CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 17 janvier 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 23842/94                       by Petri Lauri Johannes OVASKA                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 17 March 1994 by Petri Lauri Johannes OVASKA against Finland and registered on 12 April 1994 under file No. 23842/94;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1966. He is a private entrepreneur, residing in Mikkeli and apparently currently serving a prison sentence. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. Matti Nurmela, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         In March 1992 a person named M was interviewed during the course of a police investigation conducted by a police officer H from the Central Criminal Investigation Police. In the interview the police obtained information about certain narcotics offences. The investigation of these offences was transferred to the Criminal Police in Helsinki, where a police officer K questioned M further, mainly from 9 April to 15 April 1992. The relevant police reports   stated that M had participated in narcotics dealing with "a friend". The name of the friend was not, however, mentioned.         In or around the summer of 1992 the applicant was charged with, inter alia, aggravated narcotics offences, committed between February 1991 and January 1992, contrary to chapter 3 of the Narcotics Act (huumausainelaki). According to the indictment the applicant had, together with the aforementioned M, on several occasions bought a total of 35.5 kilograms hashish from S and partly also from R-T, and sold it, with M, on several occasions to various persons.         The case was heard by the City Court (raastuvanoikeus) of Helsinki. In the case there were eleven co-accused, inter alia S, R-T and M.         The applicant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the narcotics offences. However, he pleaded guilty to the other charges against him (illegal possessions of firearms, forgery and misleading the authorities).         The alleged vendors of the hashish, S and R-T, pleaded not guilty.         In the City Court M denied the contents of the police reports maintaining that he had given his statement under duress and that the police had put leading questions to him. He pleaded not guilty to the narcotics offences save that he admitted having, acting alone, bought and later, also acting alone, sold a total of 5 kilograms of hashish.         In so far as the case concerned the narcotics charges against the applicant, the City Court heard evidence from three prosecution witnesses, including the aforementioned police officers H and K. The City Court also heard evidence from one witness called by the applicant. The applicant did not call any further witnesses.         On 26 October 1992 the City Court found the applicant guilty on all charges brought against him and sentenced him to five years and nine months' imprisonment. M and S were also found guilty on the charges brought against them, whereas R-T was acquitted.         The City Court based its judgment, firstly, on the evidence given by the two police officers, H and K, about the statement given by M in the police interviews. It did not find M's denial in the trial credible, on the basis that his statements in the police interviews had been very detailed and that certain details in these statements tallied with information obtained from other sources. The court also noted that M had given his statement about the narcotics offences in an interview which concerned another crime, so that the police had not been aware of the relevant narcotics dealing and thus had not been able to influence M's statement. The court also pointed out that M had been questioned again by the police on the grounds of his changed statement in court and that according to the report of the renewed interview, which M had signed, M had stated that he had given his previous statements voluntarily. The court stated furthermore that the third witness in the case and one co-accused had given evidence to the effect that the applicant possessed a portable telephone and it had been established that at the end of 1991 there had been several telephone contacts between the applicant, S, M and two other co-accused, although they had all denied having had any contact, or at least very little contact, with each other. As regards the name of M's "friend", the court stated that, according to the evidence given by police officer K, M had used the applicant's name in the police interview but had wanted the name to be left out of the reports. The court further stated that the information M had given about cars and apartments used in the narcotics dealing tallied with those owned by the applicant. Finally, the court stated that one of the co-accused had admitted having bought hashish from the applicant, who had sometimes been accompanied by M. The court also noted that this information was confirmed by a statement given by another co-accused. On the basis of these facts, the court found M's original statement concerning the narcotics dealing credible and it also found that the "friend", with whom M had, according to his statement, participated in the relevant narcotics dealing, was the applicant.         The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus) of Helsinki in relation to his conviction for narcotics offences.         By a judgment of 3 June 1993 the Court of Appeal upheld the City Court's judgment.         On 1 November 1993 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.     COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that his right to a fair hearing has been violated.         The applicant maintains that he was wrongly convicted. He submits that a statement from a co-accused cannot be regarded as reliable and sufficient evidence of his guilt. He further maintains that he did not have a fair trial since his conviction was exclusively or at least mainly based on the statements of his co-accused. He further submits that the evidence given by the two police officers is not sufficient to prove his guilt. He maintains that the alleged vendors pleaded not guilty, no buyers were found and the police did not find any drugs on his premises. He also maintains that the evidence given by the witness on his behalf proved his innocence. Finally, he points out that his co- accused changed his statement in the City Court.   THE LAW         The applicant complains that he was wrongly convicted and that the evidence against him was not reliable and sufficient.         With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant complains the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the obligations undertaken by the Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case- law (cf., for example, No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77-A p. 81).         It is true that the applicant complains that the evidence against him was not reliable or sufficient for his conviction. In this respect the Commission recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law. As a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Commission's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (cf., for example, Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26).         Furthermore, the Commission recalls that in the course of the main hearing in the City Court several witnesses were heard as well as the applicant and the co-accused. The Commission finds nothing which could give rise to any misgivings as regards the fairness of the applicant's trial in this respect. Moreover, the Commission recalls that the question concerning the contents of the police reports was thoroughly examined by the court and that the applicant, the prosecution and those who had made the reports had the opportunity to express their views directly to the court. In these circumstances the Commission finds that the court clearly understood how the reports had been made, that the applicant denied their contents and that, therefore, they could not be considered to be a first-hand source of information. In particular, it does not appear that the information included in the police reports as the basis for the charges was considered to be decisive in proving the subsequent charges. Furthermore, evidence from several co-accused, who are not necessarily under a duty to tell the truth, was confirmed by other findings. The fact that the court, in such circumstances, took into account, as part of the evidence in the case, statements made by a co-accused to the police did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial.         Having regard to the above the Commission finds, when considering the proceedings as a whole, that the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the right to a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.         It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                        (C.L. ROZAKIS)