CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 9 novembre 2018

.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 } .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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s98FBE5B1 { width:3.85pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6F50B1F9 { width:211.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s75E0725 { width:3.34pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5195560 { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .sA456029A { width:14.2pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8FB79571 { width:14.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sE7A7E7FD { width:156.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s704F265 { width:157.41pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s1CBBD6E0 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA47382F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:184.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD09F1E8E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:184.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super }       GRAND CHAMBER                 CASE OF BEUZE v. BELGIUM   (Application no. 71409/10)               JUDGMENT                 STRASBOURG   9 November 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Beuze v. Belgium, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Guido Raimondi, President,   Angelika Nußberger,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Helena Jäderblom,   Robert Spano,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Paul Lemmens,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Valeriu Griţco,   Ksenija Turković,   Egidijus Kūris,   Síofra O’Leary,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Georges Ravarani,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Jovan Ilievski, judges, and Johan Callewaert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2017 and on 27   June 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 71409/10) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Belgian national, Mr Philippe Beuze (“the applicant”), on 25 November 2010. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms   D. Paci, a lawyer practising in Brussels. The Belgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Niedlispacher, of the Federal Justice Department. 3.     Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant alleged, first, that he had been deprived of his right of access to a lawyer while in police custody, without being given sufficient information about his right to remain silent and his right not to be compelled to incriminate himself, and secondly, that he had not been assisted by a lawyer during the subsequent police interviews, examinations by an investigating judge and other investigative acts in the course of the judicial investigation. 4.     The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule   52 §   1 of the Rules of Court). On 25 August 2014 a Chamber of that Section gave notice of the above-mentioned complaints to the Government. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3. On 13 June 2017 the Chamber, composed of the following judges: Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paul Lemmens, Valeriu Griţco, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström and Georges Ravarani, Judges, and also of Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, neither of the parties having objected to relinquishment (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72). 5.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined according to the provisions of Article 26 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention and Rule 24. 6.     The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations on the merits of the case. The parties replied at the hearing to each other’s observations (Rule 44 § 5). In addition, third-party comments were received from Fair Trials International, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3). 7.     A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 December 2017. There appeared before the Court: (a)     for the Government Ms   I. Niedlispacher,   Agent ; (b)     for the applicant Ms   D. Paci,   Counsel .   The Court heard addresses by Ms Paci and Ms Niedlispacher and their replies to questions from judges. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 8.     The applicant was born in 1974. He is currently serving a life sentence in Marche-en-Famenne prison (Belgium). A.     The applicant’s arrest in France 9.     The applicant was arrested on 17 December 2007 by the French gendarmerie in a village situated in the French département of Nord and taken into police custody under a European arrest warrant issued against him on 14 November 2007 by an investigating judge of the Charleroi (Belgium) Court of First Instance, on the basis of a request of 6   November 2007 from the Crown Prosecutor attached to that court. 10.     The warrant stated that the applicant was wanted for the premeditated murder of his former girlfriend, M.B., committed on 5   November 2007. The warrant stated that a witness who was a neighbour of M.B. had formally identified the applicant. It also referred to a risk of reoffending in view of his history of violence. 11.     The interview record drawn up by the French gendarmes at the time of the applicant’s arrest on 17 December 2007 indicated that he had waived his right under Article 63-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure to consult with a lawyer of his choosing or, failing that, officially assigned counsel. 12.     