THE RIGHT TO DEFENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PENAL ENFORCEMENT: INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46763/BSSR252626205gpAbstract
This study analyses the evolution and current standards of the right to defense within the framework of penal enforcement, as developed under international and European human rights law. It examines how the guarantees of legal assistance, access to counsel, and fair treatment of persons deprived of liberty have been shaped by three major legal systems: the United Nations, the Council of Europe – particularly through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights – and the European Union. The paper identifies the principal legal instruments and case law defining defense rights during imprisonment, including the UNCAT, the Nelson Mandela Rules, the ECHR, and the EU directives on procedural safeguards and legal aid. Special attention is given to the interaction between the ECtHR and the CJEU in harmonizing standards of fair trial and legal assistance. The analysis concludes that the right to defense in penal enforcement represents an evolving and integral component of the rule of law, requiring constant judicial oversight and coherent implementation across international and regional frameworks.
Downloads
References
Monographs and academic literature
1. Annan, K. A. (2002). Foreword. In Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Ed.), Human rights: A compilation of international instruments. Volume I (First part): Universal instruments (p. XIII). United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Compilation1en.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
2. Balogh, A. J. (2002). A strasbourgi bíróság gyakorlata a büntetés-végrehajtási ügyekben [The case law of the Strasbourg Court in penal enforcement matters]. Börtönügyi Szemle [Prison Review], 21(2), 77–92. https://epa.oszk.hu/02700/02705/00050/pdf/EPA02705_bortonugyi_szemle_2002_2_077-092.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
3. Bán, T. (1991). A diszkrimináció tilalma az Európai Emberi Jogi Egyezményben [Prohibition of discrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights]. Acta Humana, 2(5), 37–54.
4. Bán, T. (1999). Az Európa Tanács ötven éve: Tagságunk hatásai a magyar jogfejlődésre [Fifty years of the Council of Europe: The impact of our membership on the development of Hungarian law]. Acta Humana, 10(35–36), 8–28.
5. Bárd, K. (2021). Az áldozatok méltósága és a vádlottak jogai: Összehasonlító jogi tanulmány [The dignity of victims and the rights of defendants: A comparative legal study]. Budapest: HVG-ORAC.
6. Békés, Á. (2010). Az európai büntetőjog – luxemburgi és strasbourgi büntető ítélkezés [European criminal law – criminal judgments in Luxembourg and Strasbourg] [Doctoral dissertation]. Pázmány Péter Catholic University. https://disszertacio.ppke.hu/id/eprint/381/1/JAK_DD_2010_bekes.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
7. Blaskó, B., & Budaházi, Á. (2019). A nemzetközi bűnügyi együttműködés joga [The law of international cooperation in criminal matters]. Budapest: Dialóg Campus. https://tudasportal.uni-nke.hu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12944/13041/web_PDF_Nemzetkozi_bunugyi_egyuttmukodes_joga.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
8. Cassel, D. (2008). Pretrial and preventive detention of suspected terrorists: Options and constraints under international law. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(3), 811–852. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40042788 (accessed 31 October 2025)
9. Farkas, Á. (2012). Az európai büntetőjog fejlődésének irányai a Lisszaboni Szerződés után [Trends in the development of European criminal law after the Treaty of Lisbon]. In Juhász, Zs., Nagy, F., & Fantoly, Zs. (Eds.), Sapienti sat: Ünnepi kötet Dr. Cséka Ervin professzor 90. születésnapjára [Sapienti sat: Anniversary volume for Professor Ervin Cséka's 90th birthday] (pp. 139–158). Szeged: SZTE.
10. FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2010). Az igazságszolgáltatáshoz való hozzáférés Európában: A kihívások és lehetőségek áttekintése [Access to justice in Europe: An overview of challenges and opportunities]. Bécs. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_2010_01940000_hu.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
11. Gaitan, A., & Kuschnik, B. (2009). Tanzania’s death penalty debate: An epilogue on Republic v Mbushuu. African Human Rights Law Journal, 9(2), 459–481. https://www.ahrlj.up.ac.za/images/ahrlj/2009/ahrlj_vol9_no2_2009_gaitan_kuschnik.pdf (accessed 23 December 2025)
12. Garajszki, Z. (2022). Mikortól védő az ügyvéd? [When does the lawyer become a defense attorney?] Magyar Jog, 69(7–8), 422–430. https://real.mtak.hu/170676/1/GarajszkiZoltanMikortolvedoazugyved-MagyarJog2022.7-8422-430o.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
13. González, Y. R. (2009). The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture. In Gómez, I. F., & de Feyter, K. (Eds.), International human rights law in a global context (pp. 745–773). University of Deusto. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r28067.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
14. Holé, K. (2003). Büntető anyagi és eljárási jogunk, valamint az Európai Unió kívánalmai [Our criminal substantive and procedural law, and the requirements of the European Union]. In Holé, K. (Ed.), A büntető törvénykönyv és a büntető eljárási törvény módosításának elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései: Tudományos ülés, Budapest, 2002. november 15. [Theoretical and practical issues of amending the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Act: Scientific conference, Budapest, November 15, 2002] (pp. 71–82). Budapest: Unió.
