CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDC0F5DF3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD07F445C { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5EEB06B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5CDD36FB { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s45FB09F0 { margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; font-size:12pt } .sCDC5DB60 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA98445F2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sC7F8CD86 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sBFF5866E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sB1EBC469 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s8113DDA4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9027DC3E { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1B4B7E4 { margin-left:8.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD8E89A4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s24AEEE00 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B01FAF { margin-left:8.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; line-height:113%; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF72608 { margin-left:51.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD27F934 { margin-left:51.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s9EB4E4F7 { margin-bottom:6pt; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; list-style-position:outside } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE90F9680 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s90F99091 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA0B2652E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7B868B6A { width:9.85pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8EEF439B { width:24.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s693BA7F2 { width:139.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDD4BB562 { width:110.3%; border-collapse:collapse } .s908C5B36 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sE223A96E { width:27.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s59B6916F { width:20.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD4E2565B { width:16.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s26BABCBD { width:26.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s55C86652 { width:8.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB703B715 { width:27.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2BD3CA11 { width:20.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53A86866 { width:16.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB467FB7E { width:26.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FOURTH SECTION CASE OF VASILE PRUTEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 9308/18)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (d) • Fair hearing • Examination of witnesses • Equality of arms • Applicants’ inability to challenge witness statements in court proceedings, leading to their convictions for human trafficking and pimping, given during a criminal investigation and before a Moldovan court • Good reasons for the witnesses’ non-attendance • Need to protect victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation • Statements, albeit important, not sole nor decisive basis for convictions • Sufficient counterbalancing factors allowing for fair and proper assessment of reliability of untested evidence • Defence rights not restricted to an extent incompatible with Art   6 guarantees   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 14 January 2025   FINAL   14/04/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vasile Pruteanu and Others v. Romania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Lado Chanturia , President ,   Tim Eicke,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Anja Seibert-Fohr   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   9308/18) against Romania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Romanian nationals, Mr   Vasile Pruteanu (“the first applicant”), Ms Tatiana Pruteanu (“the second applicant”) and Mr Vasile Pruteanu (“the third applicant”), on 31   January 2018; the decision to give notice to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 10 December 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the applicants’ criminal convictions on the basis of witness statements which they did not have the opportunity to test. It also concerns the allegation that certain judges should have withdrawn from sitting in the case. The Government were given notice of the application under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The first applicant is the second and third applicants’ son. They were represented by Ms   A.   Dîlgoci, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms   O.F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BRAŞOV COUNTY COURT 5 .     On 11 February 2013 the prosecutor’s office committed the applicants for trial before the Braşov County Court on charges of human trafficking and pimping, in relation to acts allegedly performed by some of the individuals they had hired as masseuses in the three massage parlours they owned in Romania. Several of the masseuses had been recruited from the Republic of Moldova. The prosecutor relied on the transcripts of intercepted telephone communications, the reports on searches carried out at the applicants’ homes and massage parlours, victim interviews (including those carried out via letters of request ( comisie rogatorie ) sent to the Republic of Moldova), witness statements and the reports written by two undercover police officers who had visited the massage parlours to enquire about the services offered. Five of the Moldovan masseuses, M.O., L.R., B.N.V., C.L.C. and Z.O., became civil parties to the proceedings. 6 .     