【摘要】 格夫根案的大审判庭裁决反映出欧洲人权法院在非法证据排除问题上的完整立场,即对通过酷刑获取的任何证据和以非法手段获取的言词证据实行自动排除,对以非人道待遇取得的实物证据根据比例原则决定是否排除,对非法证据的派生实物证据根据利益权衡原则决定是否排除,并以公正审判权作为适用排除规则的重要尺度。在刑事司法准则日益国际化的背景之下,该立场反映了排除规则发展的整体趋势,对我国排除规则的完善有较强的借鉴意义。立足本土法律实践,反思与国际人权基准之间的脱节与落差,将排除规则纳入公正审判权的保障体系,是排除规则发展的大势所趋。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Grand Chamber’s judgment in the case of Gfgen v. Germany reflects the basic position of the European Court of Human Rights on the admissibility of evidence tainted by a violation of Article 3,namely,any evidence obtained as a direct result of acts of torture and statements obtained through illegal means should never be relied on as proof of victim’s guilt. While maintaining the use of proportionality test to decide on the admissibility of evidence that can be traced back to an act classified as inhuman treatment,but falling short of torture,the majority of the European Court of Human Rights agrees with the conciliatory view on the real evidence as the "fruit"of statements which was made as a result of interrogation in breach of Article 3—according to which a balancing of interests in particular circumstance of the case has to be kept—and makes a further assessment of the extent and manner by which fairness of the proceedings was affected. With the internationalization of Criminal Justice Standards,the position taken by the Court reflects the overall trend of the development of exclusionary rule and provides us with a valuable reference for the perfection of exclusionary rule of our own. To be based on our domestic legal practice,reflect on gap in terms of international human rights norms and to incorporate exclusionary rule into right to fair trial is the trend of the times of the development of the rule.更多还原