CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 15 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4667C756 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s484FE0C3 { width:204pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7DC92A24 { width:197.48pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB9B66F { width:6pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8CE0427 { width:0pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD083B52B { width:1.2pt; display:inline-block } .s2EF98C0C { width:192.09pt; display:inline-block } .s34F4D0F6 { width:10.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6E5A3B2E { width:220.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA23A4EB0 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6DB06886 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9E1D9553 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       GRAND CHAMBER               CASE OF SCHATSCHASCHWILI v. GERMANY   (Application no. 9154/10)                     JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   15 December 2015           This judgment is final.   In the case of Schatschaschwili v. Germany, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President ,   Işıl Karakaş,   András Sajó,   Luis López Guerra,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos,   Angelika Nußberger,   Julia Laffranque,   Helen Keller,   André Potocki,   Paul Mahoney,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges , and Lawrence Early, Jurisconsult , Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2015 and 8 October 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 9154/10) against the Federal Republic of Germany lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Georgian national, Mr Swiadi Schatschaschwili (“the applicant”), on 12 February 2010. 2.     By a letter dated 29 December 2013, the applicant’s lawyer notified the Court that the applicant had informed him that his real name was Avtandil Sisvadze. The Court advised the parties on 14 January 2014 that it would continue processing the application under the case name of Schatschaschwili v. Germany . This corresponded to the applicant’s name as referred to in the domestic court proceedings in issue as well as in his application lodged with the Court. 3.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   H. Meyer-Mews, a lawyer practising in Bremen. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms   A.   Wittling-Vogel, Mr H.-J. Behrens and Ms K. Behr, of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. 4.     The applicant alleged in particular, relying on Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, that his trial had been unfair as neither he nor his lawyer had been granted an opportunity at any stage of the criminal proceedings against him to examine the victims, who were the only direct witnesses of the offence allegedly committed by him in Göttingen in February 2007 and on whose statements the Göttingen Regional Court had relied in convicting him. 5.     The application was allocated to the Fifth Section of the Court (Rule   52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). The Government were given notice of the application on 15 January 2013. On 17 April 2014 a Chamber of the Fifth Section composed of Mark Villiger, President, Angelika Nußberger, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ann Power-Forde, Ganna Yudkivska, Helena Jäderblom and Aleš Pejchal, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, unanimously declared the application partly admissible and held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. 6.     On 15 July 2014 the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73. On 8 September 2014 a panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. 7.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. At the final deliberations, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro and András Sajó, substitute judges, replaced Josep Casadevall and Isabelle Berro, who were unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule   24 §   3). 8.     The applicant and the Government each filed a memorial on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). In addition, third-party comments were received from the Czech Government, which had been given leave by the President on 3   November 2014 to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 9.     The Georgian Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 §§ 1 and 4), did not indicate that they wished to exercise that right. 10.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 4 March 2015 (Rule 59 § 3).   There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Mr   H.-J. Behrens , Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Agent , Mr   H. Satzger , Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Munich, Mr   F. Zimmermann , Legal Assistant at the University of Munich, Mr   H. Paetzold , Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, Mr   C. Tegethoff , Judge, Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice,   Advisers ; (b)     for the applicant Mr   H. Meyer-Mews ,   Counsel , Mr   A. Rotter , Mr   J. Lam ,     Advisers .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Meyer-Mews and Mr Behrens and their replies to questions put by judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 11.     The applicant was born in 1978. When he lodged his application he was being detained in Rosdorf Prison, Germany. He now lives in Khashuri/Surami, Georgia. A.     The events in Kassel and Göttingen as established by the domestic courts 1.     