On 12 February 2013 Judge B.B. of the County Court placed the applicants in pre-trial detention. On 15 February 2013 a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal, on which Judge S.F. sat, upheld that order. 7 .     On 20 March 2013 the applicants’ lawyer complained to the County Court that the letter-of-request proceedings (see paragraph 5 above) had been unlawful, notably because he had not been present during the witness interviews and the Moldovan prosecutor’s office charged with collecting the witnesses’ statements had lacked jurisdiction for that purpose. For those reasons, he asked the court to declare the proceedings relating to the letters of request null and void. The prosecutor replied that those interviews had been organised in accordance with proper procedure and the applicable Moldovan law and that, in addition, a member of the investigation team from the Romanian prosecutor’s office had been present during the interviews in the Republic of Moldova. The court examined the complaint and found that the investigation had complied with the legal requirements. It therefore recognised the witness statements as valid and dismissed the request to send the case back to the prosecutor’s office to start the investigation afresh. The court further noted that some of those witnesses had later reiterated their statements before the court. 8 .     Between 4 April and 17 September 2013 the County Court (Judge B.B. – see paragraph 6 above) heard statements from two of the five civil parties (M.O. and L.R. – see paragraph 5 in fine above) and the witnesses (other women who had worked for the applicants either as masseuses or receptionists, as well as some of the clients of the massage parlours) in the presence of the applicants and their lawyers who were able to put questions to the witnesses. The remaining civil parties (B.N.V., C.L.C. and Z.O.) were not examined by the court, as they were not in Romania during the proceedings. 9 .     The civil parties examined declared that the applicants had promised them jobs as cleaners or receptionists. Some of the civil parties declared that the applicants had helped them obtain their passports or visa for Romania (M.O., L.R. and B.N.V.) and had transported them to the applicants’ various properties in Romania (M.O., L.R., B.N.V. and C.L.C.). They had felt threatened as their passports had been taken by the applicants (M.O.) or they had been left without identify papers (Z.O.) and their activity had been monitored by the applicants (M.O., Z.O., B.N.V.). Once they had arrived in Romania, however, the women had been put to work as masseuses and M.O. declared that she had only been allowed to leave the house in the applicants’ presence. They felt financially dependent on the applicants who also threatened some of them (M.O., Z.O., B.N.V. and C.L.C.) that if they did not comply, their families would be told about what they were doing in Romania. Their subordinate status had led them to feel pressured by the second applicant to give erotic massages to, and even have sexual intercourse with, clients of the massage parlours. The statements collected by the prosecutor’s office from the absent civil parties, which were available in the file, recounted the same version of events. 10 .     Some twenty masseuses (mainly Romanian nationals) gave statements, all indicating that they had either chosen to perform sexual acts, or had at least been aware of them being offered, in the massage parlours. Eleven clients were also examined by the court, and all declared that they either had had sexual intercourse with the masseuses or had been offered it but had refused. 11 .     One of the witnesses interviewed during the criminal investigation, who had been placed under protection by the prosecutor’s office and referred to as “Maria” throughout the proceedings, did not appear in court. She and her lawyer were contacted on several occasions by the police and the prosecutor’s office on behalf of the court. On 6 June 2013 Maria informed the prosecutor that she had returned to the Republic of Moldova and that, in order to protect her mental health, her psychiatrist had advised against her reliving the events. On 11   November 2013 she further submitted, through her lawyer, that her health did not allow her to travel to Romania (as she was about to undergo a scheduled surgical operation). At a hearing which took place on 12   November 2013 the court noted that it had become objectively impossible to hear new evidence from Maria and decided to take into account, for the purpose of the deliberations, the statements she had made during the investigation stage of the proceedings which were available in the file. 12 .     The County Court examined the evidence. In addition to the witness and civil-party statements, it had at its disposal: the job advertisements for receptionist positions, placed by the applicants in Moldovan newspapers, which led to the hirings at issue; the advertisements, placed by the applicants in Romanian newspapers, for erotic massages in their massage parlours and jobs for erotic masseuses and erotic dancers, all having the second applicant as the contact person; the transcripts of discussions on various online forums among clients about sexual acts being offered in the applicants’ massage parlours; the transcripts of the applicants’ intercepted telephone conversations, which had been authorised by the court during the investigation; the reports written by the undercover police officers (paragraph   5 above); and the material evidence seized in the massage parlours, notably condoms and sex toys. 13 .     The applicants and their counsel were present and able to actively participate throughout the proceedings. They denied having committed any crime and contested the factual situation presented by the civil parties and some of the witnesses. 14 .     