CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 avril 2005

.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. 74 April 2005 C.R.R. Scheper v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 39209/02 Decision 5.4.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction on three counts of rape allegedly based to a decisive extent on statements made by the victims to the police, and impossibility for the defence to question them: inadmissible   The applicant was convicted by the Regional court of having raped three drug-addicted street prostitutes (Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C.). He filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal in which he declared that he had had sexual contacts with Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C., but denied that he had raped them. Ms A. was heard by the Court of Appeal as an injured party, but was not summoned to appear as a witness (her mother later stated before the court that her daughter did not wish to see the applicant or recall the incidents). The prosecutor submitted that summoning the other two witnesses would be pointless as their addresses were unknown. The Court of Appeal nevertheless ordered the prosecutor to make all possible efforts to take evidence from Ms A., Ms B. and Ms C. Later, the court decided that it saw no merit in ordering fresh attempts to summon the victims as it was unlikely that they would appear within an acceptable delay. The applicant’s conviction for rape was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. The court based its conviction, inter alia , on the applicant’s own statements, the detailed statements of Ms A., Ms. B. and Ms C. to the police, and a report on a medical examination of Ms. A. The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s subsequent appeal in cassation. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3(d): The Court of Appeal had ordered that all possible efforts be made to ensure the victims were heard as witnesses in the proceedings. There were no indications that the court had been negligent in this respect. Bearing in mind that the applicant had been involved in three nearly identical incidents within a relatively short time, and that there was other supporting evidence corroborating the statements made by the victims to the police, it could not be said that the applicant’s conviction had been based only or to a decisive extent on such statements. The criminal proceedings, taken as a whole, had been fair: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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