National Court Decisions as Empirical Evidence of Legal, Epistemic, and Ethical Failure in International Human Rights Adjudication

This material accompanies a previously published article in an international law and psychiatry journal and provides a more detailed empirical description of national court decisions underlying its main claims. The published article argued that the examined case reveals a legal, epistemic, and ethical failure in the handling of psychiatric expertise and its interpretation within international human rights adjudication, including the assessment of such expertise by the European Court of Human Rights. The present text does not reproduce or extend the theoretical argumentation of the published article. Its purpose is to document, in greater detail, a series of final decisions of national courts that establish procedural violations, invalidate the legal status of forensic psychiatric acts relied upon in the international proceedings, and explicitly reject their evidentiary character. All judicial decisions discussed in this material are official public documents and are not subject to copyright protection. They are presented and referenced exclusively for analytical and scholarly purposes. The text is intended as an empirical resource for philosophical, legal, and epistemological analysis of the limits of expert knowledge, institutional translation, and responsibility in international adjudicative practice.