In a judgment of 21 December 2007, the Investigation Division of the Court of Appeal of Douai (France), after acknowledging that the applicant had not renounced his entitlement to the rule of speciality [1] , ordered his surrender to the Belgian judicial authorities for the execution of the above ‑ mentioned arrest warrant. The applicant was assisted before the Investigation Division by a lawyer, Ms A., of the Douai Bar. B.     Surrender to Belgian authorities and pre-trial investigation stage 13.     Having been surrendered to the Belgian authorities at 10.40 a.m. on 31   December 2007, the applicant was interviewed by the criminal investigation police from 11.50 a.m. to 3.55 p.m. 14.     As shown by the police interview record, in accordance with Article   47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( code d’instruction criminelle ) (see paragraphs 62-65 below), the applicant was notified that he was entitled to request the verbatim transcription of all the questions put to him and his answers, to request any investigative act or the conducting of any interview, and that his statements could be used in evidence. 15.     During that first interview, the applicant explained that he had met M.B. in early 2007 through C.L., his then girlfriend. He admitted that he had been present on 5 November 2007 at the scene of the crime but denied having committed the murder. He claimed that the victim, M.B., had been struck with a hammer by her thirteen-year-old son. He explained that he had intervened and grabbed the hammer from the child, but the latter had continued to hit his mother. The applicant stated that he had left with an axe – which the police had later found near the scene – because he was afraid of being accused on account of his criminal record. He explained that he had fled the scene and had been hiding in his car when the emergency services arrived. He stated that he was unaware that the victim was dead. 16.     During the interview the applicant was also questioned about a statement made to the police by M.B. on 25 October 2007 according to which the applicant had tried to kill her by running her over. The applicant explained that he had accidentally skidded while driving his car and had probably hit M.B., but denied that his intention had been to kill her as she had alleged. 17.     The investigators informed the applicant that they had intercepted a number of text messages that had been sent to relatives of M.B., following her death, from a mobile phone belonging to him. Those messages included one offering condolences for the death of M.B. The applicant denied having sent them himself. 18.     The applicant’s detailed statements were taken down by the police in an eight-page record. The record indicated at the very end that following the interview the applicant had read over his statements and had not wished to correct them or add to them. 19.     All subsequent records of his statements contained the same indications and were signed by the applicant. Except for the first police interview record, of which a copy was given to him after his examination by the investigating judge later that day, the applicant received his copies immediately after being questioned. 20.     Following his interview by the criminal investigation police, the applicant was examined by the investigating judge at the Charleroi Court of First Instance at 4.45 p.m. that day. He confirmed his statements to the investigating judge. 21.     On being asked by the investigating judge at the beginning of the examination whether he had chosen a lawyer, the applicant answered in the negative. At the end of the interview record it was stated: “I (the investigating judge) have notified him that I have informed the deputy to the Chair of the Bar Council, given that, at the current stage of the proceedings, he has not appointed counsel.” 22.     Following the investigating judge’s examination, which finished at   5.42 p.m., the judge observed that a psychiatrist needed to be called immediately. He formally charged the applicant with the premeditated murder of M.B. An arrest warrant was issued to the applicant on the same day and he was remanded in custody. 23.     It is not in dispute that the applicant was not allowed to communicate with a lawyer between the time of his surrender to the Belgian authorities and the end of his period in police custody on 31   December 2007. He was only allowed to consult with a lawyer, in accordance with the applicable law, once the decision had been taken by the investigating judge to remand him in custody (see paragraphs 21 above and 55-56 below). Moreover, even though he was subsequently assisted by a lawyer during the judicial pre-trial investigation, that lawyer did not attend the police interviews, examinations by the investigating judge or other investigative acts which took place throughout that phase of the proceedings (see paragraph   59 below). 24.     On 11 January 2008 the applicant was again interviewed by the criminal investigation police. He confirmed his previous statements about M.B.’s death and provided further particulars about what had happened. The applicant stated that he had indeed seen a person passing by in the street who had witnessed the blows inflicted by the victim’s son, and that this witness had been accompanied by a woman, and he admitted to having threatened the witness with a fake gun that had subsequently been found in his car after his arrest. When the officers pointed out the inconsistencies in his account, the applicant acknowledged that he had been carrying a real gun at the time but continued to deny that he was the murderer. 25.     