The offence committed in Kassel 12.     On the evening of 14 October 2006, the applicant and an unidentified accomplice robbed L. and I., two Lithuanian nationals, in the women’s flat in Kassel. 13.     The perpetrators were aware that the flat was used for prostitution and expected its two female occupants to keep valuables and cash there. They had passed by in the early evening in order to make sure that no clients or a procurer were present. Shortly afterwards they returned and overpowered L., who had answered the doorbell. The applicant pointed a gas pistol which resembled a real gun at both women and threatened to shoot them if they did not disclose where their money was kept. While his accomplice watched over the women, the applicant found or forced the women to hand over to him approximately 1,100 euros (EUR) and six mobile phones. 2.     The offence committed in Göttingen 14.     On 3 February 2007 the applicant, acting jointly with several accomplices, robbed O. and P., two female Latvian nationals who were temporarily resident in Germany and working as prostitutes, in their flat in Göttingen. 15.     On the evening of 2 February 2007, the day before the offence, one of the applicant’s co-accused had passed by O.’s and P.’s flat in Göttingen together with an accomplice, R., an acquaintance of O. and P. They intended to verify whether the two women were the flat’s only occupants and whether they kept any valuables there, and discovered a safe in the kitchen. 16.     On 3 February 2007 at around 8 p.m., the applicant and a further accomplice, B., gained access to O.’s and P.’s flat by pretending to be potential clients, while one of their co-accused waited in a car parked close to the building and another waited in front of it. Once inside the flat, B. produced a knife that he had been carrying in his jacket. P., in order to escape from the perpetrators, jumped from the balcony located approximately two metres off the ground and ran away. The applicant jumped down after her but abandoned the chase after some minutes when some passers-by appeared nearby on the street. He then called the co-accused who had been waiting in front of the women’s flat building on his mobile phone and told him that one of the women had jumped from the balcony and that he had unsuccessfully chased her. The applicant agreed on a meeting point with his co-accused where they would pick him up by car once B. had left the crime scene and joined them. 17.     In the meantime, inside the flat, B., having overpowered O., threatened to kill her with his knife if she did not disclose where the women kept their money or if she refused to open the safe for him. Fearing for her life, O. opened the safe, from which B. removed EUR 300, and also handed over the contents of her wallet (EUR 250). B. left the flat at around 8.30   p.m., taking the money and P.’s mobile telephone, as well as the flat’s landline telephone, with him and joined the co ‑ accused. The co ‑ accused and B. then picked up the applicant at the agreed meeting point in their car. At approximately 9.30 p.m. P. rejoined O. in their flat. 18.     O. and P. gave an account of the events to their neighbour E. the morning after the offence. They then left their Göttingen flat out of fear and stayed for several days with their friend L., one of the victims of the offence committed in Kassel, to whom they had also described the offence in detail the day after it occurred. B.     The investigation proceedings concerning the events in Göttingen 19.     On 12 February 2007 L. informed the police of the offence committed against O. and P. in Göttingen. Between 15 and 18 February 2007 O. and P. were repeatedly questioned by the police as to the events of 2 and 3 February 2007. In those interviews they described the course of events as set out above. The police, having checked O.’s and P.’s papers, found their residence and occupation in Germany to be in compliance with German immigration and trade law. 20.     As the witnesses had explained during their police interviews that they intended to return to Latvia in the days to come, on 19 February 2007 the prosecution asked the investigating judge to question the witnesses in order to obtain a true statement which could be used at the subsequent trial ( eine im späteren Hauptverfahren verwertbare wahrheitsgemäße Aussage ). 21.     As a result, on 19 February 2007, O. and P. were questioned by an investigating judge and again described the course of events as set out above. At that time, the applicant had not yet been informed of the investigation proceedings initiated against him, so as not to put the investigation at risk. No warrant for his arrest had yet been issued and he was not yet represented by counsel. The investigating judge excluded the applicant from the witness hearing before him in accordance with Article   168c of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 56 below) since he was concerned that the witnesses, whom he had found to be considerably shocked and distressed by the offence, would be afraid of telling the truth in the applicant’s presence. The witnesses confirmed at that hearing that they intended to return to Latvia as soon as possible. 22.     O. and P. returned to Latvia shortly after that hearing. The applicant was subsequently arrested on 6 March 2007. C.     The trial before the Göttingen Regional Court 1.     The court’s attempts to question O. and P. and the admission of O.’s and P.’s pre-trial statements 23.     