欧洲人权法院视角下警察间接引诱的标准与效果评析——以“阿克贝等人诉德国案”为例  

Analysis of Standards and Effects of Police Indirect Entrapment from the Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights--Taking Akbay and Others v.Germany as the Example

作　　者：刘梅湘[1] 侯慧如 Liu Meixiang;Hou Huiru

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学刑事检察研究中心

出　　处：《人权》2024年第1期172-196,共25页Human Rights

基　　金：国家社科基金项目《监控类技术侦查证据适用研究》(项目批准号:19BFX090);重庆市教育委员会2021年重庆市研究生科研创新项目《程序违法发回重审的裁判标准研究——以被告人的公正审判权为切入点》(项目批准号:CYB21151)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：欧洲人权法院通过判决表明:违法间接引诱的构成须同时符合三项标准。先前直接引诱违反“必要的被动性”,后续间接引诱满足“合理的预见性”,警察引诱对次要被告犯罪具有“决定性”,属于混合性标准。间接引诱的法律后果区分一般间接引诱与违法间接引诱。欧洲人权法院对违法间接引诱后果的基本立场从支持量刑减让转为认可程序性出罪,并将一般间接引诱作为从轻处罚的量刑情节。在刑事司法准则日益国际化的背景之下,上述标准和立场对我国相关规则的完善有较强的借鉴意义。The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that illegal indirect entrapment must meet three criteria simultaneously.This mixed standard requires that the previous direct entrapment violates the“necessary passivity,”subsequent indirect entrapment satisfies the“reasonable foreseeability,”and police entrapment of secondary defendants to commit crimes is considered“decisive”.The legal consequences of indirect entrapment are distinguished between general indirect entrapment and illegal indirect entrapment.The basic position of the European Court of Human Rights on the consequences of illegal indirect entrapment has shifted from supporting mitigating penalties to recognizing procedural dismissal,and general indirect entrapment is considered a mitigating factor in sentencing.Against the backdrop of increasing internationalization of criminal justice standards,the above criteria and positions have strong implications for the improvement of relevant rules in China.

关 键 词：间接引诱 直接引诱 合法性标准 法律后果 

分 类 号：D998.2[政治法律—国际法学]