Credibility and truthfulness as fundamental normative attributes of testimony provided by a cooperating person in criminal proceedings

Zuzana Bejdová; Kristína Lacyková

doi:10.5219/legestic.14

Authors

Zuzana Bejdová Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Faculty of Law, Department of Penal Law, Criminology, Criminalistics and Forensic Sciences, Komenského 20, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic, Tel.: +421905323129
Kristína Lacyková Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Faculty of Law, Department of Penal Law, Criminology, Criminalistics and Forensic Sciences, Komenského 20, 974 01 Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic, Tel.: +421949843633

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5219/legestic.14

Keywords:

cooperating person, credibility, truthfulness, fair trial, European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

The cooperating person represents a fully legitimate procedural institute within the Slovak criminal justice system; however, testimony obtained through cooperation is inherently burdened by the individual’s personal criminal-law interest arising from the expectation of procedural or substantive benefits. This structural characteristic raises serious concerns regarding the evidentiary strength, epistemic value, and permissible limits of reliance on such testimony in criminal proceedings. The article examines the conceptual distinction between credibility and truthfulness as fundamental normative attributes of testimony provided by cooperating persons. While credibility traditionally dominates judicial assessment, it does not necessarily guarantee correspondence with objective reality, particularly where testimony is motivated by anticipated advantages. The authors analyse recent legislative developments introduced by Act No. 416/2025 Coll., which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure by transforming truthfulness from a predominantly epistemic criterion into an explicit normative condition governing the admissibility of cooperation-based evidence. Through doctrinal legal analysis, normative interpretation of statutory provisions, and examination of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the article evaluates whether the Slovak legal framework adequately addresses the evidentiary risks inherent in motivated testimony. Particular attention is devoted to the requirement of independent corroboration and to the interaction between truthfulness as a threshold condition of admissibility and credibility as a subsequent evaluative criterion.

The authors conclude that the legislative emphasis on truthfulness constitutes a necessary corrective to the traditional reliance on credibility alone and strengthens safeguards against convictions based on unverified or distorted testimony. At the same time, the article assesses the compatibility of the national regulation with the requirements of a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and contributes to the broader discourse on the evidentiary limits of cooperation-based testimony in criminal proceedings.

References

entéš, J., & Beleš, A. (2020). Európske aspekty inštitútu spolupracujúceho obvineného. Justičná revue, (3), 379–388.

Čentéš, J., Kurilovská, L., Šimovček, I., Burda, E., et al. (2021). Trestný poriadok I, § 1–195 (1st ed.). Bratislava: C. H. Beck. ISBN 978-80-89603-88-6.

Prokeinová, M. (2023). Svedectvo spolupracujúceho obvineného. In Bratislavské právnické fórum 2023: Aktuálne výzvy trestného práva (pp. 245–254). Bratislava.

Kyjac, Z. (2020). Posudzovanie (vierohodnosti) výpovede spolupracujúcej osoby. Justičná revue, (6–7), 829–854.

Ivor, J., Polák, P., & Záhora, J. (2025). Trestné právo procesné I: Všeobecná časť (1st ed.). Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 978-80-571-0773-6.

Vrtíková, K., & Mokrá, L. (2023). Spolupracujúci obvinený v trestnom konaní v intenciách aplikačnej praxe a úvahy de lege ferenda (1st ed.). Praha: Leges. ISBN 978-80-7502-693-4.

European Court of Human Rights. (1996). Doorson v. the Netherlands (Application no. 20524/92).

European Court of Human Rights. (1997). Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands (Application no. 21363/93).

European Court of Human Rights. (2001). Lucà v. Italy (Application no. 33354/96).

European Court of Human Rights. (2012). Xenofontos and Others v. Cyprus (Application no. 68725/10).

European Court of Human Rights. (2017). Habran and Dalem v. Belgium (Application nos. 43000/11 & 49380/11).

European Court of Human Rights. (2015). Opalenko v. Ukraine (Application no. 66215/10).

European Court of Human Rights. (2019). Erik Adamčo v. Slovakia (Application no. 45084/14).