There is no indication in the interview record of 11 January 2008, or elsewhere in the file, that the applicant had actually been assigned a lawyer following the notification to the Bar on 31 December 2007, or that he had been in contact with a lawyer prior to that interview. 26.     In parallel to the investigation into the murder of M.B., the applicant was interviewed by the police on four occasions between 6 and 7   March 2008 for “criminal association” in respect of car thefts. 27.     When examined again by the investigating judge on 17   March 2008, the judge asked the applicant if he had chosen a lawyer. He replied in the affirmative and mentioned that he had been in contact with a lawyer at the Brussels Bar. The applicant was informed that the psychiatric assessment had been received and that it had identified an antisocial personality disorder. When questioned about the facts related to M.B.’s murder, the applicant confessed to having stolen a document from the case file, although the authorities had been unaware of this. Subsequently, having repeated that the perpetrator of M.B.’s murder was her son, the applicant changed his account of the events. He mentioned the presence of C.L. at the scene of the crime at the time when M.B. was attacked. He explained that he had witnessed an argument between the two women and that he had had to wrest a hammer from C.L.’s hands. 28.     On 25 March 2008 the criminal investigation police interviewed the applicant for the purposes of a morality and personality assessment. A second police interview was held on the same day concerning bodily harm inflicted on C.L. on 17 September 2007. The applicant acknowledged that he had invited C.L., then pregnant, to get into his car. He stated that he had punched C.L. in the face to “protect” her from a possible encounter with M.B. that had been planned with the aim of stealing the latter’s mobile phone and bank card. He explained that M.B., with the help of an accomplice, had then pushed C.L. into the canal. 29.     A neuropsychological assessment of the applicant was carried out on 28   April 2008 and sent to the investigating judge. The expert psychologist concluded that the applicant had limited verbal skills but that his reasoning was not abnormal. The expert also highlighted his significant lack of empathy and sociability. 30.     On 6 June 2008 a reconstruction of the events of 5   November 2007 was held at the scene of the crime. The two eyewitnesses took part in the reconstruction (see paragraphs 10 and 24 above). The applicant’s lawyer was absent, as the law did not provide for the attendance of a lawyer at any investigative act (see paragraph 59 below). In the context of the reconstruction, the applicant mentioned when interviewed that another person, A.N., had also been at the scene on the day in question. He changed his version of events again and stated that he had falsely accused the victim’s son. He claimed that the fatal blows had in fact been struck by C.L. and that he had fired a gun to intimidate C.L. 31.     During the interview conducted on the same day by the criminal investigation police, the applicant challenged the account given by the two eyewitnesses at the reconstruction and confirmed his new version of the facts. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant sought to communicate with his lawyer before or after the reconstruction or the interview of the same day. 32.     An arrest warrant was issued on 8 August 2008 extending the investigating judge’s remit, on the basis of the submissions of the Crown Prosecutor dated 23 May 2008 and 7   July 2008, to three additional offences: the attempted murder of M.B. on 25   October 2007, and two offences committed on 17 September 2007 against C.L., namely robbery with violence or threats, and fraud. 33.     The applicant was examined on that subject by the investigating judge on 18 August 2008. The information provided for by Article 47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 65 below) was repeated to him; he was also notified of his right to refuse the extension of the charges and to consult with his lawyer on this matter beforehand. The record of the examination shows that he agreed to the extension, thereby renouncing his entitlement to the speciality rule that had been granted by the French authorities (see paragraph 12 above). He also expressed his wish that his lawyer should confirm his position. 34.     On 5 December 2008 the applicant was heard by the Crown Prosecutor as to whether he agreed to the extension of the charges. He replied that he wished to consult with his lawyer on this matter. 35.     Acknowledging that the applicant had not ultimately given his consent, in a judgment of 13   January 2009 the Investigation Division of the Douai Court of Appeal agreed to extend his surrender for the purposes of a criminal prosecution to the three above-mentioned additional charges. 36.     At the close of the judicial investigation stage, the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Assize Court of Hainaut Province by a judgment of 31   August 2009 of the Indictment Division ( chambre des mises en accusation ) of the Mons Court of Appeal. The Indictment Division found that there were serious indications of the applicant’s guilt in the light, principally, of the witness statements, the investigators’ findings, the real evidence gathered and the forensic medical and psychiatric assessments. C.     Proceedings in the Assize Court 37.     