On 23 December 2013 the County Court (Judge B.B. – see paragraphs   6 and 8 above) convicted the second and third applicants of eight acts of pimping and six acts of human trafficking, sentencing the second applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment and the third applicant to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The first applicant was convicted of four acts of human trafficking and three acts of pimping and was given a three ‑ year suspended prison sentence. 15 .     The court found, based on the evidence in the file, that the applicants had lured the victims to go with them to Romania under false promises of lawful employment with their company. As they had not had Romanian nationality or identity papers, a work permit, or any money of their own, the victims had been in a vulnerable situation and depended on the applicants, who had exploited that situation. The court further observed that the applicants had facilitated opportunities for their masseuses to have sexual intercourse with clients of the massage parlours in exchange for money, of which they had retained a significant percentage (according to the statements given by the masseuses in the proceedings up to 70% of the money paid by the clients). 16.     The five civil parties (see paragraph 5 in fine above) were awarded 10,000   euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.       PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BRAŞOV COURT OF APPEAL 17 .     The applicants and the prosecutor appealed and the case was heard by a two-judge panel of the Braşov Court of Appeal on which Judge S.F. (see paragraph 6 above) was sitting. The applicants and their counsel were present and able to actively participate throughout the proceedings. 18 .     The applicants contested the manner in which the County Court had established the facts and interpreted the evidence, as well the outcome of the case. In their written pleadings of 19 March 2014 (reasons for appeal) and 26   May 2016 (written conclusions for the purpose of the deliberations) they provided their own version of the facts and their own interpretation of the evidence. 19 .     They also pointed out that three of the civil parties (B.N.V., C.L.C. and Z.O. – see paragraph 5 in fine above), as well as the protected witness, Maria (see paragraph 11 above), had not been heard by the County Court. They complained that the statements made by those individuals during the investigation had been used by the court to secure their convictions. 20 .     The applicants asked for several witnesses to be examined again by the court, proposed new witnesses and asked that the intercepted telephone conversations which had been used as evidence (see paragraph 5 above), as well as their transcripts, be heard in open court. From the documents submitted it does not follow that the applicants complained that the county court would have failed to read out the statements made during the investigation by the absent witnesses. The court allowed some of the applicants’ requests in respect of the evidence. In particular, it decided to send letters of request to the Republic of Moldova where the absent civil parties were believed to be, in order to summon them and two witnesses proposed by the applicants (C.A. and U.O.) to a hearing and examine the additional witnesses proposed by the applicants. 21 .     The Court of Appeal heard statements from the applicants and from several witnesses. As some of the intercepted telephone conversations contested by the applicants had been held in Russian, they were heard by the court in the presence of a Russian-language interpreter. 22 .     Throughout the proceedings the Court of Appeal repeatedly summoned Maria (see paragraph 11 above) and tried by various means to secure her presence, including by ordering the police to escort her to the hearing. However, her lawyer repeatedly stated that she was not in Romania and that her health prevented her from attending the court hearings. Her lawyer also confirmed that she maintained the statements made during the investigation. In two new written statements presented to the court, Maria explained that she had suffered tremendously at the hands of the applicants and was unwilling to relive that physical and psychological trauma (a written statement was handed to the police on 5 June 2014 and a statement made before a notary on 16 September 2014). 23 .     The applicants’ lawyer asked for T.N., whom they believed was the protected witness Maria, to be interviewed via the letter-of-request procedure (see paragraph 5 above). The prosecutor refused to reveal Maria’s identity and explained that she had to remain protected throughout the proceedings. The prosecutor further argued, and the court agreed, that hearing a new witness, T.N., was not relevant for the present proceedings as she could bring nothing new to the discussion. 24 .     B.N.V. (see paragraph 5 in fine above) and two witnesses proposed by the applicants (C.A. and U.O.) were examined by a court in the Republic of Moldova; the Court of Appeal had previously transmitted to that court, by means of a letter of request, the questions formulated by all parties to the proceedings. 25 .     B.N.V. maintained her statements given during the investigation, and confirmed before the court acting on the letter of request that during her stay in Romania, the second applicant had taken her passport; had monitored all her movements and telephone conversations; had forced her to have intimate relations with clients of the massage parlour; and had threatened to tell her family in the Republic of Moldova about what she had been doing in the massage parlour. 26 .     