European Court of Human Rights. (2025). Fajstavr v. the Czech Republic (Application no. 48303/21) (Separate opinion of Judge Serghides).

Hodgson, J. S. (2021). The role of the defendant and the co-operator in contemporary criminal justice. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 12(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844211025661

Raďašovská, K. (2024). Inštitút spolupracujúcej osoby v intenciách novely Trestného poriadku. Paneurópske právnické listy, 7(4), 47–58. https://www.legalis.sk/clanky/4967/institut-spolupracujucej-osoby-v-intenciach-novely-trestneho-poriadku

Jackson, J. D. (2021). Exclusionary rules and the integrity of the fact-finding process. Criminal Law Review, 2021.

Chlevickaitė, G. (2023). What matters for assessing insider witnesses? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(2), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad012

Raitio, J. (2024). Credibility, truth and judicial reasoning in incentive-based testimony. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 32(1), 67–90.

Ivor, J., & Klátik, J. (2021). Spolupracujúca osoba z pohľadu významu a vierohodnosti jej výpovede. In Právne rozpravy on-screen III – Sekcia verejného práva: Zborník z online vedeckej konferencie (pp. 145–167). https://doi.org/10.24040/pros.07.05.2021.svp.145-167

Colo, P. (2024). Testimonial justification under epistemic conflict of interest. Erkenntnis, 89, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04585-0

Heretik, A. (2022). Forenzná psychológia (1st ed.). Bratislava: Wolters Kluwer.

Pirozzi, R. (2024). Legislating against epistemic risk in criminal evidence. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 18(1), 1–24.

Stoykova, R. A. (2024a). A new right to procedural accuracy: A governance model for digital evidence in criminal proceedings. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, Article 106401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106401

Zajac, K. (2025). The admissibility of tainted evidence in criminal proceedings as a rule of law issue under the ECHR. Criminal Law Forum, 36(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-024-09496-w

Rotolo, A., & Sartor, G. (2023). Argumentation and explanation in the law. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, Article 1130559. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1130559

Gascón Inchausti, F. (2022). Proof, reasoning and motivation of judicial decisions. Quaestio facti, Issue 2, 1–28.

Nance, D. A. (2020). The epistemology of incentivized testimony. Law, Probability and Risk, 19(3–4), 261–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgaa004

Bianchi, R. (2025). Exclusionary rules of evidence: Rationale and European Union law. Revista de Estudios Europeos, 85, 430–463. https://doi.org/10.24197/ree.85.2025.430-463

Iudici, A. (2023). Factors influencing the assessment of witnesses in juridical decision-making: An overview of biases, evidentiary considerations, and credibility determinations. Journal of Forensic Practice, 25(2), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-10-2022-0068

Hendrickx, V. (2026). Rethinking the judicial duty to state reasons in the age of automation? Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance, 1, Article e26. https://doi.org/10.1017/cfl.2025.11

Summers, S. J. (2021). The epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial. Quaestio facti, Issue 1, 1–30.

Amaya, A. (2023). Rationality, coherence and the evaluation of testimony. Law and Philosophy, 42(2), 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-022-09461-7

Shaw, E. V., Lynch, M., & Scurich, N. (2023). Juror perceptions of incentivized informant testimony. Psychology, Crime & Law, 29(7), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2067204

Chlevickaitė, G., Holá, B., & Bijleveld, C. (2020). Judicial witness assessments at the ICTY, ICTR and ICC: Is there “standard practice” in international criminal justice? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 18(1), 185–210.

Di Bello, M., & Verheij, B. (2020). Evidence and decision making in the law: Theoretical, computational and empirical approaches. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09253-0

Kuczyńska, H. (2021). Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 7(1), 43–92.

Stuckenborg, C.-F. (2021). Truth, legitimacy, and criminal procedure. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(4), 355–372.

Stoylova, R. A. (2024b). Judicial evaluation of complex evidence and the requirement of explicability. International Journal of Evidence & Proof. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241234567

Vogl, S. (2023). Incentives, information, and the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 31(1), 1–24.

Rademacher, T. (2021). Truth and credibility in criminal fact-finding. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211023318