Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt In this specific case the Comission found that the interrogation practices constituted a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.592 The specificity of the reasonable doubt standard at the ECtHR underpins the role of the ECtHR’s commitment to protect human rights at the state level. At the ECtHR proceedings, no evidence is inadmissible: the Court has the power to evaluate evidence freely.593 The ECtHR’s interpretation of the reasonable doubt standard has been criticized in dissenting opinions for leaving excessive room for judicial discretion and arbitrariness.594 Critics argue that it is easy for the respondent party to create doubts in the judges’ minds by adducing evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible in common law systems.595 For instance, in Labita case (2000), eight of the seventeen judges of the Grand Chamber stated: The majority of the Court considered that the applicant has not proved “beyond all reasonable doubt” that he was subjected to ill-treatment in Pianosa as he alleged. While we agree with the majority that the material produced by the applicant constitutes only prima facie evidence, we are nonetheless mindful of the difficulties which a prisoner who has suffered illtreatment on the part of those responsible for guarding him may experience, and the risks he may run, if he denounces such treatment…We are accordingly of the view that the standard used for assessing the evidence in this case is inadequate, possibly illogical and even unworkable … in the absence of an effective investigation….596 The ECtHR addressed this criticism in the case Nachova (2005), stating: In assessing evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.” However, it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard. Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States’ responsibility under the Convention. The specificity of its task under art 19 of the Convention – to ensure the observance by the Contracting States of their engagement Ireland, para. 147. Nachova and others. v. Bulgaria, no. 43577/ 98 & 43579/98, 6.07.2005, para. 147 (hereinafter “Nachova”), stating: “In the proceedings before the Court, there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre-determined formulae for its assessment. It adopts the conclusions that are, in its view, supported by the free evaluation of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties’ submissions. According to its established case-law, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.” 594 See Labita v. Italy, no. 26772/95, 06.04.2000, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion Of Judges Pastor Ridruejo, Bonello, Makarczyk, Tulkens, Strážnická, Butkevych, Casadevall And Zupančič; See also Sonja C. Grover, The European Court Of Human Rights As A Pathway To Impunity For International Crimes 125 (Springer Science & Business Media 2010). 595 Ugur Erdal, Article 3 of The European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook 258 (Hasan Bakirci & Boris Wijkstrom eds., 2006). 596 Labita v. Italy, no. 26772/95, 06.04.2000, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Pastor Ridruejo, Bonello, Makarczyk, Tulkens, Strážnická, Butkevych, Casadevall and Zupančič, para. 1. 592 593 126