CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 18 mai 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 64 May 2004 Destrehem v. France - 56651/00 Judgment 18.5.2004 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Obtain attendance of witnesses Refusal of appeal court to hear defence witnesses examined at first instance: violation Facts : The applicant was prosecuted on suspicion of damaging an unmarked police car with a hammer during a demonstration. Two police officers who were inside the car had identified the applicant as the person having caused the damage. Four witnesses present at the scene, who were called by the applicant, gave evidence on his behalf to the court of first instance. The court concluded that there was serious doubt as to the perpetrator of the impugned acts, acquitted the applicant and dismissed the complaints by the police officers who had applied to join the proceedings as civil parties. The latter appealed. The applicant asked the court of appeal to order examination of the defence witnesses who had been heard by the first-instance court. The court refused, on the ground that their statements to the first-instance court had been duly recorded in the case-file available to the court of appeal, and that those statements were sufficient. It further held that there was a fundamental contradiction between the evidence of one of the defence witnesses and that of the three others and that, in the absence of a witness capable of refuting the evidence of the police officers, and having regard to the genuineness and sincerity of the officers' evidence, there was no reason to doubt their accusations. Accordingly, the court overturned the judgment, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him, inter alia , to eight months' imprisonment, of which five months were suspended, two years' probation and one year's deprivation of civil, political and family rights, a penalty it described as “harsh” because the applicant had deliberately damaged the police car. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on points of law. Law : Article 6 § 1 and   § 3 (d) – The court of appeal had ruled essentially on the basis of evidence given at first instance. This evidence was included in the record of the hearing and it was on that basis alone that the court of appeal had examined the statements by the defence witnesses. Accordingly, the court of appeal had grounded the applicant's conviction on a fresh interpretation of the evidence given by witnesses it had not itself examined. The applicant had thus been found guilty on the basis of testimony which the court of first instance had found sufficiently unconvincing to justify an acquittal. In those circumstances, the fact that the court of appeal had refused to hear witnesses whose re-examination had been requested by the applicant before finding him guilty had considerably restricted his defence rights. Such a restriction on the rights of the defence had rendered the proceedings unfair. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court made an award for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   © 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