The Göttingen Regional Court summoned O. and P. by registered post to appear at the trial on 24 August 2007. However, both witnesses refused to attend the hearing before the Regional Court, relying on medical certificates dated 9 August 2007 which indicated that they were in an unstable, post-traumatic emotional and psychological state. 24.     Consequently, on 29 August 2007, the Regional Court sent letters by registered post to both witnesses informing them that the court, while not being in a position to compel them to appear at a court hearing in Germany, nonetheless wished to hear them as witnesses at the trial. The court stressed that they would receive protection in Germany and that all costs incurred attending the hearing would be reimbursed and, proposing several options, asked in what circumstances they would be willing to testify at the trial. While an acknowledgement of receipt was returned for both letters, P. did not respond. O., for her part, informed the Regional Court in writing that she was still traumatised by the offence and would therefore neither agree to appear at the trial in person nor to testify by means of an audio-visual link. O. further stated that she had nothing to add to the statements she had made in the course of the interviews carried out by the police and the investigating judge in February 2007. 25.     The Regional Court nevertheless decided to request legal assistance from the Latvian authorities under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959, as supplemented by the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union of 29 May 2000 (see paragraphs 64-66 below), taking the view that O. and P. were obliged under Latvian law to appear before a court in Latvia following a request for legal assistance. It asked for the witnesses to be summoned before a court in Latvia and for an audio-visual link to be set up in order for the hearing to be conducted by the presiding judge of the Regional Court ( audiovisuelle Vernehmung ). It considered, referring to Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, that defence counsel and the accused, just like the judges and the prosecution, should have the right to put questions to the witnesses for the first time. 26.     However, the witness hearing of O. and P. scheduled by the competent Latvian court for 13 February 2008 was cancelled shortly before that date by the presiding Latvian judge. The latter found that the witnesses, again relying on medical certificates, had demonstrated that they were still suffering from post-traumatic disorder as a consequence of the offence and that further confrontation with the events in Göttingen would risk aggravating their condition. O. had further claimed that, following threats by the accused, she feared possible acts of revenge. 27.     By a letter dated 21 February 2008, the Regional Court, which had requested and obtained copies of the medical certificates the witnesses had submitted to the Latvian court, informed its Latvian counterpart that, according to the standards of German criminal procedure law, the witnesses had not sufficiently substantiated their refusal to testify. The court suggested to the competent Latvian judge that the witnesses be examined by a public medical officer ( Amtsarzt ) or, alternatively, that they be compelled to attend the hearing. The letter went unanswered. 28.     By a decision of 21 February 2008, the Regional Court, dismissing an objection to the admission of the witnesses’ pre-trial statements raised by counsel for one of the co-accused, ordered that the records of O.’s and P.’s interviews by the police and the investigating judge be read out at the trial in accordance with Article 251 §§ 1 (2) and 2 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 61 below). It considered that, as required by said provisions, there were insurmountable obstacles which made it impossible to hear the witnesses in the foreseeable future as they were unreachable. It had not been possible to hear O. and P. in the course of the trial since they had returned to their home country, Latvia, shortly after their interviews at the investigation stage, and all attempts to hear their evidence at the main hearing, which the court had no means of enforcing, had been to no avail. Pointing out that the courts were under an obligation to conduct proceedings involving deprivation of liberty expeditiously, and in view of the fact that the accused had already been in custody for a considerable period of time, the court was of the opinion that it was not justified to delay further the proceedings. 29.     The Regional Court emphasised that at the investigation stage there had been no indication that O. and P., who had testified on several occasions before the police and then before the investigating judge, would refuse to repeat their statements at a subsequent trial. It considered that, notwithstanding the resulting restrictions for the defence on account of the admission of O.’s and P.’s pre-trial statements as evidence in the proceedings, the trial as a whole could be conducted fairly and in compliance with the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. 2.     The Regional Court’s judgment 30.     By a judgment of 25 April 2008, the Regional Court, considering the facts established as described above, convicted the applicant of two counts of aggravated robbery combined with aggravated extortion involving coercion, committed jointly with other perpetrators in Kassel on 14 October 2006 and in Göttingen on 3 February 2007. It sentenced the applicant, who had been represented by counsel at the trial, to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. (a)     The assessment of the available evidence concerning the offence in Kassel 31.     