U.O. (see paragraph 24 above) declared, before the above-mentioned court and in the applicants’ presence, that she had willingly performed erotic massages and sexual acts and had received 30% of the amount paid by the clients for her services. C.A. (see paragraph 24 above) stated, in the applicants’ presence, that she had visited the applicants in Romania and met some of the civil parties, but had not known that acts of prostitution had been taking place in the massage parlours. 27 .     Some of the witnesses proposed by the applicants declared before the Court of Appeal that they had not known that acts of prostitution had been taking place in the massage parlours. Others stated that they had been aware that the civil parties had been performing erotic massages but had believed they had been doing them willingly, as they had not shown any signs of coercion or fear towards the applicants. 28 .     The court examined in detail the evidence before it. It noted that the applicants were able to participate in the proceedings following the letters of request, either by addressing their questions to the Court of Appeal (for B.N.V. – see paragraph 24 above), or by physically attending the interviews before the requested court (see paragraph 26 above), and that those proceedings complied with the law. 29 .     Noting the provisions of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57, (“the Victims’ Rights Directive” – see paragraph 41 below), and bearing in mind the vulnerability of victims of human trafficking and the need to avoid secondary victimisation, the court recognised the statements made by B.N.V. to the requested court as valid; it observed that she had provided answers to all the questions raised by the applicants in writing. Moreover, the evidence she had given was consistent with the remaining evidence in the file. 30 .     Citing the principles of the same Directive, the court recognised the statements given by Maria in the course of the proceedings (see paragraphs   11 and 22 above) as valid. The court observed that although she had been summoned to appear at every hearing, and despite the additional measures taken to secure her attendance, she had failed to appear in court. However, she had consistently informed the courts that she maintained the statements given during the investigation, and those statements recounted the same facts as those in the statements made by the other women who had worked for the applicants. 31 .     The court also noted that two of the civil parties, Z.O. and C.L.C. (see paragraphs 5 in fine and 19 above), could not be examined either directly or by way of letters of request, as they had left their home country (the Republic of Moldova) and their whereabouts were unknown to the Moldovan authorities. In addition, at that time Moldovan courts were not equipped with video-conferencing systems, therefore hearing the parties via the letter ‑ of ‑ request procedure would have taken several months, significantly extending the length of the proceedings. 32 .     It therefore examined the statements those individuals had given during the criminal investigation (directly or before the requested authorities in the Republic of Moldova in the case of Z.O. and C.L.C.) and concluded that they corroborated the remaining evidence. The court observed that the statements given by Z.O. and C.L.C. before the prosecutor in Moldova, following the letters of request issued by the Romanian prosecutor, presented the same situation as that which appeared from Maria’s statements and from the remaining evidence examined by the court (notably other witness statements, and the evidence described in paragraph   12 above). 33 .     The court concluded that the evidence in the file supported the County Court’s findings of fact. It thus found that the applicants had promised the women administrative jobs, food, lodgings and money to apply for Romanian visas. Once they arrived in Romania with the applicants, they had been placed in a vulnerable position, at the applicants’ mercy, without valid identity documents and money, and without the option of seeking other employment. Moreover the second applicant had threatened some of the women, telling them that she would expose them to their families. They had therefore been, at the very least, emotionally coerced into prostitution. 34 .     Consequently, by a final decision of 29 June 2016 the court upheld the findings of criminal liability. It reduced the sentence to three years each for the second and third applicants, and to a two-year suspended sentence for the first applicant. It also reduced the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage to EUR 5,000 for each of the five civil parties. 35.     The decision was made available to the parties on 31 July 2017. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK         DOMESTIC LAW 36 .     Article 64 § 4 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the new CCP”), as in force since 1 February 2014, provides that a judge who decided on the arrest and detention of an individual during the criminal investigation ( judecătorul de drepturi şi libertăţi ) is not able to participate in the same proceedings as a pre ‑ trial judge ( judecător de cameră preliminară ) or a judge examining the same case at first instance ( instanţă de fond ) or at the appeal stage ( instanţă de apel ) of the proceedings in question. A similar provision was present in Article 48 § 1 (a) of the old CCP which remained in force until 31 January 2014. 37 .     Article 51 of the old CCP, and now Article 67 of the new CCP, allowed for the recusal of a judge who, despite being disqualified to hear the case, failed to withdraw from the proceedings. 38 .     The relevant provisions of the CPP (both its old and new versions) concerning the hearing of witnesses are summarised in D and Others v.   