Legal safeguards against involuntary criminal confessions in Poland and Russia

Criminal confession is a powerful and highly incriminating piece of evidence. An authentic inculpatory confession can be a fertile source of new evidence known only to the actual perpetrator. It helps the prosecution to build a stronger case against the defendant in a situation where only circumstantial evidence is available. In some cases, such as no-body homicides and wild-land arson fires, it is difficult to prove the defendant's participation and guilt without his willing and full cooperation. All of this explains why in the era of advanced forensic techniques criminal investigators are keen to obtain confessions using a variety of tactics. Studies show, however, that some interrogation techniques are more likely to induce false confessions, which, in turn, increase the likelihood of judicial errors. From a human rights perspective, the European Court of Human Rights has expressed serious concerns about the use of evidence obtained through violence, coercion or torture but has been unable to establish the balance between efficient law enforcement and adequate protection of individual rights. In the article, legal provisions against improper police compulsion in Poland and Russia were analyzed. It appears that each country applies a different approach to the issue of police coercion. In Russia, the law provides specific rules on the admissibility of criminal confessions, their evidentiary value, and methods of verifying the reliability of suspect’s testimony. In Poland, the law confers a wider discretion on the domestic courts as to how to deal with confession evidence and the allegations concerning the use of coercive interrogation techniques. Based on the results of the analysis of pertinent legal provisions, case-law and legal doctrine, the authors aimed to determine the effectiveness of two models in preventing and dealing with coerced criminal confessions. Several changes were suggested to address the issue of excessive judicial formalism concerning the allegations regarding the use of unlawful interrogation techniques.

Abstract licence: CC BY

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.