The Regional Court based its findings of fact concerning the offence committed by the applicant in Kassel on the statements made at the trial by the victims L. and I., who had identified the applicant without any hesitation. It further noted that their statements were supported by the statements made at the trial by the police officers who had attended the crime scene and had interviewed L. and I. in the course of the preliminary investigation. In view of these elements, the Regional Court considered that the submissions made by the applicant, who had initially claimed his innocence and had then admitted that he had been in L.’s and I.’s flat but had only secretly stolen EUR 750, alone, after a quarrel with the women, had been refuted. (b)     The assessment of the available evidence concerning the offence in Göttingen (i)     O.’s and P.’s statements 32.     In the establishment of the facts concerning the offence in Göttingen, the Regional Court relied in particular on the pre-trial statements made by the victims O. and P., whom it considered to be key witnesses for the prosecution ( maßgebliche Belastungszeuginnen ), in the course of their police interviews and before the investigating judge. 33.     In its judgment, which ran to some 152 pages, the Regional Court pointed out that it was aware of the reduced evidentiary value of the records of O.’s and P.’s pre-trial testimonies. It further took into account the fact that neither the applicant nor counsel for the defence had been provided with an opportunity to examine the only direct witnesses to the offence in Göttingen at any stage of the proceedings. 34.     The Regional Court noted that the records of O.’s and P.’s interviews at the investigation stage showed that they had given detailed and coherent descriptions of the circumstances of the offence. Minor contradictions in their statements could be explained by their concern not to disclose their residence and activities to the authorities and by the psychological strain to which they had been subjected during and following the incident. The witnesses had feared problems with the police and acts of revenge by the perpetrators. This explained why they had not reported the offence immediately after the events and why the police had only been informed on 12 February 2007 by their friend L. 35.     The Regional Court further took note of the fact that O. and P. had failed to identify the applicant when shown several photos of potential suspects during the police interviews. It observed that the witnesses’ attention during the incident had been focused on the other perpetrator carrying the knife and that the applicant himself had only stayed in the flat for a short period of time. Their inability to identify the applicant also showed that, contrary to the defence’s allegation, the witnesses had not testified with a view to incriminating him. The court further considered that the fact that the witnesses had failed to attend the trial could be explained by their unease at having to recall, and being questioned about, the offence and therefore did not as such affect their credibility. (ii)     Further available evidence 36.     In its establishment of the facts, the Regional Court further had regard to the following additional evidence: the statements made at the trial by several witnesses to whom O. and P. had reported the offence shortly after it happened, namely the victims’ neighbour E. and their friend L., as well as the police officers and the investigating judge who had examined O. and P. at the pre-trial stage; geographical data and information obtained by tapping the applicant’s and his co-accused’s mobile telephones and by means of a satellite-based global positioning system (GPS) receiver in the car of one of the co-accused; the applicant’s admission in the course of the trial that he had been in the victims’ flat at the relevant time; and the similarity in the way in which the offences in Kassel and Göttingen had been committed. 37.     The Regional Court stressed that, once O. and P. had proved to be unavailable, it had ensured that as many as possible of the witnesses who had been in contact with O. and P. in relation to the events in issue were heard at the trial, in order to verify the victims’ credibility. 38.     In the Regional Court’s opinion the fact that the detailed description of the events given in O.’s and P.’s pre-trial statements was consistent with the account they had given the morning after the offence to their neighbour was a strong indication of their credibility and the veracity of their statements. E. had further testified that, on the evening of 3 February 2007 at around 9.30 p.m., another neighbour, an elderly woman who became scared and angry when she saw P. running around in front of her window, had called on her and asked her to accompany her to the women’s flat to investigate what had happened. O. and P. had, however, not answered the door when the neighbours rang the doorbell. 39.     The Regional Court further observed that O.’s and P.’s description of the events was also consistent with their friend L.’s recollection of her conversations with O. and P. after the offence. 40.     In addition, the Regional Court noted that the three police officers and the investigating judge who had examined O. and P. at the pre-trial stage had all testified at the trial that they had found O. and P. to be credible. 41.     