Romania (no. 75953/16, § 44, 14 January 2020). In addition, in accordance with Articles 111 § 4 and 123 § 2 of the new CCP, the hearing of the injured party and of the witness, respectively, during the criminal investigation, will be recorded by audio or audio-video technical means if the prosecutor deems it necessary or if the injured party or witness, respectively, expressly requests it, provided that the recording is possible. Furthermore, under Article 381 § 7 of the new CCP, if it is no longer possible to hear a witness who gave a statement during the earlier stages of the proceedings, the court will order that that statement be read out and will take it into account in the examination of the case.       Council of Europe Material 39 .     The Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (“the Anti ‑ Trafficking Convention”), in force since 1 February 2008 both in the Council of Europe and in respect of Romania, reads as follows in so far as relevant (for further details, see S.M. v. Croatia ([GC], no. 60561/14, §§   152 ‑ 71, 25   June 2020): Article 11 – Protection of private life “(1)     Each Party shall protect the private life and identity of victims. Personal data regarding them shall be stored and used in conformity with the conditions provided for by the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108). (2)     Each Party shall adopt measures to ensure, in particular, that the identity, or details allowing the identification, of a child victim of trafficking are not made publicly known, through the media or by any other means, except, in exceptional circumstances, in order to facilitate the tracing of family members or otherwise secure the well-being and protection of the child. (3)     Each Party shall consider adopting, in accordance with Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, measures aimed at encouraging the media to protect the private life and identity of victims through self-regulation or through regulatory or co-regulatory measures.” Article 12 – Assistance to victims “1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery. Such assistance shall include at least: ... (e)     assistance to enable their rights and interests to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of criminal proceedings against offenders; ...” Article 30 – Court proceedings “In accordance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in particular Article 6, each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure in the course of judicial proceedings: (a)     the protection of victims’ private life and, where appropriate, identity; (b)     victims’ safety and protection from intimidation, in accordance with the conditions under its internal law and, in the case of child victims, by taking special care of children’s needs and ensuring their right to special protection measures.” 40.     The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly adopted several recommendations concerning trafficking and criminalisation of pimping, summarised in S.M. v. Croatia (cited above, §§   173-80).     European Union Law 41 .     Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57 (“the Victims’ Rights Directive” – see paragraph 29 above) , in so far as relevant, provides as follows: “Whereas: ... 12.     The rights set out in this Directive are without prejudice to the rights of the offender. The term ‘offender’ refers to a person who has been convicted of a crime. However, for the purposes of this Directive, it also refers to a suspected or accused person before any acknowledgement of guilt or conviction, and it is without prejudice to the presumption of innocence. ... 41.     The right of victims to be heard should be considered to have been fulfilled where victims are permitted to make statements or explanations in writing. ... 53.     The risk of secondary and repeat victimisation, of intimidation and of retaliation by the offender or as a result of participation in criminal proceedings should be limited by carrying out proceedings in a coordinated and respectful manner, enabling victims to establish trust in authorities. Interaction with competent authorities should be as easy as possible whilst limiting the number of unnecessary interactions the victim has with them through, for example, video recording of interviews and allowing its use in court proceedings. As wide a range of measures as possible should be made available to practitioners to prevent distress to the victim during court proceedings in particular as a result of visual contact with the offender, his or her family, associates or members of the public. To that end, Member States should be encouraged to introduce, especially in relation to court buildings and police stations, feasible and practical measures enabling the facilities to include amenities such as separate entrances and waiting areas for victims. In addition, Member States should, to the extent possible, plan the criminal proceedings so that contacts between victims and their family members and offenders are avoided, such as by summoning victims and offenders to hearings at different times. ... 57.     Victims of human trafficking, terrorism, organised crime, violence in close relationships, sexual violence or exploitation, gender-based violence, hate crime, and victims with disabilities and child victims tend to experience a high rate of secondary and repeat victimisation, of intimidation and of retaliation. Particular care should be taken when assessing whether such victims are at risk of such victimisation, intimidation and of retaliation and there should be a strong presumption that those victims will benefit from special protection measures.” Article 18 Right to protection “Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, Member States shall ensure that measures are available to protect victims and their family members from secondary and repeat victimisation, from intimidation and from retaliation, including against the risk of emotional or psychological harm, and to protect the dignity of victims during questioning and when testifying. When necessary, such measures shall also include procedures established under national law for the physical protection of victims and their family members.” Article 19 Right to avoid contact between victim and offender “1.     