CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 22 June 2011 and 24 February 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no 59937/08 Roman Petrovych TIKHAK against Ukraine lodged on 28 November 2008 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Was the applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of the victim absent from trial (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 126-128, ECHR 2011)?   2.     Having regard to the reading out of the absent victim’s pre-trial statements, was the overall fairness of the proceedings ensured by the domestic courts as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Al   Khawaja and Tahery, cited above, §§ 144-47)? Having regard to the right “to examine or have examined witnesses against him” as enshrined in Article   6 § 3 (d), was the applicant able to examine the victim absent at trial?   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the written minutes of the confrontation held between the applicant and Mr Yasochko.