The Regional Court stressed that since neither the defence nor the court itself had had an opportunity to observe the main witnesses’ demeanour at the trial or during examination by means of an audio-visual link, it had to exercise particular diligence in assessing the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility by the police officers and the investigating judge. The court further emphasised that when taking into account the testimonies given by the witnesses’ neighbour E. and their friend L. it had paid special attention to the fact that their statements constituted hearsay evidence and had to be assessed particularly carefully. 42.     In this context it had been of relevance that O.’s and P.’s testimonies as well as the statements of the additional witnesses heard at the trial, had been supported by further significant and admissible evidence such as data and information obtained by tapping the applicant’s and the co-accused’s mobile telephones and by means of a GPS receiver. The information in question had been gathered in the context of police surveillance measures carried out at the relevant time in the criminal investigation initiated against the accused on suspicion of racketeering and extortion on the Göttingen drug scene. 43.     It transpired from the geographical data and the recordings of two mobile-telephone conversations between one of the co-accused and the applicant on the evening of 3 February 2007 at 8.29 p.m. and 8.31 p.m. that the latter had been in the victims’ flat with B., and that he had jumped from the balcony in order to chase one of the escaping victims, whom he had failed to capture, while B. had stayed in the flat. Furthermore, an analysis of the GPS data showed that the car of one of the co-accused had been parked near the crime scene from 7.58 p.m. to 8.32 p.m. on the evening of 3   February 2007, a period that coincided with the time frame in which the robbery in question had occurred. 44.     Furthermore, while the applicant and the co-accused had denied any participation in the robbery as such or any premeditated criminal activity, their own statements at the trial had at least confirmed that one of the co ‑ accused, together with R., had visited the victims’ flat in Göttingen on the evening before the offence and that they had all been in the car parked close to the victims’ flat at the time of the offence. The accused had initially stated that a different perpetrator and R. had been in the flat at the time of the incident the following day. The applicant had subsequently amended his submissions and claimed that it had been he and B. who had gone into the victims’ flat on 3 February 2007 with a view to making use of the women’s services as prostitutes. He had further conceded that he had followed P. when she escaped over the balcony. He   explained that he had done so in order to prevent her from calling the neighbours or the police, since, in view of his criminal record, he had been afraid of getting into trouble and because of the problems he had previously encountered with prostitutes on a similar occasion in Kassel. 45.     Finally, the Regional Court considered that the very similar way in which the offences had been committed against two female victims, foreign nationals working as prostitutes in a flat, was an additional element indicating that the applicant had also participated in the offence committed in Göttingen. 46.     In the Regional Court’s view, the body of evidence, taken together, gave a coherent and complete overall picture of events which supported the version provided by O. and P. and refuted the contradictory versions of events put forward by the applicant and his co-accused in the course of the trial. D.     The proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice 47.     On 23 June 2008 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Göttingen Regional Court. He complained that he had not been able to examine the only direct and key witnesses to the offence committed in Göttingen at any stage of the proceedings, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. As the prosecution authorities, contrary to the case-law of the Federal Court of Justice (the applicant referred to a judgment of 25 July 2000, see paragraphs   58-59 and 62 below), had not requested that defence counsel be appointed for him prior to O.’s and P.’s hearing before the investigating judge, their statements ought to have been excluded from the trial. 48.     In written submissions dated 9 September 2008, the Federal Public Prosecutor General requested that the applicant’s appeal on points of law be dismissed by the Federal Court of Justice as manifestly ill-founded in written proceedings, under Article 349 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 63 below). The Federal Public Prosecutor General argued that, while it was true that the proceedings had been characterised by a “complete loss” of the applicant’s right to examine O. and P. ( Totalausfall des Fragerechts ), they had as a whole been fair and there had been no reason to exclude the witness statements of O. and P. as evidence. 49.     The Federal Public Prosecutor General considered that the Regional Court had assessed the content of the records of the witnesses’ testimonies read out at the trial particularly carefully and critically. Furthermore, the victims’ statements had been neither the sole nor the decisive basis for the applicant’s conviction by the Regional Court, as the latter had based its findings on further significant evidence. In view of the various layers of corroborating evidence, the applicant had had ample opportunity to challenge the credibility of the two prosecution witnesses and to defend himself effectively. 50.     