Is it possible for evidence obtained through torture from third parties to be used in judicial proceedings? According to the ECHR, the use of evidence obtained through torture from third parties in judicial proceedings amounts to “a clear denial of justice” or “a denial/rejection of justice”.

Evidence obtained through a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and used against the accused in judicial proceedings may have been obtained from a third party other than the accused. Undoubtedly, whether the use of such unlawfully obtained evidence from a third party through a violation of Article 3 against the accused will render the trial unfair is an important issue that needs to be resolved. The ECHR has not changed its strict approach regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 in such cases. For the ECHR has ruled that the use of evidence obtained through torture from a third party, in particular, will amount to “a clear denial of justice” or “a denial/rejection of justice”. As can be seen, this acceptance by the ECHR is valid not only in cases where the victim of the treatment contrary to Article 3 is the primary defendant but also when third parties are involved. (El Haski/Belgium, 2012, pr.85; Othman (Abu Qatada)/United Kingdom, 2012, pr.263 and 267; Kaçiu and Kotorri /Albania, 2013, pr.128) For example, if documentary or testimonial evidence obtained through torture or inhuman treatment from a witness other than the accused or from another co-accused is used against the accused, the right to a fair trial will have been violated. A book recommendation.

Why is Expert Legal Assistance Necessary for Individual Applications?

The use of evidence obtained through torture or ill-treatment from third parties in trials, according to ECtHR jurisprudence, directly constitutes “a denial of justice”. However, bringing such claims to an individual application is a highly technical process, both in terms of exhausting domestic remedies and preparing the application in accordance with admissibility requirements.

In the individual application process, it is of critical importance, especially, to establish which evidence was obtained through torture or inhuman treatment, to prove how this evidence was used against the accused, and to establish the link between the violation and the right to a fair trial. A wrong strategy or the submission of incomplete documents can lead to the rejection of the application without it ever being examined on its merits.

At this point, the main reasons for seeking expert legal assistance are:

Mastery of procedural rules: In applications to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the ECtHR (AİHM), deadlines, formal requirements, and methods of submitting evidence are strict. A minor error can lead to a loss of rights.

Legal grounding of the violation: It must be demonstrated within a strong legal framework which convention and constitutional articles are violated by the use of evidence obtained through torture.

Connecting to the concrete case: It must be concretized how the violation, not just an abstract claim, led to a specific outcome in the applicant’s case.

Leveraging successful precedents: Correctly relating ECtHR jurisprudence, such as the El Haski, Othman, and Kaçiu judgments, to the application increases the likelihood of the violation being accepted.

Consequently, making an individual application in a trial where evidence obtained through torture is used requires serious expertise. Expert legal support prevents the loss of rights by ensuring both the admissibility of the application and the effective demonstration of the violation.