Currently, society is gradually developing an understanding of the importance of ensuring human rights and freedoms as the basis of the rule of law. An effective state mechanism should function in modern society, emphasizing the priority of human rights and liberties over other values and allowing citizens to use existing legal and organizational procedures to exercise their rights.
Today, police officers are often wary of everything related to human rights because, according to the prevailing opinion, human rights are more associated with the protection of the criminal than the victim. In this regard, it is necessary to determine that human rights should be a real factor in determining the purpose, content, and forms of their practical activities.
It is necessary to note that human rights should not be adjusted to ensure public order and public safety. On the contrary, these activities should be as consistent with human rights as possible. This provision is a key one, expressing the essence of the practical activities of the police. Ensuring the rule of law is a prerequisite for the observance of human rights by the police since it establishes and restricts the functions and powers of the police and dictates the norms governing professional behavior.
In addition, it defines the place and role of the police in the state-legal mechanism for ensuring human and civil rights and freedoms in general. Creating specific legal norms, procedures, and tools should be the basis for developing and implementing a mechanism for protecting citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms.
Nevertheless, despite the need for the correct and practical application of these methods to “balance” the personal freedoms of citizens and the rights of the police, there are several problems. According to Australian Criminal Justice, it is impossible not to harass suspects’ freedoms in custody during interrogation.
In such cases, the police have superiority over the suspects in all respects. To eliminate this imbalance and reduce the risk of unreliable testimony, the court created certain guarantees or rights for suspects – the right to silence and a lawyer. However, the problem lies in the fact that, in most cases, these rights have only a symbolic meaning and do not affect the process of “balancing” the rights of citizens and the police in any way.
Unfortunately, it should be recognized that the powers between suspects and the police are unbalanced, firstly, because many cases of ill-treatment of people are simply impossible to track. Many people are supporters of expanding the powers of the police, as this, according to their assurances, will help win the war on crime.
In addition, in recent years, there has been a tendency for the Government to react reflexively to individual incidents, giving the police broad powers and not understanding the problem deeply. Such judicial procedures directly undermine the balance of public relations, preferring loud and decisive gestures to a long-term and thoughtful fight against crime.