Endorsing the Regional Court’s reasoning, the Federal Public Prosecutor General further pointed out that there was nothing to demonstrate that the restrictions on the defence’s right to examine O. and P. had been imputable to the domestic authorities. The prosecution authorities had not been obliged to appoint counsel for the applicant in order for counsel to participate in the hearing by the investigating judge. In view of the witnesses’ consistent cooperation, the authorities had had no reason to suspect that, despite their return to their home country, they would no longer be available for questioning at the trial, especially as they had been obliged under Latvian law to at least participate in a hearing via video-link. 51.     By a decision of 30 October 2008, the Federal Court of Justice, referring to Article 349 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as manifestly ill-founded. 52.     In its decision of 9 December 2008 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning a violation of his right to be heard ( Anhörungsrüge ), the Federal Court of Justice pointed out that any decision dismissing an appeal on the basis of Article 349 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure necessarily entailed a reference to the reasoned application by the Federal Public Prosecutor General. E.     The proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court 53.     In a constitutional complaint dated 30 December 2008 against the decisions of the Federal Court of Justice of 30 October and 9 December 2008, the applicant complained, in particular, that there had been a breach of his right to a fair trial and of his defence rights under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. He argued that neither he nor his counsel had had the opportunity to question O. and P. at any stage of the proceedings. 54.     By a decision of 8 October 2009, the Federal Constitutional Court, without providing reasons, declined to consider the applicant’s complaint (file no. 2 BvR 78/09). II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Relevant provisions and practice concerning the conduct of the investigation proceedings 55.     Article 160 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, in investigating the facts relating to a suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed, the public prosecution authorities must investigate not only the incriminating but also the exonerating circumstances and must ensure that evidence which might be lost is taken. 56.     Under Article 168c § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutor, the accused and defence counsel are authorised to be present during the judicial examination of a witness prior to the opening of the main proceedings. The judge may exclude an accused from the hearing if his or her presence would endanger the purpose of the investigation, in particular if there is a risk that a witness will not tell the truth in the presence of the accused (Article 168c § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The persons entitled to be present must be given prior notice of the dates set for the hearings. Notification may be dispensed with if it would endanger the success of the investigation (Article 168c § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 57.     In accordance with Article 141 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, defence counsel may be appointed during the investigation proceedings. The public prosecutor’s office requests such appointment if, in its opinion, the assistance of defence counsel in the main proceedings will be mandatory. The assistance of defence counsel is mandatory if, inter alia , the main hearing is held at first instance before the Regional Court or the accused is charged with a serious criminal offence (Article 140 § 1 (1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 58.     In a leading judgment of 25 July 2000 (published in the official reports, BGHSt, volume 46, pp. 96 et seq . ), the Federal Court of Justice found that Article 141 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpreted in the light of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, obliged the investigating authorities to consider the appointment of counsel for an unrepresented accused if the key witness for the prosecution was to testify before an investigating judge for the purpose of securing evidence and the accused was excluded from that hearing. 59.     The Federal Court of Justice stressed that respect for the right to cross-examination required that the appointed counsel be given an opportunity to discuss the matter with the accused prior to the witness’s examination by the investigating judge, in order to be in a position to ask the relevant questions. The court also noted that it might not be necessary to appoint a lawyer for the accused if there were justifiable reasons not to notify counsel of the hearing before the investigating judge or if the delay caused by appointing and involving a lawyer would endanger the success of the investigation. In the case before it, the Federal Court of Justice further did not have to determine whether it was necessary to appoint counsel for the accused when the purpose of the investigation might be endangered simply as a result of the lawyer discussing the matter with the accused prior to the hearing. B.     Relevant provisions and practice concerning the conduct of the trial 60.     Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the principle according to which, where the proof of a fact is based on a person’s observation, that person must be examined at the trial. The   examination must not be replaced by reading out the record of a previous examination or a written statement. 