15. Juhász, Zs. (2006). Megújult az Európai Börtönszabályok [European Prison Rules renewed]. Börtönügyi Szemle [Prison Review], 25(3), 44–58. https://epa.oszk.hu/02700/02705/00067/pdf/EPA02705_bortonugyi_szemle_2006_3_044-058.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
16. Kabódi, Cs. (1994). Emberi jogok a strasbourgi esetjog tükrében [Human rights in the light of Strasbourg case law]. Börtönügyi Szemle [Prison Review], (3), 1–12. https://epa.oszk.hu/02700/02705/00019/pdf/EPA02705_bortonugyi_szemle_1994_3_001-012.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
17. Kaiafa-Gbandi, M. (2019). Az Európai Unió Bíróságának joggyakorlata az Európai Unió pénzügyi érdekeinek védelme és az alapvető jogok védelme terén: A Hans Åkerberg Fransson, Menci és Taricco I/II ügyek kritikai elemzése [Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of protecting the financial interests of the European Union and fundamental rights: A critical analysis of the Hans Åkerberg Fransson, Menci and Taricco I/II cases]. In Dannecker, G., Farkas, Á., & Jacsó, J. (Eds.), Az Európai Unió pénzügyi érdekei védelmének büntetőjogi aspektusai [Criminal law aspects of protecting the financial interests of the European Union] (pp. 53–65). Budapest: Wolters Kluwer. https://hercule.uni-miskolc.hu/files/5692/Az_EU_penzugyi_erdekeinek_fedellel.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
18. Kanev, K. (2018). A büntetőeljárás terheltjeinek nyújtott jogi segítséggel és védelemmel kapcsolatos nemzetközi követelmények [International standards relating to legal assistance and defense for persons subject to criminal proceedings]. In Bulgarian Helsinki Committee & Hungarian Helsinki Committee (Eds.), Kézikönyv a büntetőeljárások terheltjeinek védőhöz és költségmentességhez való jogáról [Handbook on the right of defendants in criminal proceedings to legal representation and legal aid] (pp. 4–33). https://helsinki.hu/wp-content/uploads/Vedohoz_valo_jog_kezikonyv_HUN_2018.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
19. Karsai, K. (2002). Magyar büntetőjog az európai integráció sodrásában [Hungarian criminal law in the wake of European integration]. Jogtudományi Közlöny [Legal Bulletin], 57(2), 77–90.
20. Koósné Mohácsi, B., Lőrincz, J., Lukács, K., & Pallo, J. (2017). Büntetés-végrehajtási jog [Penal law]. Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó.
21. Kovács, P. (2001). A közösségi jogrendszer és az alapjogvédelem [The legal system of the European Union and the protection of fundamental rights]. Acta Humana, 12(44–45), 83–96.
22. Lakatos, I. (2002). Az emberi jogok kérdése az Európai Unióban [The issue of human rights in the European Union]. Acta Humana, 13(48), 46–66.
23. Nagy, A. (2011). A tisztességes eljáráshoz való jog az Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága Magyarországgal kapcsolatos gyakorlatában, különös tekintettel az ésszerű határidő követelményére [The right to a fair trial in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Hungary, with particular regard to the requirement of reasonable time limits]. Debreceni Jogi Műhely [Debrecen Legal Workshop], 8(3), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.24169/DJM/2011/3/3 (accessed 31 October 2025) (accessed 31 October 2025)
24. Nagy, G. (1999). Az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezménye egyes rendelkezéseinek átvétele a nemzetközi jogban [The incorporation of certain provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights into international law]. Acta Humana, 10(35–36), 68–77.