At the start of the trial in the Assize Court, on 1 February 2010, the applicant, assisted by his Belgian counsel, filed a submission in which he requested that the records of the interviews conducted without legal assistance and the ensuing acts should be annulled and that the prosecution case should be declared inadmissible. He argued that his lack of access to a lawyer while in police custody, on 31 December 2007, and during the subsequent interviews and examinations had entailed a breach of an essential formal requirement directly affecting his defence rights and thus irretrievably vitiating the arrest warrant. The applicant complained that the absence of a lawyer had necessarily caused him damage. 38.     Referring to the Court’s case-law and in particular the judgments in Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR 2008) and Dayanan v.   Turkey (no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009), the applicant submitted that it laid down an absolute principle not allowing for any case-specific assessment, given that the restriction arising from Belgian law was one of a general and mandatory nature, and that Belgian law did not meet the requirements of the Convention in such matters. 39.     The Assize Court, in an interlocutory judgment of the same day, dismissed the applicant’s plea to dismiss the prosecution case. It began by pointing out that the Court’s case-law did not guarantee, in an absolute manner, the presence of a lawyer at all stages of the criminal proceedings from the first interview onwards and that the Court had emphasised the need to take account of the proceedings as a whole when assessing whether the right to a fair trial had been upheld. It explained that, in principle, defence rights would be irretrievably affected only where incriminating statements were made. The Assize Court further found that courts had no power to substitute their own solutions for those of the legislature in order to make good the shortcomings complained of by the applicant. 40.     As to the consequences of the Court’s case-law for the proceedings in the present case, the Assize Court took the view that, in respect of the French part of the proceedings, the applicant had initially waived his right to legal assistance. Later, before the Investigation Division of the Douai Court of Appeal he had been assisted by a lawyer. The Assize Court dismissed his allegation of pressure by the French gendarmes on the grounds that in one of his interviews (namely in the context of the reconstruction of 6 June 2008 referred to in paragraph 30 above) the applicant had given a different explanation as to why he had falsely accused the victim’s son, allegedly under duress, at the time of his arrest. 41.     As to the Belgian part of the proceedings, the Assize Court found that the applicant had not incriminated himself in respect of the charges, had not claimed that he had been put under any pressure by the investigators, had not been interviewed in a state of particular vulnerability, had expressed himself freely on the facts and had not in any way been compelled to incriminate himself, even being able to exercise his right to remain silent. The applicant had been able to confer with his lawyer after each police interview and examination by the investigating judge to discuss his defence and had been afforded every opportunity to consult with his lawyer throughout the investigation stage. He had also been able, for the two years of his pre-trial detention, to prepare his defence with his lawyer every time he had appeared before the pre-trial courts ( juridictions d’instruction ), but he had failed, on those occasions, to mention the omission of which he later complained in the Assize Court. 42.     Furthermore, the Assize Court noted that the applicant had been committed to stand trial before it in the light of indications of guilt which stemmed primarily from material other than his own statements (see paragraph 36 above) and that he had availed himself of the right to request the performance of additional investigative acts. After pointing out that the jury’s inner conviction was formed during the oral proceedings before it, the Assize Court concluded that the applicant’s defence rights had been observed and that there was no reason to declare the interview/examination records or prosecution invalid. It therefore declared the prosecution case admissible and ordered that the proceedings be continued. 43.     The bill of indictment drawn up by the Principal Crown Prosecutor on 23 November 2009 was read out at the hearing in the Assize Court. Containing twenty-one pages, it set out the facts and how they had occurred, the investigative acts and their results, and the forensic medical assessments, together with the applicant’s background and family life. The indictment referred to the particulars that had been acknowledged by the applicant (his presence at the scene of M.B.’s murder, the threatening of a witness and the fact that he had been alone with C.L. and had struck her). It also reproduced the various versions of the events that he had given during his police interviews and examinations by the investigating judge, explaining that those accounts were inconsistent with the investigators’ factual findings and were contradicted by the various witness statements. 44.     At the close of the trial, on 9 February 2010, the jury found the applicant guilty, principally of the premeditated murder of M.B. on 5   November 2007 and of the attempted premeditated murder of C.L. on 17   September 2007. 45.     