@misc{9228191,
  abstract     = {{Entrapment is an investigative method used by law enforcement authorities. It can be described as measures through which authorities try to influence or induce a person to act or express themselves in a way that may result in negative consequences for that person or people close to them. Swedish law currently lacks a statutory regulation of the use of these investigative measures. In 2025, a legislative proposal was presented for a new act on special provocative measures (2027:000). The proposed legislation regulates the use of investigative measures that may result in a person committing a crime. 

The use of provocative measures raises questions concerning the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Provocative measures can create a risk that an individual´s right to a fair trial is violated. Since the ECHR is a part of Swedish law, Sweden is obliged to guarantee the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. In order to determine whether the right to a fair trial was respected in a case involving provocation, the European Court of Human Rights does a two-step test. This thesis focuses on the first stage, referred to as the substantive test of incitement, where the Court examines whether entrapment has occured. At the second stage, the Court examines whether the accused has been given an opportunity to raise the issue of provocation before the national courts. 

Through case law, a number of circumstances and principles have been established that are considered when assessing whether entrapment has occurred. The thesis analyses whether the proposed regulation of special provocative measures is compatible with the principles established in case law. Furthermore, the thesis examines whether the trial can be considered fair when special provocative measures have been used. 

The cases examined from the European Court of Human Rights and the Swedish Supreme Court demonstrate that entrapment, or unlawful provocation, arises when authorities have not conducted the investigation in an essentially passive manner. Instead, they have exercised such influence over the individual that they induce a crime that would otherwise not have been committed. In deciding whether the investigation was “essentially passive” the Court considers factors such as whether there were objective suspicions that the individual had been involved in criminal activity, whether the person had shown a tendency to commit crimes, and whether the measures have been supervised by a competent authority. The legislative proposal includes requirements such as the initiation of a preliminary investigation, reasonable suspicion, and that decisions concerning special provocative measures be taken by a public prosecutor. The analysis concludes that the proposed legislation is, to a relatively large extent, consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the safeguards in the proposal do not appear sufficient in practice to fully ensure that individuals’ right to a fair trial is protected.}},
  author       = {{Persson, Agnes}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Brottsprovokation - Förslag till lag (2027:000) om särskilda provokativa åtgärder och rätten till en rättvis rättegång}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}