Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgment in the case of Alakhverdyan v. Ukraine:
**1. Essence of the Decision:**
The ECtHR found that Ukraine violated Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b-d) of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings. This violation stemmed from the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s review of Mr. Alakhverdyan’s conviction following a previous ECtHR judgment that had already identified a violation due to the use of a confession obtained without legal representation. While the Supreme Court excluded some evidence tainted by the initial violation, the ECtHR found that it failed to adequately explain why other remaining evidence, particularly the testimony of a key witness, was not also tainted. The Court concluded that the Supreme Court’s review process was deficient and that Mr. Alakhverdyan was deprived of a fair trial, specifically lacking adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense in light of the changed evidentiary landscape.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets the stage, outlining the case’s focus on the fairness of the Supreme Court’s review of the applicant’s conviction.
* **Facts:** Details the background of the case, including the initial criminal investigation, Mr. Alakhverdyan’s confession, the initial trial and conviction, and the first proceedings before the ECtHR.
* **Initial Proceedings before the Court:** Summarizes the ECtHR’s 2019 judgment, which found a violation of Article 6 § 1 and 3(c) due to restrictions on Mr. Alakhverdyan’s right to defense during his initial confession.
* **Review Proceedings in the Supreme Court:** Describes the Supreme Court’s review process, including the exclusion of some evidence but the ultimate upholding of the conviction. It also highlights the dissenting opinions within the Supreme Court.
* **Relevant Legal Framework and Practice:** Outlines the relevant provisions of Ukrainian criminal procedure code and Supreme Court case law concerning review proceedings.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 of the Convention:** This section contains the core legal analysis.
* **Scope of the case:** Defines the scope of the complaints that the Court will examine.
* **Admissibility:** Assesses whether the application meets the criteria for the Court to hear the case.
* **Merits:** This is the core of the judgment, where the Court assesses whether the facts of the case disclose a violation of the Convention.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Addresses the issue of just satisfaction, including damages and costs.
* **Operative Provisions:** States the Court’s decision, including the finding of a violation and the order for compensation.
**3. Main Provisions and Importance:**
* **Applicability of Article 6 to Review Proceedings:** The Court affirmed that Article 6 (right to a fair trial) can apply to review proceedings, especially when the Supreme Court undertakes a “re-examination” of the case by excluding evidence and assessing the remaining evidence to determine guilt.
* **”Tainted Evidence” and the Need for a Full Rehearing:** The judgment underscores the importance of excluding all evidence tainted by an initial violation of the Convention. When significant evidence is excluded, the Court emphasizes that a full rehearing is generally necessary to ensure a fair trial, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the remaining evidence and the opportunity for the defendant to prepare an adequate defense.
* **Interpretation of Previous ECtHR Judgments:** The Court highlighted the importance of domestic courts accurately interpreting and implementing ECtHR judgments. In this case, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the initial ECtHR judgment was found to be not entirely in line with the Court’s conclusions.
* **Fairness of Proceedings:** The Court found that the applicant was deprived of the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence in the proceedings complained of. He had been unable to predict the scope of the review that would be conducted by the Supreme Court or what evidence would be excluded or would remain. He therefore could not foresee how the overall assessment of the case would be affected by the review and therefore could not construct his line of argument.
**** This decision may have implications for Ukraine, particularly regarding how its Supreme Court handles review proceedings following judgments from the ECtHR, especially in cases involving tainted evidence and potential violations of the right to a fair trial. It highlights the need for a thorough reassessment of evidence and the importance of ensuring the defendant’s ability to adequately prepare their defense in such situations.