The jury’s reasons were set out in the Assize Court’s “reasoning judgment” ( arrêt de motivation ) of the same day. The relevant parts read as follows: “... the main reasons for the decision given by the jury are as follows: – The first and second questions [concerning the murder of M.B. on 5   November 2007] The jury considered decisive the consistent and mutually corroborative testimony of the youngsters who had seen only the defendant and the victim at the scene of the crime, without any other person being present, the threats previously made by the defendant against his victim and the various steps taken by Philippe Beuze (in particular the fact of hiding the axe in a bush) in preparation for the crime. – The third and fourth questions [concerning the attempted murder of M.B. on 25   October 2007] [Finding of not guilty] – The fifth and sixth questions [concerning the attempted murder of C.L. on 17   September 2007] The jury found that the following evidence proved both the actual occurrence of the acts and the homicidal intention which had driven the defendant: – the defendant had deliberately arranged to be alone with a pregnant woman, whom he knew was thus placed in a weakened position; – he violently struck C.L., as shown by the medical findings, and left her for dead; – he then fled the scene without calling for help, even though he had the means to do so; – he subsequently sent text messages clearly showing his intention to kill C.L. The jury also took the view that the acts committed by the defendant before going off towards the canal at the end of a long walk (simulation of a flat tyre, deliberate car crash, etc.) all constituted evidence of premeditation.” 46.     In a sentencing judgment dated 10 February 2010, the Assize Court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. D.     Proceedings before the Court of Cassation 47.     The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the Assize Court judgments of 1, 9 and 10 February 2010. Alleging a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as interpreted in the Court’s case-law, he relied on the right to be assisted by a lawyer and submitted that the presence of a lawyer during questioning was mandatory under the Convention. 48.     In a judgment of 26 May 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed that ground of appeal as follows: “3.     Sections 1, 2, 16(2) and (4), and 20(1) of the Law of 20 July 1990 on pre ‑ trial detention do not provide for the presence of a lawyer to assist the person in police custody during the twenty-four hour period laid down by Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Constitution. The secrecy imposed by Article 28 quinquies , § 1, first paragraph, and Article   57 §   1, first paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure precludes, as a rule, the lawyer’s attendance at acts performed during the preliminary investigation by the public prosecutor and the judicial pre-trial investigation. 4.     These provisions cannot be said in themselves to violate the right to a fair trial. There are two reasons for this. First, the impugned restriction must be assessed in relation to the full set of legal safeguards made available to the defendant with a view to ensuring the effective protection of his defence rights from the time the prosecution is brought. Secondly, the appellant’s interpretation of Article 6 of the Convention must be examined with reference to the constitutional principle of the legality of criminal proceedings. 5.     In the light of the following elements, there can be no automatic finding that it is irretrievably impossible for a person questioned by the police and the investigating judge without a lawyer to have a fair trial: the formal requirements laid down for the questioning of a suspect in Article 47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the brevity of the police custody period, the immediate issuance to the person charged (upon notification of the arrest warrant) of all the documents referred to in sections   16(7) and 18(2) of the Law of 20 July 1990, the right of the person charged to communicate immediately with his lawyer in accordance with section 20(1) and (5) of that Law, access to the file as governed by section 21(3) of the Law, the lawyer’s presence at the recapitulatory examination provided for in section 22(1), (2) and   (3), and the rights set forth, in particular, in Articles 61 ter , 61 quater , 61 quinquies , 136 and   235 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6.     As a rule, Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Constitution does not allow the court to amend the formalities of criminal proceedings as laid down by the law of a democratic State. The only exception is where a domestic rule, if declared incompatible, may be set aside without distortion by the court of the legal framework of which it is part. On account of its lack of precision, the weight that the appellant attaches to a fair trial cannot trump the above-mentioned principle of legality, whereby the investigation, prosecution and trial can only proceed in accordance with pre-existing and accessible statutes. The submission does not determine the extent to which the court should set aside the domestic statute in order to render the trial fair for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention according to its proposed evolutive interpretation. Therefore, neither the appellant nor the case-law on which he relies indicate clearly whether the trial would have been fair on the sole condition that the lawyer had been present during the police custody period or whether it would have been necessary to extend that assistance to all investigative acts. The right to a fair trial also implies that none of the parties should be placed in a more favourable or less advantageous situation than that of another party. It cannot therefore be regarded as established that the proceedings submitted to the court’s review would have been fairer, within the meaning of the appellant’s submission, simply if a lawyer had been present at all his interviews, without an equivalent advantage being secured to the other parties. 