61.     Article 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains a number of exceptions to that principle. Under Article 251 § 1 (2), the examination of a witness may be replaced by reading out a record of another examination if the witness has died or cannot be examined by the court for another reason within a foreseeable period of time. Article 251 § 2 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that, in the event of previous examination by a judge, the examination of a witness may be replaced by reading out the written record of his or her previous examination; this also applies if illness, infirmity or other insurmountable obstacles prevent the witness from appearing at the main hearing for a long or indefinite period. 62.     In its above-mentioned judgment of 25 July 2000 (see paragraphs   58-59 above), the Federal Court of Justice found that the failure to appoint counsel for the accused as required by Article 141 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not result in the exclusion of the evidence obtained during examination by the investigating judge, but did diminish its evidentiary value. Regard had to be had to the proceedings as a whole. As a rule, a conviction could be based on the statement of a witness whom the defence had been unable to cross-examine only if the statement was corroborated by other significant factors independent of it. The trial court was further obliged to assess the evidence with particular care, also having regard to the fact that the statement made by the investigating judge at the trial constituted hearsay evidence. C.     Provision concerning appeals on points of law 63.     Under Article 349 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court deciding on the appeal on points of law may, on a reasoned application by the public prosecutor’s office, dismiss a defendant’s appeal on points of law without a hearing if it considers the appeal to be manifestly ill-founded. The decision must be unanimous. III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW 64.     Mutual assistance in criminal matters between Germany and Latvia is governed, in particular, by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959 (ETS 30), supplemented by the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union of 29 May 2000. 65.     Article 10 of the latter Convention provides for the possibility of hearing witnesses by video-conference. Such hearings must be carried out in the presence of and by a judicial authority of the requested member State. The witness may claim the right not to testify which would accrue to him or her under the law of either the requested or the requesting member State (Article 10 § 5). Each member State must take the necessary measures to ensure that, where witnesses are being heard within its territory and refuse to do so when under an obligation to testify, its national law applies in the same way as if the hearing took place in a national procedure (Article 10 §   8). 66.     Article 8 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959 provides that a witness who has failed to answer a summons to appear issued by the requesting Party shall not be subjected to any punishment unless subsequently he or she voluntarily enters the territory of the requesting Party and is there again duly summoned. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (d) OF THE CONVENTION 67.     The applicant complained that his trial had been unfair and that the principle of equality of arms had been infringed since neither he nor his lawyer had been granted an opportunity at any stage of the criminal proceedings to examine O. and P., the only direct witnesses to and victims of the offence allegedly committed by him in Göttingen in February 2007. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “1.     In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 3.     Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (d)     to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; ...” 68.     The Government contested that argument. A.     The Chamber judgment 69.     The Chamber held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. 70.     Applying the principles established by the Court in its judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011), the Chamber found that there had been a good reason for the witnesses’ non-attendance at the trial. The Regional Court had made reasonable efforts to enable the witnesses to be examined. The fact that all attempts in this regard had been futile was not imputable to that court. The Chamber further considered that, while the witness statements in issue may not have been the sole or decisive evidence on which the applicant’s conviction was based, they clearly carried considerable weight in the establishment of his guilt. 71.     However, in the Chamber’s view, there had been sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties under which the defence laboured as a result of the admission of the victims’ witness statements. It considered that the Regional Court had complied with the procedural safeguards under domestic law. Under Article 168c of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 56 above), the accused and defence counsel were, as a rule, permitted to be present during the judicial examination of a witness at the pre-trial stage. However, it had been justified to exclude the applicant, who had not yet been assigned a lawyer at that time, from the hearing of O. and P. by the investigating judge in accordance with Article 168c § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigating judge’s concern that the suspects would put pressure on the witnesses once they or counsel were informed of the hearing, thus jeopardising the ongoing investigations, had been well-founded. The Chamber also took note of the Government’s submission that, at the time of the hearing, it had not been foreseeable that the witnesses, who had already given evidence on several occasions, would refuse to testify at the trial. 