Talk:Right to a fair trial

Untitled

It seems to me as though the Right to Counsel ought to be moved to its own article. If no one expressed disagreement, I will do so.--Chaser 08:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The article is misleading in regard to the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because this is merely a treaty and is not binding on anyone but the 72 signatories. The UN General Assembly can "decide" nothing, the UN Charter reserves all human rights authority to the UNSC.

This is an important treaty, it applies in a lot of places, but it deserves to be accurately described.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of December 2010, the Covenant had 72 signatories and 167 parties.

Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights

The article claims that "Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights" but the Treaty of Lisbon changed this for three EU members.

British Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon

The question is if the Treaty of Lisbon made the text outdated?

The British protocol changed the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as this WP article states. The concern within the UK included the inclusion of continental law derived from the Napoleonic Code and Roman Law to British common law.

What is the consensus, does this text still work? 67.169.229.2 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions - Right to a Fair Trial When No Crime is Alleged

The article is weak because it does not cover a critical element of the GC's AND this omission is important because many are confused on the issue. Please improve upon the text below. The idea is to clarify a common area of confusion. Most people think that soldiers captured in combat should get a trial. The point is to clarify that they don't get a trial when they have not violated any law.

The Geneva Conventions guarantee soldiers the right to not be put on trial for fighting in a war - unless they commit a war crime (a grave breech) or other crime. This protection against getting a fair trial is fully consistent with human rights law because human rights law prohibits putting people on trial when there is no crime to try them for. The Geneva Conventions however guarantee that anyone charged with a war crime or other crime will get a fair trial. 67.169.229.2 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-hearing unfair trials

Most countries have double jeopardy laws. Where do these stand if a trial is found to be unfair, with a bias toward the defendant, and its verdict quashed? --Tom Edwards (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Costs of the trial

What about the costs of the trials , and their reimbursement ? For example : " The GMC is not a court, so even if you win, you don’t get any of the costs back, so when the defence bodies defend a case, for them, it is just money down the drain. This gives the GMC carte blanche to accuse anybody they like of Serious Professional Misconduct as they never have to pay for anyone except their own team if they are wrong."??? Trente7cinq (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

South Africa

§ Can I ask for advice regarding the following edit? It has been removed twice with no advice given for making it acceptable:
South Africa has an extradition agreement with the United Kingdom but its abolition of the jury system has been maintained. Inconsistent results were provided recently by two judges who were considering the same crime. In the first trial, the judge sentenced three men on the assumption that Shrien Dewani was their conspirator. In the second trial, the case against Dewani as murder conspirator was thrown out.) Dewani's four-year ordeal (detention in two countries and worldwide media exposure) and expensive trial administration arose from prosecution by means of a "plea and sentencing agreement" which included no credible witnesses. Gerrytlloyd (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

for background information only:

South Africa still uses an apartheid era system, with optional adjustments.
The attempt to incarcerate Shrien Dewani (2010 to 2014) shows that any person can still be made suspect by procedural habits that gain strength in the absence of a jury system. A Cape Town lawyer (da Grass) could incriminate Dewani with just a few impossible statements from a taxi driver and two of his criminal accomplices (who say they witnessed a contract to kill being made, but were obviously in different places at the time stated, and never met Dewani.) The plea bargain that enabled the detention of Dewani (in Britain) had no validation from any credible witness (in South Africa).

Two South Africans enjoy lighter sentences through the plea bargain, and one remains free. Da Grass would have promised them that the bargain would not be cancelled later, if the case against Dewani were thrown out. Da Grass had a financial incentive and the hijack conspirators could only gain by cooperating with him. Dewani's four-year ordeal (detention in England and South Africa, international media exposure) and some expensive court administration were solely attributable to one man's desire to exploit the trial system for financial gain. (bit. ly/MugTaxi offers a detailed construction.)

In 1969, "abolition" of the jury system made it easier for judges to imprison people who rebelled against apartheid. Things remain as the Nationalists left them, but with optional additions to 'compensate' for the lack of jury (the existing rulers might likewise enjoy the ease with which undesirables can be detained?) Gerrytlloyd (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References