25. Oraá, J. (2009). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Gómez, I. F., & de Feyter, K. (Eds.), International human rights law in a global context (pp. 163–235). University of Deusto. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r28067.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
26. Penal Reform International & Human Rights Centre, University of Essex. (2017). Essex Paper 3: Initial guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the UN Nelson Mandela Rules. https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Essex-3-paper.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
27. Rozsnyai, K. F., & Koósné Mohácsi, B. (2021). Tisztességes tárgyaláshoz való jog [The right to a fair trial]. In Sonnevend, P., & Bodnár, E. (Eds.), Az Emberi Jogok Európai Egyezményének kommentárja [Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights]. Budapest: HVG-ORAC. (online: jogkodex.hu) (accessed 31 October 2025)
28. Seatzu, F., & Fanni, S. (2015). A comparative approach to prisoners’ rights in the European Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 44(1), 21–40. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=djilp (accessed 31 October 2025)
29. Szüts, M. (2004). Az EK Bíróság joggyakorlatának erősödő befolyása a nemzeti büntetőjogokra [The growing influence of ECJ case law on national criminal law]. In Gellér, B. (Ed.), Györgyi Kálmán – Ünnepi kötet [Györgyi Kálmán – Anniversary Volume] (pp. 533–558). Budapest: KJK–KERSZÖV.
30. Trechsel, S. (2014). Why Must Trials be Fair? Israel Law Review, 31(1–3), 94–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700015259 (accessed 31 October 2025)
31. Valesco, D. (2020). La problemática (necesaria y siempre insuficiente) fundamentación de los derechos humanos. Deusto Journal of Human Rights, 6, 69–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.18543/djhr.1874 (accessed 31 October 2025)
32. van Kempen, P. H. (2014). Introduction. In P. H. van Kempen (Ed.), Criminal Law and Human Rights (pp. XI–XXXIII). Farnham: Ashgate. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2953285 (accessed 31 October 2025)
33. Varga, Zs. (2021). Az uniós hatékony bírói jogvédelemhez való jog a nemzeti bíróságok előtti eljárásban [The right to effective judicial protection in the EU in proceedings before national courts]. In Bartha, I., Fazekas, F., Papp, M., & Varju, M. (Eds.), Hatékony jogvédelem az Európai Unió jogában: Tanulmányok Várnay Ernő 70. születésnapja tiszteletére [Effective legal protection in European Union law: Studies in honor of Ernő Várnay’s 70th birthday] (pp. 17–35). Budapest: Társadalomtudományi Kutatóközpont.
34. Vókó, Gy. (2004). A fogvatartottak helyzete a Holland Királyságban és a Holland Antillákon [The condition of detainees in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles]. Börtönügyi Szemle [Prison Review], 23(2), 93–96. https://epa.oszk.hu/02700/02705/00058/pdf/EPA02705_bortonugyi_szemle_2004_2_093-096.pdf (accessed 31 October 2025)
35. Vókó, Gy. (2006). Európai büntetés-végrehajtási jog [European penal law]. Budapest–Pécs: Dialóg Campus.
36. Weller, M. (2001). Az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartája [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]. Acta Humana, 12(43), 31–44.
37. Willems, A. G. (2014). The United Nations principles and guidelines on access to legal aid in criminal justice systems: A step toward global assurance of legal aid? New Criminal Law Review, 17(2), 184–209. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2014.17.2.184 (accessed 31 October 2025)
International and European legal instruments
1. Council of Europe. (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights).
2. Council of Europe. (1987). European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
3. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers. (2006). Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Prison Rules.
4. Council of the European Union. (2009). Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (2009/C 295/01). Official Journal of the European Union, C 295, 1–3.
5. European Union. (2016). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2016/C 202/02).
6. Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings.
7. Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty.
8. Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings.
9. Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings.
10. United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). G.A. Res. 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.
11. United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
12. United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
13. United Nations. (1984). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT).
14. United Nations. (1990). Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana).
15. United Nations. (2002). Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).
16. United Nations General Assembly. (2015). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules). G.A. Res. 70/175 (Annex).
17. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2012). United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems (A/RES/67/187).
Case law and institutional documents
1. Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10 (CJEU, 26 February 2013).
2. Aksoy v. Turkey, App. No. 21987/93 (ECHR, 18 December 1996).
3. Artico v. Italy, App. No. 6694/74 (ECHR, 13 May 1980).
4. Benham v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 19380/92 (ECHR, 10 June 1996).
5. Beraru v. Romania, App. No. 40107/04 (ECHR, 18 March 2014).
6. Beuze v. Belgium, App. No. 71409/10 (ECHR, 9 November 2018).
7. Brandstetter v. Austria, Apps. Nos. 11170/84, 12876/87 & 13468/87 (ECHR, 28 August 1991).
8. Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 14553/89 & 14554/89 (ECHR, 25 May 1993).
9. Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 11209/84, 11234/84, 11266/84 & 11386/85 (ECHR, 29 November 1988).
10. Bykov v. Russia, App. No. 4378/02 (ECHR, 10 March 2009).
11. Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 7819/77 & 7878/77 (ECHR, 28 June 1984).
12. Černák v. Slovakia, App. No. 36997/08 (ECHR, 17 December 2013).
