Separation of lawful operational-search measures from provocation of a crime։ standards established by the European Court of Human Rights

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.C/2024.15.2.006

Keywords:

operational-search measure, legality of operational-search measure, provocation of crime, police trap, lawful provocation, European Court of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, Criminal Code

Abstract

The aim of this Article is to present a reasoned proposal for the criminalization of provocation of a crime as a result of a detailed study and systematic presentation of the criteria set by the European Court of Human Rights, taking into account the idea of lawful provocation of a crime and its features.

To achieve this objective, the Article analyzes the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights based on the examination of applications submitted to the Court concerning the legality and lawfulness of data obtained through operational-search activities. These criteria allow for the differentiation of lawful operational-search measures from provocation of a crime. Based on the content of these criteria, they have been conditionally classified into specific groups.

As a result of the research conducted in the Article, it is proposed to comprehensively criminalize provocation of a crime, taking into account the successful practices of other countries and internationally recognized practices. At the same time, valuing lawful provocation, it is suggested to establish a criminal-legal norm that would consider it a circumstance excluding criminal liability.

Author Biographies

  • Gevorg Barseghyan, YSU

    PhD Student at YSU Chair of Criminal law, Lecturer

  • Gagik Ghazinyan, YSU

    Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor Emeritus of YSU

    Academician of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia

References

1. McKERR v. the United Kingdom, decision, § 134, 4 May 2001, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-

59451

2. Ağdaş v. Turkey, § 102, 27 July 2004, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-61941

3. Habran and Dalem v. Belgium, § 96, 17 January 2017, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-170633

4. Schatschaschwili v. Germany, §§ 100-101, 15 December 2015,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-159566

5. Mirilashvili v. Russia, § 165, 11 December 2008, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-90099

6. Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 252, 13 September 2016,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-166680

7. Case of Veselov and others v. Russia, (applications nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10), 2

october 2012, point 106. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113289

8. Case of Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58193

9. Case of Shannon v. the United Kingdom , (Application no. 6563/03), 4 October 2005,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70364 ,

10. Case of Bannikova v. Russia, (Application no. 18757/06), 4 November 2010, §42,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101589 ,

11. Case of Scholer v. Germany, (Application no. 14212/10), 18 December 2014, §86

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148641

12. Case of Khudobin v. Russia. (Application no. 59696/00). 26 October 2006. §134.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-77692

13. Case of Matanović v. Croatia. (Application no. 2742/12), 04 April 2017, §142,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-172466

14. Case of Constantin and Stoian v. Romania nos. 23782/06 and 46629/06, 29 September 2009, §

55, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-94406 ,

15. Case of Bannikova v. Russia, (Application no. 18757/06), 4 November 2010,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101589

16. Case of Vanyan v. Russia. (Application No.53203/99). 15 December 2005.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71673

17. Case of Veselov and others v. Russia, (applications nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10). 2

October 2012, §91. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113289

18. Case of Shannon v. the United Kingdom, (Application no. 6563/03), 4 October 2005,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70364

19. Case of Bannikova v. Russia, (Application no. 18757/06), 4 November 2010,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101589

20. Case of Bannikova v. Russia, (Application no. 18757/06). 4 November 2010, §69

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101589

21. Case of Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, (Applications nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10). 26 March

2015, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-152988 ,

22. Decision of Mills v. Ireland, (Application no. 50468/16), 10 October 2017,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-178562

23. Case of Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia, (Applications nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10). 26 March

2015, § 40-45, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-152988

24. Decision of Mills v. Ireland, (Application no. 50468/16), 10 October 2017, §25․

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-178562

25. Case of Nosko and Nefedov v. Russia. (Applications nos. 5753/09 and 11789/10). 30 October

2014, §68, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147441

26. Case of Ramanauskas v. Lithuania, (Application no. 74420/01), 5 February 2008,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-84935

27. Case of Malininas v. Lithuania. (Application No.10071/04). 1 July 2008. §37

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-87223

28. Case of Malininas v. Lithuania. (Application No.10071/04). 1 July 2008. §37

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-87223.

29. Case of Vanyan v. Russia. (Application No.53203/99). 15 December 2005. §67.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71673

30. Case of Grba v. Croatia, (Application no. 47074/12), 23 November 2017, §§99-101

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-178699

31. Case of Scholer v. Germany, (Application no. 14212/10), 18 December 2014, §89-90

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148641

32. Case of Furcht v. Germany (Application no. 54648/09, 23 October 2014, §§58-59

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147329

33. Case of Malininas v. Lithuania (Application no. 10071/04), 1 July 2008, §§123-124

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-87223

34. Case of Papyan v. Armenia (Application no. 53166/10), 21 December 2021, §§ 80, 88

35. Case of Milinienė v. Lithuania (Application no. 74355/01), 24 June 2008, § 38,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-87142

36. Case of Lalas v. Lithuania (Application no. 13109/04), 1 March 2011, § 45,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-103690

37. Case of Scholer v. Germany, (Application no. 14212/10), 18 December 2014, §§ 89-90

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148641

38. Case of Ciprian Vlăduț and Ioan Florin Pop v. Romania (Application

nos. 43490/07 and 44304/07), 16 July 2015, §§ 86-87, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-

156066

39. Case of Malininas v. Lithuania (Application no. 10071/04), 1 July 2008, §§ 37,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-87223 ,

40. Case of Furcht v. Germany (Application no. 54648/09), 23 October 2014, §§ 58-59,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-147329

41. Case of Veselov and others v. Russia, (applications nos. 23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10)․ 2

october 2012, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113289

42. Case of Vanyan v. Russia. (Application No.53203/99). 15 December 2005. §46–47

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71673 ,

43. Case of Khudobin v. Russia. (Application no. 59696/00). 26 October 2006. §135.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-77692

44. Case of Vanyan v. Russia. (Application No.53203/99). 15 December 2005. §69-70

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71673 ,

45. Case of Khudobin v. Russia. (Application no. 59696/00). 26 October 2006. §133-135.

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-77692

46. Case of Ramanauskas v. Lithuania, (Application no. 74420/01). 5 February 2008, §71–72,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-84935

47. Case of Shannon v. the United Kingdom , (Application no. 6563/03). 4 October 2005,

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-70364

48. Case of Bannikova v. Russia, (Application no. 18757/06). 4 November 2010, §63–64

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101589

49. Радачинский С.Н. Провокация преступления как комплексный институт уголовного права:

проблемы теории и практики: автореф. дис. ... д-ра юрид. наук. Н. Новгород, 2011.

Published

2024-12-24

Issue

Section

Criminal Law

How to Cite

Barseghyan, G., & Ghazinyan, G. (2024). Separation of lawful operational-search measures from provocation of a crime։ standards established by the European Court of Human Rights. Bulletin of Yerevan University C: Jurisprudence, 15(2 (41), 6-22. https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.C/2024.15.2.006