The European Court of Human Rights on Negotiated Justice and Coercion

In: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

The present study analyses the approach the European Court of Human Rights’ to negotiated criminal justice and plea agreements in its landmark case, Natsvlishvili v Georgia. At the sight of the US Supreme Court case law and the practice of plea bargaining in the United States, I will argue why the institutional context and other external elements should be taken into account to determine if the guilty plea system has become coercive. I will further question if the approach of the ECtHR, applying strictly the criteria set out by the US Supreme Court should be followed when defining European standards on plea agreements.