CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 octobre 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 35 October 2001 Solakov v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - 47023/99 Judgment 31.10.2001 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Use at trial of statements made by witnesses in prison abroad: no violation Facts : Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of smuggling drugs into the United States. The Ministry of Justice requested the authorities of the United States for assistance in the hearing of witnesses in the United States and the investigating judge provided a list of the names of the witnesses to be heard and the questions to be put. On 28   November 1997 the applicant's lawyer was summoned to attend a hearing to be held in the United States one week later. However, the lawyer was refused a visa because he had failed to furnish all the necessary documents. He did not renew his application and on 2 December the applicant withdrew his power attorney and appointed a new lawyer. This lawyer was summoned to attend the hearing in the United States, scheduled for 8 December. On 4   December the applicant stated that he had left it to his lawyer to decide whether or not to attend the hearing, while indicating that he had sufficient funds to pay for the trip. Five witnesses were heard in the United States by the investigating judge. The applicant's lawyer did not attend. The witnesses, who were heard separately under oath, stated that the applicant had set up a drug trafficking network. At the applicant's trial, the statements of the witnesses were read out, on the ground that it would be extremely difficult to secure the attendance of the witnesses in person. The court refused to hear two other witnesses proposed by the applicant. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed but on the prosecution's appeal the sentence was increased to 13 years' imprisonment. The applicant's further appeal on points of law was unsuccessful. Law : Article 6 § 1 and § 3 (d) – There was no indication that either the applicant or his second lawyer expressed any intention of attending the hearing of the witnesses in the United States. The applicant stated that he had left it to his lawyer to decide whether or not to attend but the lawyer did not apply for a visa and did not request a postponement of the hearing on the ground that there was insufficient time to obtain one. Moreover, the applicant did not complain during the trial and appeal proceedings that he had been unable to examine the witnesses due to lack of time or information and did not expressly ask for them to be summoned. While their statements played an important role in the applicant's conviction, it did not appear that he had contested their content and he had not expressly asked for any questions to be put to the witnesses. The courts made a thorough and careful analysis of the statements and took into account different relevant factors when assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their statements. Furthermore, other evidence corroborating the statements was examined. With regard to the refusal to summon the additional witnesses, the applicant had the opportunity to request that they be summoned during the preliminary investigation or at the start of the trial but did not do so until later.   Since the addresses of the witnesses, who lived abroad, were unknown, it would have been difficult to summon them and, having regard to the reasons invoked by the applicant for hearing them, the refusal was not as such contrary to Article 6 § 3 (d). Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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