72.     Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Regional Court had thoroughly scrutinised O.’s and P.’s witness statements in the light of their reduced evidentiary value. That court had also had regard to the statements of two witnesses, E. and L., in whom the victims had confided directly after the incident. The coherent witness testimonies had been supported by factual evidence obtained by telephone tapping, by GPS surveillance and by the applicant’s own admission that he had been in the victims’ flat at the time of the incident. Moreover, the similarity in the way in which the offences in Kassel and Göttingen had been committed had further corroborated the court’s findings. The proceedings as a whole had therefore been fair. B.     The parties’ submissions 1.     The applicant 73.     In the applicant’s submission, his right to a fair trial, including the right to examine witnesses against him under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, had been breached. He stressed that neither he nor his counsel had had the opportunity, at any stage of the proceedings, to examine the key witnesses O. and P. (a)     The applicable principles 74.     In his observations before the Grand Chamber, the applicant agreed that the principles developed by the Court in Al-Khawaja and Tahery (cited above) were applicable to his case. He stressed that, according to that case ‑ law, failure to give the defence an opportunity to cross-examine a prosecution witness would result in a breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention save in exceptional circumstances. (b)     Whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance of O. and P. at the trial 75.     In the applicant’s submission, there had not been a good reason for the non-attendance of O. and P. at his trial. The psychological difficulties allegedly caused by the offence in Göttingen had not prevented the witnesses from making statements to the police and the investigating judge at the investigation stage. Moreover, the Göttingen Regional Court had itself considered that there had not been sufficient reason for the witnesses not to attend the trial. Further attempts should have been made by the domestic authorities to obtain the hearing of those witnesses at the trial, notably by means of bilateral negotiations with Latvia at the political level. (c)     Whether the evidence of the absent witnesses was the sole or decisive basis for the applicant’s conviction 76.     In the applicant’s view, his conviction had been based at least to a decisive extent on the evidence given by O. and P., who had been the only eyewitnesses to the events in Göttingen. He could not have been found guilty on the basis of the other available evidence if the evidence provided by O. and P. had been disregarded. (d)     Whether there were sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the handicaps under which the defence laboured 77.     The applicant took the view that there had not been any counterbalancing factors to compensate for the difficulties caused to the defence as a result of the witnesses’ absence at the trial. 78.     The applicant submitted that the Regional Court had not assessed the witness statements made by O. and P. with particular caution. It had not taken into account the fact that the witnesses’ failure to attend the hearing before it without an adequate excuse had affected their credibility. Moreover, the fact that there had been some additional hearsay evidence and that the applicant had had the opportunity to question the investigating judge had not constituted sufficient counterbalancing factors to secure equality of arms in the proceedings. The fact that, under German criminal procedure law, the prosecution was obliged to investigate both the incriminating and the exonerating evidence against the accused (see paragraph 55 above) did not compensate for his lack of opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, as the prosecution authorities had not investigated the exonerating evidence in his case. 79.     The applicant stressed, in particular, that he had been deprived of a procedural safeguard under domestic law aimed at protecting his defence rights, in that counsel representing him had not been allowed to be present at the hearing of O. and P. before the investigating judge. Under the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 141 § 3 taken in conjunction with Article 140, see paragraph 57 above), as interpreted by the Federal Court of Justice (he referred to that court’s judgment of 25 July 2000, see paragraphs 58-59 and 62 above), the prosecution had been obliged to appoint counsel to represent him at the stage of the investigation proceedings. This should have been done prior to the hearing of the main witnesses for the prosecution by the investigating judge, from which he had been excluded under Article 168c § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, defence counsel had a right to be present at the witness hearing under Article 168c § 2 of the Code of Criminal Proc