawed and require further examination to conclude whether commitments of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice were accomplished.
Before 1980, the court and justice system officials were reluctant to identify the rights of the accused or the victim because of lack of the consultation, information, and lack of trust in the system. The courts or legislators focused less on victim injury or condition. Victims may be subjected to insensitive questioning by the police as they have somehow at fault in the offence. Victims rarely report incident to the police due to embarrassment or questioned by the police. After the initial pain of the crime, victims can be made feel worse by the actions of criminal justice system by postponed their case or dismissed and lose wages because of time spent testifying in court. Victim may be fearful of testifying in court due to low faith in the justice system or being embarrassed by defence attorney. Victims’ suffering does not end with the offender act; they may suffer more victimization at the hands of the justice system.
I wanted to look at the investigative and criminal procedures following the arrest of an alleged criminal and the powerful effects via testimonies and evidence (or lack thereof) it can have on a case.There is an importance of the courts in regards to crime that can’t be over looked. The primary function of the criminal justice system is to uphold the established laws, which define what we understand as deviant in this society.
Two months after the nation’s highest court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Miranda vs. Arizona, John Flynn and John Frank submitted their outline of the case and legal arguments in support of their position. They continued their argument that Ernest Miranda’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated by the Phoenix Police Department: “The day is here to recognize the full meaning of the Sixth Amendment,” they wrote. “We invoke the basic principles (that) ‘he requires the guiding...
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
The House of Lords decision in the Daly underpinned one of Lord Bingham’s eight sub rules which refers to the law providing adequate protection for fundamental human rights. It was held the instruction issued by the Secretary of State violated prisoners right to a legal adviser under the seal of legal professional privilege. By holding the Secretary of State had no right to issue such an instruction, the House of Lords gave due regard to the Lord Bingham’s rule of law. A similar notion was present, in Wheeler where it said the club had a basic “constitutional right … to freedom of the person and freedom of speech” which had been interfered with by the council’s decision to ban use of the
The sala of Judge Cresencio Tan was kind enough to allow us to observe cases where evidences were presented in the form of witnesses and documents. The first case was simple enough as it was for the initial reception of the prosecution’s evidence. In this proceeding, the prosecutor merely requested for the markings of the evidences she presented in court and the counsel for the accused was asked if he admits it or not. I was waiting for some evidence that would not be admitted by the counsel for the accused in order to see what would happen next, however, all evidences were admitted. With that, that particular session ended. The second case called was for the continuation of reception of prosecution’s evidence. In this case, a witness was presented and the counsel for the accused addressed the witness. I observed that his line of questioning was set on establishing doubt in relation to his personal knowledge of the crime and the drugs in question. The counsel for the accused was able to establish that since the witness himself admitted that he was not really there during the arrest. This case illustrated to me the importance of the element of personal knowledge of a a crime in the determination of a person’s