The right to appeal in cases of forensic autopsies. [Le droit de recours en matière d'autopsies médico-légales.]

The decision to carry out forensic autopsies is frequently made to determine the reasons of the death, especially in cases of non-natural death. In Switzerland, the judge strictly controls the authorisation to conduct forensic autopsies and the possibility to appeal against such a decision remains limited. This article aims to analyse the legal framework that enables appeals against a decision to conduct a forensic autopsy, taking into account the jurisprudence from the High Court of Switzerland (Tribunal Fédéral) and the European Court of Human Rights. La décision de pratiquer des autopsies médico-légales est très fréquente pour déterminer les causes de décès, notamment lorsque ceux-ci semblent avoir des causes non naturelles. En Suisse, l'autorisation de procéder à des autopsies médico-légales est strictement encadrée sur le plan légal et la faculté de s'opposer à une telle autorisation reste très limitée. L'article s'attache à analyser les conditions qui permettent de recourir contre une décision d'autopsie médico-légale, à la lumière notamment des décisions du Tribunal Fédéral et de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme.

Le partage des responsabilités dans l'espace Dublin, entre confiance mutuelle et sécurité des demandeurs d'asile

On 21 January 2011, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of MSS v. Belgium and Greece. This judgment puts into question the practices followed by many national authorities in the implementation of the Dublin system. Particularly noteworthy are the effects on the "safety presumption" that Member States accord to each other in the field of asylum. The authors explore the implications of the MSS decision, first, in regard of the evidentiary requirements imposed on asylum seekers to rebut the safety presumption. They come to the conclusion that through the decision, a real paradigm-shift has taken place - from the theoretical to the actual supremacy of the non-refoulement principle in Dublin matters. This is also true in light of the increased requirements imposed by the Court as regards the scope and depth of judicial review on transfer decisions. Moreover, the MSS judgment could give new impetus to the stalled reform process concerning the Dublin Regulation. Indeed, the Court's decision seems to enshrine in positive ECHR law the most progressive elements of the Commission's proposal, including procedural guarantees and, de facto, the mechanism for the temporary suspension of transfers to member states not offering adequate protection.