CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 4 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 19990/20 Erik ADAMČO against Slovakia lodged on 27 April 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings in which the applicant was found guilty, as a co-perpetrator, of two counts of murder and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was based on testimonies of witnesses cooperating with the prosecution in exchange for certain benefits, including immunity. He complains that the domestic courts treated those testimonies as any other piece of evidence although they were full of extreme inconsistencies and that their decisions were insufficiently reasoned and arbitrary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention?   In particular, did the reliance by the courts convicting him on evidence given by witnesses in return for immunity pose particular problems for the fairness of the proceedings (see Habran and Dalem v. Belgium , nos.   43000/11 and 49380/11, §§ 94-6 and 100, 17 January 2017, with further references)? Was the applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive degree on that evidence? Was it corroborated by objective elements? Have the domestic authorities subjected the matter to an adequate degree of scrutiny and was the use of that evidence at the trial accompanied by appropriate safeguards so as to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings (see Adamčo v. Slovakia , no. 45084/14, §§ 60, 66 and 68-71, 12 November 2019, with further references)?