CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 septembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s8235E78A { height:14.2pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s26ACE78A { height:13.4pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)171 [1]   Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights S.C. against the United Kingdom   (Application No. 60958/00 judgment of 15 June 2004, final on 10 November 2004)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial as a result of criminal proceedings against him in the Crown Court (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)171   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of S.C. against the United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial as a result of criminal proceedings against him in the Crown Court in 1999. The applicant was 11 years old at the time of the trial and had a low level of intellectual ability for his age.   The Court recalled that while the attribution of criminal responsibility to a child of eleven years does not in itself give rise to a breach of the Convention, it is essential that the child is dealt with in a manner which takes full account of his or her age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps are taken to promote his or her ability to understand and participate in the proceedings. Despite the measures taken to make the procedure more informal and to explain the court process to the applicant in a manner commensurate with his learning difficulties and age, the Court was not convinced that the applicant was capable of participating effectively in his trial to the extent required by the Convention (violation of Article 6, paragraph1)     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total -- - 5   315 EUR 5   315 EUR Paid on 01/02/2005   b) Individual measures   Following the European Court’s judgment in June 2004, the applicant had the possibility to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to seek referral of his case to the Court of Appeal. The applicant applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2005. Further information on the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be found at www.ccrc.gov.uk .   The Committee of Ministers considers that no further individual measure is necessary.     II.   General measures   On 16 February 2000 the Lord Chief Justice issued a Practice Direction on the Trial of Children and Young Persons in the Crown Court which advised, inter alia , that there should be seating on the same level, wigs and gowns should be removed, no uniforms in court, frequent breaks, seating family with the defendant, easy communication with legal representatives, most of the media observing only through CCTV, and no members of the public in the courtroom.   In April 2007, the Lord Chief Justice issued a revised Practice Direction setting out the overarching principles that the Crown Court and Magistrates’ courts should apply when dealing with vulnerable defendants, including juveniles. These included steps to be taken to ensure that the defendant understands what is happening and is able to follow court proceedings, and that the trial should be conducted in language that is simple and clear that the defendant can understand. The Practice Direction also includes guidance on support for vulnerable defendants.   Section 47 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 amended the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to provide that certain vulnerable defendants, including juveniles may, with the agreement of the court, give evidence to the court as a witness from outside the court room using a live link. This provision came into force on 15 January 2007.   The judgment of the European Court was published in the European Human Rights Reports at (2005)40 EHRR 10.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 September 2011 at the 1120th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies