CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 mars 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128 March 2010 Orhan Çaçan v. Turkey - 26437/04 Judgment 23.3.2010 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction based to decisive degree on witness statements that had since been retracted: violation   Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Conviction based to decisive degree on witness statements that had since been retracted: violation   Facts – At his trial in the National Security Court the applicant challenged, in particular, the evidence of a key witness who had retracted his previous incriminating statements in a letter and did not appear at the hearings to which he had been summoned. Another prosecution witness likewise withdrew his evidence. Relying in particular on a record drawn up on the basis of the two witness statements in question, the National Security Court found the applicant guilty of secessionist acts, considered it established that he had committed murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment. Law – Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d): The National Security Court had decided that it was unnecessary to re-examine the key witness on the grounds that he had not appeared at the hearings and that it had not been possible to ascertain his address despite efforts to that end. However, a further appearance by the witness should have been essential, as he had explicitly retracted and completely altered his version of events during the course of the trial, so that the relevance of his previous statements was seriously called into question. Furthermore, another important witness had withdrawn his accusations. Although it was not for the Court to state its view on the assessment of the applicant’s guilt or the probative value of the statements in issue, it nevertheless observed that the National Security Court had found the applicant guilty largely on the basis of a key witness’s evidence against him which was open to doubt since it had been withdrawn during the proceedings. Seeing that the witness had not been re-examined by the National Security Court and the applicant’s conviction had been mainly based on the evidence in question, his defence rights had been restricted to an extent incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. Conclusion : violation (five votes to two). Article 41: EUR 1,800 for non-pecuniary damage; a retrial, if requested by the applicant, considered the most appropriate form of redress.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes