CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56866/18 Valerii BĂETRĂU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 20 November 2018 communicated on 7 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 30 May 2016 the Chisinau District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and aggravated burglary and sentenced him to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. During the trial, the applicant unsuccessfully requested a DNA testing, as previous forensic reports had only established that the rapist could be any person with the I or II blood type. The court noted inter alia that the applicant’s request was not sufficiently reasoned and that specialists from a private company capable of carrying out the DNA testing were not accredited experts. On appeal, the applicant again requested a DNA testing, which was granted by the appellate court. The specialists concluded, in particular, that the biological material found on the evidence sample did not belong to the applicant. On 7 November 2017 the appellate court upheld the applicant’s conviction finding that the evidential weight of the DNA expert report was diminished in that it contained contradictory conclusions. The court further noted that the applicant’s guilt was established, beyond any reasonable doubt, in view of the aggregate evidence examined in court. On 22 May 2018 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the failure of the domestic courts to give sufficient reasons for his conviction. He argues that the courts disregarded, without sufficient reasons, the findings of the DNA expert report, which was an indisputable piece of evidence. He also claims that the courts ignored the divergences in the victim’s statements and the incoherencies in the witnesses’ testimonies. QUESTION 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 of the Convention (see Yüksel Yalçınkaya , [GC], no. 15669/20, §§ 302-5, 26 September 2023)? In particular did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons, notably for disregarding the findings of the DNA expert report?