7.     The submission that the alleged right of the accused is absolute in nature must accordingly be rejected, and it is necessary to consider in concrete terms whether, in the light of the proceedings taken as a whole, the matter complained of by the appellant may have vitiated those proceedings. This does not appear to have been the case. As can be seen from the following findings of the judgment appealed against [of 1 February 2010]: (i)     the appellant made no self-incriminating statements while in police custody; (ii)     prior to his first interview by the French gendarmerie, he expressly waived the legal assistance to which he was entitled under Article 63-4 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure; (iii)     the appellant was assisted by a lawyer from the time of his appearance before the Investigation Division of the Douai Court of Appeal and for the two years of his pre-trial detention; (iv)     the appellant was at no point compelled to incriminate himself, and at all times expressed himself freely. The Assize Court therefore acted within the law in refusing to declare the prosecution case inadmissible.” II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Legislative situation prior to the “Salduz Act” of 2011 49.     At the relevant time, the lawyer’s role upon the arrest of a suspect and during the judicial pre-trial investigation stage, together with the safeguards surrounding police interviews, examinations by an investigating judge and other investigative acts, were regulated as follows. 1.     Arrest and remand in pre-trial detention 50.     Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Constitution provided that no one could be deprived of liberty for more than twenty-four hours from the time of arrest without review by a judge. That period has recently been extended to forty-eight hours by an amendment to Article 12 on 24   October 2017. 51.     An individual in respect of whom there are serious suspicions creating a presumption that he has committed an offence may be deprived of his liberty and remanded in pre-trial detention ( détention préventive ), which is governed by the Law of 20 July 1990 on pre-trial detention. 52.     Upon arrest, a record must be drawn up mentioning the time and circumstances of the arrest, the decision and measures taken by the Crown Prosecutor, the manner of their notification, and the precise time at which the person is notified of the decision to arrest (sections 1 and 2 of the Law on pre-trial detention). 53.     During the above-mentioned twenty-four-hour period, at the time, the person concerned would usually undergo a police interview and an initial examination by the investigating judge, after which an arrest warrant could be issued. The provision requiring the investigating judge to conduct this initial examination was section 16(2) of the Law on pre-trial detention, which read as follows prior to its amendment by the “Salduz Act” (see paragraphs   72-77 below): “(2)     Unless the person charged is a fugitive or is evading arrest, the investigating judge shall, before issuing an arrest warrant, question that person about the facts forming the basis for the charges and potentially justifying an arrest warrant, and hear his or her observations. Failure to question the person charged shall entail his or her release. The investigating judge shall also notify the person charged about the possibility that an arrest warrant might be issued for his or her detention and hear his or her observations on that matter. Failure to satisfy these conditions shall entail the person’s release. ...” 54.     It was inferred from the silence of those provisions of the Law on pre-trial detention, and from the secrecy of the preliminary police investigation and judicial pre-trial investigation (under Article   28 quinquies , §   1, first paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure) that the arrested person could not be accompanied by a lawyer during the twenty-four-hour period in question. Nor was the arrested person entitled to consult with a lawyer, the right to communicate freely with a lawyer only being granted at the end of the first appearance before the investigating judge, which had to take place within a twenty-four-hour period (see paragraph 55 below). 2.     Judicial pre-trial investigation phase 55.     Section 20 of the Law on pre-trial detention, on which the right to consult and communicate freely with a lawyer was based, was worded as follows, in its relevant part, prior to its amendment by the “Salduz Act”: “(1)     Immediately after the first interview [ sic ], the person charged may communicate freely with his or her lawyer. ... (5)     The investigating judge’s decision to restrict visits, correspondence and telephone calls shall not alter the rights of the person charged as regards the possibilities of consulting with his or her lawyer. ...” 56.     That provision, appearing in Chapter III of the Law on arrest warrants issued by the investigating judge, referred not to the first police interview but to the first examination by the investigating judge. 57.     During that first appearance, the investigating judge was required to notify the person charged that he had the right to choose a lawyer. If the person did not choose a lawyer, the investigating judge would inform the Chair of the Bar Council or his deputy (section 16(4) of the Law on pre ‑ trial detention). 58.     