@article{
author = "Krstić, Ivana",
year = "2005",
abstract = "Na osnovu proste formulacije člana 3. Evropske konvencije ne može se dobiti odgovor na pitanje značenja pojmova: mučenje, nečovečno i ponižavajuće postupanje ili kažnjavanje. Ipak, iz prakse Evropskog suda za ljudska prava i ranije Evropske komisije za ljudska prava, može se izvesti zaključak o značenju svakog od tri oblika zlostavljanja. Kako se sami pojmovi nalaze u stalnoj evoluciji i zavise od vremena, kulture i tradicije koja postoji u određenim zemljama, posebno je važno utvrditi njihovo značenje bar na regionalnom nivou. Tako se ova tri zabranjena akta razlikuju prvenstveno po iskazanoj surovosti, gde se na listi nalazi prvo mučenje, a zatim dolaze nečovečno i ponižavajuće postupanje ili kažnjavanje. Ipak, praksa pomenutih međunarodnih tela upućuje na činjenicu da se uzimaju u obzir i mnogi drugi faktori kada se ocenjuje stepen ozbiljnosti učinjenog akta. To pitanje je relativno i zavisi od svih okolnosti slučaja, a pre svega od dužine učinjenog tretmana, njegovih fizičkih i psihičkih efekata, kao i od ostalih okolnosti poput pola, starosti i zdravstvenog stanja same žrtve. Ipak, možda je najbitnije to da su Komisija i Sud uvek dozvoljavali izvesnu dozu fleksibilnosti, uzimajući Evropsku konvenciju za ljudska prava za jedan živi instrument, koji treba tumačiti u skladu sa tekovinama savremenog demokratskog društva. Na taj način Sud nije u potpunosti vezan svojim ranijim odlukama i zadržava mogućnost ponovne procene pojedinih akata u budućnosti, bez obzira da li su u pitanju tradicionalni ili moderni metodi zlostavljanja., Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms simply proclaims the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, without giving any further definition or explanation of the terms mentioned above. The complex nature of these prohibited acts is reflected in the extensive jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and former European Commission of Human Rights, concerning the article 3, which have developed distinct definitions for these violations. Since those terms are permanently evolving, depending on time, culture and tradition that exist in certain countries, it is extremely important to determine, at least, the regional meaning of those terms. Thus, the three prohibited acts are distinguished from each other, primarily by a threshold of severity. Therefore, the torture is placed at the top of the severity scale, that is followed by inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. However, the jurisprudence of the European judicial bodies addresses that the assess end off a violation will be relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects, and in some circumstances the sex, age and state of health of the victim. Nevertheless, maybe it is essential that Commission and Court have recognized its flexibility, considering the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument, which should be interpreted in a context of a modern, democratic society. Thereby, the Court is not bound by previous judgments and can reevaluate its decisions responding properly to some new, as well as to some traditional forms of illtreatment.",
publisher = "Institut za uporedno pravo, Beograd",
journal = "Strani pravni život",
title = "Razlikovanje mučenja od drugih oblika zlostavljanja prema praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava, Differentiating between torture and other forms of abuse in the practice of the European court of human rights",
pages = "216-195",
number = "1-2",
url = "conv_1130"
}
