CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2023

.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 } Published on 16 October 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4429/23 Charalambos SAKKOU against Cyprus lodged on 20 January 2023 communicated on 29 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the question whether the applicant’s criminal trial can be considered “fair” within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention if the only evidence against the defendant is witness testimony given by an accomplice, allegedly in exchange of suspension of his own sentence. The applicant claims that domestic courts convicted him based on such compromised evidence without sufficient safeguards against abuse. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Xenofontos and Others v. Cyprus , no.   68725/16 et seq., §   79, 25   October 2022, with further references)?   2.     The Government are asked to clarify certain factual circumstances of the case, in particular:   (a) Did the authorities promise to reward the applicant’s accomplice (R.) for testifying against the applicant? (b) Were minutes kept of R.’s interrogation on 17 April 2019 in the office of the Commander of the Drug Law Enforcement Unit ( ΥΚΑΝ ), and, if not, why? (c) What evidence did the applicant’s conviction rely on? (d) What were the ground and procedure by which the President of the Republic suspended R.’s sentence? In particular, who initiated this procedure in respect of R.? (e)     Was R. (a protected witness) allowed to leave the country before testifying against the remaining suspect (T.)? If so, on what grounds?