Free communication consisted mainly in the possibility for the lawyer to visit his client in prison, to read the investigation file made available to the accused and to counsel for a period of two days prior to any hearings (section 21(3) of the Law on pre-trial detention) and to assist the client on a monthly basis before the chambre du conseil of the Court of First Instance in order to discuss any serous indications of guilt and/or the need to maintain the detention measure (section 22, fourth paragraph, of the Law). No later than five days after the notification of the arrest warrant and every month thereafter, or in the case of serious charges every three months (section 22, first and second paragraphs, of the Law), the competent chambre du conseil had to rule on the need to extend the detention. During that hearing the person charged was assisted by his lawyer and was entitled to ask the investigating judge for additional acts to be performed (Article   61 quinquies , § 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 59.     The right to communicate with the lawyer did not mean that the latter could attend any subsequent police interviews or examinations by an investigating judge or any other investigative acts during the judicial investigation stage such as reconstructions or confrontations. The Court of Cassation took the view that the secrecy imposed by Article   28 quinquies   §   1, first paragraph, and Article 57   §   1, first paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure precluded, as a rule, the presence of the lawyer at any acts of the preliminary police investigation or judicial pre ‑ trial investigation (see, among other authorities, Court of Cassation, 26   May 2010, in the applicant’s case – paragraph 48 above). 60.     The main exception was the possibility for the lawyer to attend the recapitulatory examination by the investigating judge, as provided for in section   22, second paragraph, of the Law on pre-trial detention, which read as follows before being amended by the “Salduz Act”: “At the request of the person charged or his counsel, the investigating judge shall summon the person charged ten days prior to each appearance before the chambre du conseil , or the Indictment Division ruling in cases remitted to it in accordance with section 31(4), for a recapitulatory examination; the clerk shall immediately notify the summons, in writing or by fax, to the lawyer of the person charged and to the Crown Prosecutor, both of whom may attend the said examination.” 3.     Formalities to be observed during interviews and examinations 61.     Section 16(7) of the Law on pre-trial detention, prior to its amendment by the “Salduz Act”, provided that the record of the first examination by the investigating judge of the person charged, together with the records of all police interviews with the person charged between the time he was deprived of liberty and his first appearance before the investigating judge, had to mention the time at which the interview started and finished, together with the time of the beginning and end of any interruptions. On the notification of the arrest warrant, a copy of the statement to the investigating judge and copies of other documents listed in section 16(7) (cited above) were to be given to the person charged in accordance with section 18(2) of the Law. 62.     Article 47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure further laid down certain rules to be complied with by the police or prosecutor for the organisation of any interviews during the preliminary investigation phase and for the drafting of the interview records. Under Article 70 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same rules applied to questioning at the pre-trial investigation stage, in particular the examinations by the investigating judge. 63.     Prior to its amendment by the “Salduz Act”, Article 47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure read as follows: “For the purposes of interviews conducted with any persons questioned in any capacity whatsoever, the following minimum rules shall be complied with: 1.     At the beginning of any interview, the person interviewed shall be informed: (a)     that he or she may request that all questions put and answers given be recorded verbatim; (b)     that he or she may request any investigative act or interview; (c)     that his or her statements may be given in evidence at trial. ...” 64.     The express notification to the person interviewed that his or her statements might be given in evidence at trial was regarded as indirectly enshrining the right to remain silent in Belgian legislation. Such right was not provided for expressly in Belgian law at the relevant time, even though it was one of the defence rights and, according to the Court of Cassation, was part of the general principles of law (Court of Cassation, 13   May 1986, Pasicrisie , 1986-I, no. 558). 65.     Article 47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provided that at the end of the interview, the person interviewed had to be able to read over the statement, unless he or she asked for it to be read out. He or she then had to be asked if the statement should be corrected or complemented. The person interviewed was free to sign the statement or to refuse to do so. He or she could also ask to write it out himself or herself and to request that it be attached to the interview record. B.     Development of the Court of Cassation’s case-law after the Salduz judgment 66.     Following the Salduz judgment, the Court of Cassation was, on a number of occasions, called upon to examine – in cases concerning both pre-trial detention and the merits of a criminal prosecution – legal argument based on an alleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 or 3 (c) of the Convention on the ground that the suspect had not had legal assistance during his or her time in police custody or when questioned by the police or investigating judge. 