Procedural Safeguards for Juvenile Suspects in Interrogations: A Look at the Commission's Proposal in Light of an EU Comparative Study

Abstract

This article discusses the recent European Commission's Proposal for a Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected and accused in criminal proceedings and the protection that it offers to juvenile suspects during interrogations. Given the importance of the interrogations for the outcome of a case and its sensitivity for the personality of vulnerable suspects, understanding how the Proposal protects children in this stage of proceedings seems a required step in the overall assessment of the quality of the proposed legislation. The Proposal's evaluation is conducted in light of the preliminary findings of an on-going EU funded research project that the authors are currently coordinating. After a critical assessment of the scope and relevant definitions of the Proposal, the attention will turn to some specific safeguards related to (pre-trial) interrogations such as the right to legal assistance, the right to an appropriate adult and the right to an individual assessment. By referring to the current legal status quo in a selection of EU Member States, the article challenges some aspects of the Proposal such as its relatively narrow scope, the lack of definitions of certain concepts and the fact that the complexity of the vulnerability of juvenile suspects is not adequately taken into account by some of the proposed rules. With this critical evaluation and by emphasizing the importance of taking full account of the complexity of the matter, the authors hope to offer a contribution to the future debate and negotiations on how to effectively strengthen the protection of juvenile suspects.

The position of youth justice in EU criminal law: No game for kids

“…After all, many youth justice systems have removed the formal 'criminal' label of their youth justice systems, whereas they still preserve a substantive punitive nature. 129 The procedural rights directives themselves recall that Member States are bound by ECHR, 130 and therefore also by the judgments of the ECtHR. 131 Moreover, the ECJ issued some judgments in which it explicitly adopts the 'Engel' criteria to decide whether certain measures are criminal penalties in the meaning of the relevant EU legislation.…”

El interrogatorio de menores: una prueba –a veces pericial– a evitar

“…Sea como fuere, lo que resulta de todo lo anterior es que a día de hoy ya nadie discute que el menor sea vulnerable 46 , aunque todavía no hayan quedado específicamente concretadas todas las razones científicas de por qué lo sea 47 , pero sí algunas de ellas. La neurociencia ha establecido con bastante claridad una reducción del volumen del hipocampo y de la amígdala 48 ligada al shock postraumático 49 .…”

Maloljetničko kazneno pravo - Quid accidit ? problemi u primjeni pojedinih prava iz direktive 2016/800/EU u praksi

“…7 Novi ZKP donesen je 2008. godine i njime je učinjen velik zaokret u prethodnom postupku uspostavom modela državnoodvjetničke istrage. 8 Kako bi se odredbe ZSM-a, prvenstveno u procesnom dijelu, uskladile s novom ulogom državnog odvjetnika u kaznenom postupku, zakonodavac je 2011. odlučio donijeti novi ZSM. 9 Novi M. Dragičević Prtenjača, I. Radić, D. Rizvić: Maloljetničko kazneno pravo -Quid Accidit?...…”