The principle of publicity is a basic procedural rule, but in many cases this may affect the personal rights of the accused, in particular his or her human dignity.3 Nevertheless, there is a tendency for criminal courts to impose fewer restrictions on publicity than civil courts, mainly because of the seriousness of criminal cases and the level of information provided to the public (media). Therefore, it is less common for the court to grant the defendant’s (defence) requests to exclude the public, merely on the grounds of the defendant’s human dignity, personal rights or even on grounds of clemency.

In principle, coercive measures may restrict most of the fundamental rights set out in international conventions and the Fundamental Law. The question is, of course, whether it is possible to speak of a violation of rights in cases where the grounds for imposing the coercive measure in question exist and its imposition complies with the procedural rules. In my view, no, since, as I have already pointed out, the interests of proof in many cases necessarily override the fundamental rights of the person subject to the procedure. Without these limitations, criminal proceedings would not be able to fulfil their inherent function. The only problem I see is that the terminology used in the current Criminal Code does not precisely cover the scope of the fundamental rights that can be restricted by coercive measures, as it only refers to coercive measures affecting ‘personal liberty’ or ‘property’.4 Thus, for example, it would have been more appropriate to mention separately the category of coercive measures affecting ‘freedom of movement’ in the case of restraint and ‘personal integrity’ in the case of search. The law could thus have declared the complexity of the legal restrictions imposed by coercive measures and the diversity of the adverse legal consequences they entail.

In the context of coercive measures restricting personal liberty, pre-trial detention is an exceptional measure, never mandatory and never applicable for punitive purposes; it may be imposed only if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person concerned has committed the offence in question and there are real grounds for believing that one or more of the following apply:

In an era of coercive measures that limit personal integrity, the use of searches and physical coercion in particular can raise the possibility of abuse of rights by the authorities. In one case, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) when the doctor started to induce vomiting in the hospital after the victim had swallowed a bag of cocaine, since this was not done to protect the victim’s physical and mental integrity, but solely to obtain evidence. This method of execution was in itself capable of creating a feeling of fear and vulnerability in the person being examined, and it also carried risks, since it was not preceded by a thorough medical examination.6

Among coercive measures restricting the right to respect for private and family life