TY - JOUR
T1 - Navigating the right to a fair trial for vulnerable suspects pretrial
T2 - a legal and psychological critique of the Strasbourg jurisprudence
AU - Cusack, Alan
AU - Dehaghani, Roxanna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected].
PY - 2024/6/1
Y1 - 2024/6/1
N2 - Pretrial criminal processes can prove challenging for suspects with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. In recognition of this, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized the importance of individualized assessments of vulnerability under Article 6. Yet, recent Strasbourg jurisprudence reveals a juridical willingness to define vulnerability narrowly with significant implications. This article analyses this jurisprudence to excavate the framing of vulnerability vis-à-vis fair trial rights during pretrial processes. Drawing upon a corpus of psychology and law literature, as well as the dissenting judgment in Hasáliková, it critiques the narrow formulation of vulnerability that has taken hold in Strasbourg and interrogates the Court's ostensible faith in the safeguarding capacity of lawyers. By using Ireland's weak pretrial procedural framework as a heuristic lens through which the shortcomings of this approach can be understood, it calls for a more generous conceptualization of vulnerability that is sensitive to the ontological and structural dimensions at play.
AB - Pretrial criminal processes can prove challenging for suspects with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities. In recognition of this, the European Court of Human Rights has emphasized the importance of individualized assessments of vulnerability under Article 6. Yet, recent Strasbourg jurisprudence reveals a juridical willingness to define vulnerability narrowly with significant implications. This article analyses this jurisprudence to excavate the framing of vulnerability vis-à-vis fair trial rights during pretrial processes. Drawing upon a corpus of psychology and law literature, as well as the dissenting judgment in Hasáliková, it critiques the narrow formulation of vulnerability that has taken hold in Strasbourg and interrogates the Court's ostensible faith in the safeguarding capacity of lawyers. By using Ireland's weak pretrial procedural framework as a heuristic lens through which the shortcomings of this approach can be understood, it calls for a more generous conceptualization of vulnerability that is sensitive to the ontological and structural dimensions at play.
KW - Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights
KW - Ireland
KW - legal psychology
KW - pretrial proceedings
KW - vulnerability
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105002812959
U2 - 10.1093/hrlr/ngaf010
DO - 10.1093/hrlr/ngaf010
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105002812959
SN - 1461-7781
VL - 25
JO - Human Rights Law Review
JF - Human Rights Law Review
IS - 2
M1 - ngaf010
ER -