CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 5 October 2016   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23369/16 Kastriot JAUPI against Albania lodged on 22 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction and sentence to life imprisonment for premeditated murder in collusion with others and using the firearm of a military officer (ushtarak), attempted premediated murder in collusion with others of the same military officer and a policeman, and illegal possession of firearms. The trial proceedings were held in absentia . QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant exhausted all domestic effective remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as regards his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Would the submission of a second constitutional complaint be effective? 2.     Having regard to the fact that the trial proceedings were held in absentia , do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 6 of the Convention (see, in this connection, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, ECHR 2006-...; Shkalla v. Albania , no. 26866/05, § 60, 10 May 2011 and, Izet Haxhia v. Albania , no. 34783/06, 5 November 2013)? 3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, 15 December 2015)? In particular: (a)     Was the applicant able to examine witnesses R. B. and B. H. at any stage of the proceedings? In this connection, what steps did the domestic authorities take to secure the attendance of those witnesses? (b)     Did the statements of those witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? (c)     What safeguards did the domestic courts put in place to counterbalance the applicant’s alleged inability to cross-examine those witnesses? Was the identification of persons made pursuant to the domestic law? Was the way in which the testimony was taken at trial from the witness B. T. in accordance with the domestic law? (d)     Were the domestic courts’ decisions adequately reasoned? 4.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?