13. Commission v. France, Case 152/78 (CJEU, 10 July 1980).
14. Commission v. Greece, Case C-68/88 (CJEU, 21 September 1989).
15. Correia de Matos v. Portugal, App. No. 48188/99 (ECHR, 15 November 2001).
16. Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov v. Vasile Toma and Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci, C-205/15 (CJEU, 30 June 2016).
17. Edwards v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 13071/87 (ECHR, 16 December 1992).
18. Elçi and Others v. Turkey, Apps. Nos. 23145/93 & 25091/94 (ECHR, 13 November 2003).
19. Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, Apps. Nos. 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72 & 5370/72 (ECHR, 8 June 1976).
20. European Commission. (2011). Green Paper: Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – A Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention (COM/2011/0327 final). Brussels.
21. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). (2011). 21st General Report of the CPT (1 August 2010 – 31 July 2011) (CPT/Inf (2011) 28). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
22. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). (2015). Juveniles deprived of their liberty under criminal legislation (CPT/Inf (2015) 1-part rev 1). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
23. European Court of Human Rights (Registry). (2025, February 28). Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb). Council of Europe.
24. Fedorova v. Russia, App. No. 73225/01 (ECHR, 13 April 2006).
25. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (SCOTUS, 29 June 1972).
26. Golder v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 4451/70 (ECHR, 21 February 1975).
27. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (SCOTUS, 2 July 1976).
28. Ilse Koch v. Federal Republic of Germany, App. No. 1270/61 (European Commission of Human Rights, 8 March 1962).
29. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). (2017). Report on measures aimed at reducing the use of pretrial detention in the Americas (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.163).
30. Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, Case 11-70 (CJEU, 17 December 1970).
31. Ireland v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 5310/71 (ECHR, 18 January 1978).
32. J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v. Commission of the European Communities, Case 4-73 (CJEU, 14 May 1974).
33. Jeronovičs v. Latvia, App. No. 44898/10 (ECHR, 5 July 2016).
34. Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, Apps. Nos. 11082/06 & 13772/05 (ECHR, 25 July 2013).
35. Kuopila v. Finland, App. No. 27752/95 (ECHR, 27 April 2000).
36. Kurt v. Turkey, App. No. 15/1997/799/1002 (ECHR, 25 May 1998).
37. Leas v. Estonia, App. No. 59577/08 (ECHR, 6 March 2012).
38. Lebedev v. Russia, App. No. 4493/04 (ECHR, 25 October 2007).
39. Leotsakos v. Greece, App. No. 30958/13 (ECHR, 4 October 2018).
40. Matanović v. Croatia, App. No. 2742/12 (ECHR, 4 April 2017).
41. Mbushuu alias Dominic Mnyaroje & Kalai Sangula v. The Republic, 1994 TLR 146 (CAT, 22 June 1994).
42. McShane v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 43290/98 (ECHR, 28 May 2002).
43. Niemietz v. Germany, App. No. 13710/88 (ECHR, 16 December 1992).
44. Öcalan v. Turkey, App. No. 46221/99 (ECHR, 12 May 2005).
45. Philis v. Greece, App. No. 16598/90 (ECHR, 1 July 1992).
46. Quaranta v. Switzerland, App. No. 12744/87 (ECHR, 24 May 1991).
47. Roland Rutili v. Ministre de l’Intérieur, Case 36-75 (CJEU, 28 October 1975).
48. Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom, App. No. 28901/95 (ECHR, 16 February 2000).
49. Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, C-169/14 (CJEU, 17 July 2014).
50. Schiesser v. Switzerland, App. No. 7710/76 (ECHR, 4 December 1979).
51. Schönenberger and Durmaz v. Switzerland, App. No. 11368/85 (ECHR, 20 June 1988).
52. Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Apps. Nos. 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75 & 7136/75 (ECHR, 24 October 1983).
53. Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, C-399/11 (CJEU, 26 February 2013).
54. Twalib v. Greece, App. No. 42/1997/826/1032 (ECHR, 9 June 1998).
55. United Nations. (1991). Report of the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990 (A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1).
56. Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, Apps. Nos. 21363/93, 21364/93, 21427/93 & 22056/93 (ECHR, 23 April 1997).
57. Vélez Loor v. Panama, Case No. 12.581, IACtHR Series C No. 218 (23 November 2010).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Permissions
Authors are expected to obtain permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. BSSR will not be held accountable for any copyright infringement caused by the authors.
Copyright
The content offered in the BSSR remains the intellectual property of the authors and their publishers respectively. University “Goce Delcev”- Shtip, R. Macedonia and BSSR keap the right to promote and re-publish the texts.
