CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 16 November 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34779/09 Dimitar Kirov MITEV against Bulgaria lodged on 22 April 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dimitar Kirov Mitev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Varna Prison. He is represented before the Court by Ms S. Stefanova and Mr M. Ekimdzhiev, lawyers practising in Plovdiv. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 21 June 2006 the applicant was arrested in connection with the murder of a 75-year-old lady committed three days earlier in Varna. It was noted in the report drawn up in relation to the relevant police operation that he had “slightly resisted” arrest, and that force had been used in order to handcuff him. After that, the applicant was held in the police station in the town of Valchi Dol, where he was visited by police officers K. and V. In a conversation with them he allegedly confessed to having committed the murder, describing in detail his actions in the days preceding his arrest. Later on that same day the applicant was transferred to a police station in Varna, where at around 7 p.m. he was examined by a doctor. The examination identified bruises and haematomas on his right elbow, right flank, buttocks and wrists, which, according to the doctor, had been caused by hard, blunt objects less than twenty-four hours earlier. On 22 June 2006 the applicant had charges brought against him in relation to another offence, an unrelated theft. It appears that he remained in detention in the context of these proceedings. It is unclear what their subsequent course was. Although the murder investigation continued over the months which followed, the applicant only had charges relating to the offence brought against him on 18 December 2006. On that occasion he had a lawyer, retained by him on the same day, who also attended his subsequent interview with the investigator in charge of the case. After the investigation in the murder case was completed, on 8 March 2007 the evidence collected was disclosed to the applicant and his lawyer. On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant was indicted and taken to court. During the trial he denied having committed the murder, and claimed that he had made the confession on the day of his arrest after officers K. and V. had beaten and threatened him. Even though it appears that at that time the applicant had signed a written confession drawn up by the officers, the document was not presented. Instead, the trial court heard witness evidence from the officers, who described in detail what the applicant had told them and the measures they had taken as a result of his description of the events in order to identify further witnesses and evidence. In a judgment of 11 February 2008 the Varna Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It relied on the evidence given by officers K. and V., and did not comment on the applicant’s claims that they had beaten and threatened him. The remaining evidence relied on was mostly indirect. In submissions to the Varna Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation, the defence claimed once again that the applicant’s confession, as recounted by the officers, had been made under duress. However, those courts also did not comment on that issue, dealing instead with the question of whether the statutory prohibition on hearing people who had participated in the proceedings in another procedural capacity as witnesses (Article 118 §   1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) had been complied with. In judgments given on 30 May and 13 November 2008 respectively those courts upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts relied on the testimony given by police officers K. and V. as key evidence, and claims that the confession referred to by them was made after they had beaten and threatened him. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, he also complains that he did not have a legal representative following his arrest. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, particularly in view of the national courts’ reliance on his confession made in front of police officers K. and V.? Was that confession made under duress? Did the authorities have compelling reasons for their failure to provide any procedural guarantees, particularly access to a lawyer, during the applicant’s interview with officers K. and V.?