CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 janvier 2001

.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 26 January 2001 S.N. v. Sweden (dec.) - 34209/96 Decision 16.1.2001 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Impossibility for person accused of sexual abuse of a minor have the victim heard by the court: admissible Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction for sexual abuse solely on the basis of statements made by the victim to the police: admissible The applicant was accused by a child of sexual abuse. An interview of the child by the police took place and was recorded. The applicant was subsequently interrogated by the police and a public prosecutor. The report of the preliminary investigations was communicated to him; he had the possibility to make observations or ask for additional interviews. Following his request, another interview of the child was carried out by the police; it was also recorded. The applicant’s counsel did not attend it; however, had he done so, he would not have been allowed to put any questions to the child. The applicant was indicted for sexual acts with a child. The District Court played the recordings of the child’s interviews at the trial without hearing him again. Although it was open to the applicant to do so, he chose not to request that the child be heard by the court. According to a well-established court practice, he would not have obtained such a hearing of the child in court. Relying entirely on the child’s assertions, the court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to imprisonment. Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, although it reduced the sentence. Although the court admitted that there was no technical evidence supporting the child’s allegations which, the court acknowledged, were sometimes imprecise, it found that the police interviews provided sufficient evidence for the applicant’s guilt to be established. The applicant again did not request the court to hear the child. He unsuccessfully lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (d).   © 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