67.     The Court of Cassation took the view that, although Belgian law did not provide for the presence of a lawyer alongside a suspect from the time of his deprivation of liberty, that did not automatically give rise to a violation of the right to a fair trial. In the court’s view, that restriction had to be assessed in the light of the proceedings as a whole and of the statutory safeguards generally afforded to the accused in order to ensure respect for his or her defence rights from the time of the decision to prosecute. In that connection the court referred in particular to the following safeguards provided for under Belgian law: (a)     the formalities imposed for the interview of the suspect under Article   47 bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (b)     the brevity of the police custody period under the Constitution (Article   12   §   3); (c)     the immediate remittance to the person charged, upon notification of the arrest warrant, of his interview records; (d)     the right of the person charged to communicate immediately with his lawyer after his first examination by the investigating judge; (e)     access to the file prior to appearance before the pre-trial court; (f)     the lawyer’s presence at the recapitulatory examination. 68.     The Court of Cassation would then verify in concreto if the suspect had made self-incriminating statements without legal assistance during the first police interviews and examinations by the investigating judge, and if so whether those statements had been used by the trial court to find the defendant guilty, and more generally, whether the initial absence of legal assistance had adversely affected the fairness of the trial in the light of the proceedings as a whole. 69.     In a judgment of 5   May 2010 the Court of Cassation thus saw fit, on the first appeal it had received against such a conviction, to examine “whether the interviews [with the accused], without a lawyer being present, conducted by the federal criminal investigation police ... and by the investigating judge ... [had] had any impact on the conduct of the trial” (Court of Cassation 5 May 2010 P.10.0257.F; see also Court of Cassation, 26   May 2010 (in the applicant’s case, see paragraph 48 above), and Court of Cassation, 22   June 2010, P.10.0872.N). 70.     In a judgment of 15 December 2010 (P.10.0914.F), the Court of Cassation quashed for the first time, on account of a violation of Article   6 of the Convention, a trial court decision relying on self-incriminating statements given to the police by a suspect in police custody without any possibility of legal assistance. In response to the appellant’s ground of appeal criticising the judgment for basing his conviction in particular on the statements he had made to the investigators and to the investigating judge in the interviews conducted during the twenty-four-hour period after being taken into custody, the Court of Cassation found, in particular, as follows: “The right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ..., implies that the person arrested or held at the disposal of the courts should have the effective assistance of a lawyer during the police interview which takes place within twenty ‑ four hours after he or she is taken into custody, unless it is shown, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, that there are compelling reasons to restrict such right. In so far as it allows such access to a lawyer only after the first examination by the investigating judge, section 20(1) of the Law of 20 July 1990 on pre-trial detention must be regarded as incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention. The fairness of a criminal trial should be assessed in the light of the proceedings as a whole, by ascertaining whether the defence rights have been observed, examining whether the person charged has had the possibility of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use, verifying whether the circumstances in which evidence for the prosecution has been obtained cast doubt on its credibility or accuracy, and assessing the influence of any unlawfully obtained evidence on the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The evidence in the file shows that the appellant challenged, before the trial court, the charges of rape and indecent assault laid against him and of which the first respondent claimed to have been the victim at a time when, as a minor, he could not legally have consented to the sexual acts thus characterised. In support of their conviction as to the appellant’s guilt, the judges of the Court of Appeal noted that, until his release by the investigating judge, the suspect had gradually confessed to the acts described by the complainant before calling everything into question and seeking his acquittal in the trial court. To explain this change of position, the judgment took the view ... that the appellant had probably not perceived the significance in criminal law of the acts that he had admitted committing, being unaware that oral penetration was also characterised as rape. Therefore in giving the statement in question, during police custody and without legal assistance, the suspect had incriminated himself because he did not have the legal knowledge which would have enabled him to put his words into a different perspective. The appellant’s confession and the reason for its withdrawal justify, according to the judgment, the fact of not giving credence to his claims that the accusations against him were mere fiction. Self-incriminating statements given to the police within twenty-four h