Member States shall establish the necessary conditions to enable avoidance of contact between victims and their family members, where necessary, and the offender within premises where criminal proceedings are conducted, unless the criminal proceedings require such contact. 2.     Member States shall ensure that new court premises have separate waiting areas for victims.” Article 20 Right to protection of victims during criminal investigations “Without prejudice to the rights of the defence and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion, Member States shall ensure that during criminal investigations: (a)     interviews of victims are conducted without unjustified delay after the complaint with regard to a criminal offence has been made to the competent authority; (b)     the number of interviews of victims is kept to a minimum and interviews are carried out only where strictly necessary for the purposes of the criminal investigation; ...” Article 22 Individual assessment of victims to identify specific protection needs “1.     Member States shall ensure that victims receive a timely and individual assessment, in accordance with national procedures, to identify specific protection needs and to determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures in the course of criminal proceedings, as provided for under Articles 23 and   24, due to their particular vulnerability to secondary and repeat victimisation, to intimidation and to retaliation. ... 3.     In the context of the individual assessment, particular attention shall be paid to victims who have suffered considerable harm due to the severity of the crime; victims who have suffered a crime committed with a bias or discriminatory motive which could, in particular, be related to their personal characteristics; victims whose relationship to and dependence on the offender make them particularly vulnerable. In this regard, victims of terrorism, organised crime, human trafficking, gender-based violence, violence in a close relationship, sexual violence, exploitation or hate crime, and victims with disabilities shall be duly considered. ...” Article 23 Right to protection of victims with specific protection needs during criminal proceedings “1.     Without prejudice to the rights of the defence and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion, Member States shall ensure that victims with specific protection needs who benefit from special measures identified as a result of an individual assessment provided for in Article 22(1), may benefit from the measures provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article. A special measure envisaged following the individual assessment shall not be made available if operational or practical constraints make this impossible, or where there is a an urgent need to interview the victim and failure to do so could harm the victim or another person or could prejudice the course of the proceedings. 2.     The following measures shall be available during criminal investigations to victims with specific protection needs identified in accordance with Article 22(1): (a)     interviews with the victim being carried out in premises designed or adapted for that purpose; (b)     interviews with the victim being carried out by or through professionals trained for that purpose; (c)     all interviews with the victim being conducted by the same persons unless this is contrary to the good administration of justice; (d)     all interviews with victims of sexual violence, gender-based violence or violence in close relationships, unless conducted by a prosecutor or a judge, being conducted by a person of the same sex as the victim, if the victim so wishes, provided that the course of the criminal proceedings will not be prejudiced. 3.     The following measures shall be available for victims with specific protection needs identified in accordance with Article 22(1) during court proceedings: (a)     measures to avoid visual contact between victims and offenders including during the giving of evidence, by appropriate means including the use of communication technology; (b)     measures to ensure that the victim may be heard in the courtroom without being present, in particular through the use of appropriate communication technology; (c)     measures to avoid unnecessary questioning concerning the victim’s private life not related to the criminal offence; and (d)     measures allowing a hearing to take place without the presence of the public.”    UNITED NATIONS INSTRUMENTS 42.     The relevant provisions of the 1949 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others (which was ratified by Romania on 15   February 1955) are described in S.M. v. Croatia (see above, §§   107-08). 43 .     The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNCTOC) was adopted in 2000 and entered into force in 2003. It was ratified by Romania on 4 December 2002. Its relevant provisions read as follows: Article 24. Protection of witnesses “1. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures within its means to provide effective protection from potential retaliation or intimidation for witnesses in criminal proceedings who give testimony concerning offences covered by this Convention and, as appropriate, for their relatives and other persons close to them. 2. The measures envisaged in paragraph 1 of this article may include, inter alia, without prejudice to the rights of the defendant, including the right to due process: (a) Establishing procedures for the physical protection of such persons, such as, to the extent necessary and feasible, relocating them and permitting, where appropriate, non-disclosure or limitations on the disclosure of information concerning the identity and whereabouts of such persons; (b) Providing evidentiary rules to permit witness testimony to be given in a manner that ensures the safety of the witness, such as permitting testimony to be given through the use of communications technology such as video links or other adequate means. 