Abstract:

The accelerated progress of technical disciplines brings with it great potential dangers and threatens fundamental rights. Conditions are created for penetration into the most hidden parts of human intimacy and open some fundamental questions of the admissibility and limits of the application of certain means of evidence. Technology today makes audio and video recording extremely easy and accessible to many. The recordings are easily and permanently stored in digital form, and can contain data that can seriously violate the privacy of the recorded person. On the other hand, society’s aspiration to prosecute and punish perpetrators of serious crimes is particularly pronounced. Effective prosecution of perpetrators of crimes and the prevention and punishment of perpetrators are positive obligations of the state under international law, such as the obligation of the state and the protection of fundamental human rights. Striking a balance between public interest and the protection of individual rights can be achieved by applying the theory of comparison or weighing, which basically contains the principle of proportionality. This paper discusses how jurisprudence has responded to the demanding task prescribed by the CPA in Article 10, paragraph 3. This provision enables the convalidation of illegal evidence under Article 10, paragraph 2, point 2 of the CPA if it is a serious form of criminal offence within the jurisdiction of the county court, in which the interest of criminal prosecution and the punishment of the perpetrator prevail over the violation of rights. Special emphasis is placed on the criteria for the convalidation of illegal evidence in the case of secretly recorded private recordings from the aspect of the right to the inviolability of personal and family life (the right to privacy).

Keywords: