1. Essence of the decision:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on a case concerning two Cypriot nationals convicted of money laundering and extortion based primarily on testimony from an accomplice who received immunity from prosecution. The Court found no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses), determining that the overall fairness of the trial was not compromised despite reliance on accomplice testimony.2. Structure and main provisions:
The decision addresses two main complaints:- Whether a criminal trial can be considered fair when conviction is based decisively on testimony from an immunized accomplice- Whether defendants’ rights were violated when denied access to prosecution’s forensic disk imageThe Court examined procedural safeguards available to defendants, including their ability to cross-examine the witness and knowledge of his immunity deal. The Court found sufficient procedural guarantees were in place to ensure trial fairness.3. Key provisions for practical use:
– The Court confirms that using accomplice testimony, even from an immunized witness, does not automatically render a trial unfair- When evaluating fairness of trials involving accomplice testimony, courts must consider: * Whether defense knew witness’s identity and immunity arrangement * Whether domestic courts reviewed the arrangement * Whether defense had opportunity to test witness evidence * Whether courts approached testimony cautiously * Whether corroborating evidence existed * Whether appeals courts reviewed findings- The Court emphasizes that overall fairness of proceedings must be evaluated, rather than focusing on isolated aspects- Access to evidence may be restricted if defendants fail to give specific reasons for their requests
Leave a comment