3. States Parties shall consider entering into agreements or arrangements with other States for the relocation of persons referred to in paragraph 1 of this article. 4. The provisions of this article shall also apply to victims insofar as they are witnesses.” Article 25. Assistance to and protection of victims “1. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures within its means to provide assistance and protection to victims of offences covered by this Convention, in particular in cases of threat of retaliation or intimidation. 2. Each State Party shall establish appropriate procedures to provide access to compensation and restitution for victims of offences covered by this Convention. 3. Each State Party shall, subject to its domestic law, enable views and concerns of victims to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of criminal proceedings against offenders in a manner not prejudicial to the rights of the defence.” Article 26. Measures to enhance cooperation with law enforcement authorities “1. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures to encourage persons who participate or who have participated in organized criminal groups: (a) To supply information useful to competent authorities for investigative and evidentiary purposes on such matters as: (i) The identity, nature, composition, structure, location or activities of organized criminal groups; (ii) Links, including international links, with other organized criminal groups; (iii) Offences that organized criminal groups have committed or may commit; (b) To provide factual, concrete help to competent authorities that may contribute to depriving organized criminal groups of their resources or of the proceeds of crime. 2. Each State Party shall consider providing for the possibility, in appropriate cases, of mitigating punishment of an accused person who provides substantial cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of an offence covered by this Convention. 3. Each State Party shall consider providing for the possibility, in accordance with fundamental principles of its domestic law, of granting immunity from prosecution to a person who provides substantial cooperation in the investigation or prosecution of an offence covered by this Convention. 4. Protection of such persons shall be as provided for in article 24 of this Convention. 5. Where a person referred to in paragraph 1 of this article located in one State Party can provide substantial cooperation to the competent authorities of another State Party, the States Parties concerned may consider entering into agreements or arrangements, in accordance with their domestic law, concerning the potential provision by the other State Party of the treatment set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article.” 44 .     The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Protocol) was also adopted in 2000 and entered into force in 2003. Romania ratified it on 4 December 2002. The relevant provisions of the Palermo Protocol are presented in S.M. v.   Croatia (cited above, §§ 109-22). In addition, the Palermo Protocol provides as follows for the protection of victims of trafficking: Article 6. Assistance to and protection of victims of trafficking in persons “1. In appropriate cases and to the extent possible under its domestic law, each State Party shall protect the privacy and identity of victims of trafficking in persons, including, inter alia, by making legal proceedings relating to such trafficking confidential. 2. Each State Party shall ensure that its domestic legal or administrative system contains measures that provide to victims of trafficking in persons, in appropriate cases: (a) Information on relevant court and administrative proceedings; (b) Assistance to enable their views and concerns to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of criminal proceedings against offenders, in a manner not prejudicial to the rights of the defence. 3. Each State Party shall consider implementing measures to provide for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims of trafficking in persons, including, in appropriate cases, in cooperation with non-governmental organizations, other relevant organizations and other elements of civil society, and, in particular, the provision of: (a) Appropriate housing; (b) Counselling and information, in particular as regards their legal rights, in a language that the victims of trafficking in persons can understand; (c) Medical, psychological and material assistance; and (d) Employment, educational and training opportunities. 4. Each State Party shall take into account, in applying the provisions of this article, the age, gender and special needs of victims of trafficking in persons, in particular the special needs of children, including appropriate housing, education and care. 5. Each State Party shall endeavour to provide for the physical safety of victims of trafficking in persons while they are within its territory. 6. Each State Party shall ensure that its domestic legal system contains measures that offer victims of trafficking in persons the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage suffered.” 45.     The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly and ratified by Romania on 7 January 1982. The relevant provisions of CEDAW as well as those of the additional documents adopted by UN were summarised in S.M. v.   Croatia (cited above, §§ 1