CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 février 2017

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 February 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 41984/08 Emiljano BITANJI against Albania lodged on 9 August 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings (charge of premeditated murder) against the applicant, namely the arbitrary assessment of evidence by the domestic courts. The applicant further complains about the domestic courts’ failure to summon and question a number of witnesses against him, namely A.K., B.K., Bu.K., and E.K.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights as guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, what direct and corroborating evidence was used for the applicant’s conviction (see   Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, 23   October   2012)? 2.     Did the domestic courts rely on the testimony given by A.K on 15   May, 9 June 2000, 21 September and 27 November 2000 at the investigation stage for the applicant’s conviction? If so, was that testimony corroborated by other evidence? During the retrial, did the domestic courts rely on valid and sufficient reasons when rejecting the applicant’s request to summon and hear witness A.K., having regard to a final judgment whereby A.K. had been found guilty of perjury (dëshmi të rreme ) for giving false testimony during the initial trial? Did that testimony serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction? 3.     Did the applicant’s legal representative agree to have the statements made by B.K., Bu.K., and E.K at the investigation stage read out at the trial? Was the applicant able to examine witnesses B.K., Bu.K. and E.K. at any stage of the proceedings? What steps did the domestic authorities take to secure the attendance of those witnesses? Did the statements of those witnesses serve as the sole or decisive evidence for the applicant’s conviction (reference is made, in particular, to Al ‑ Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-147, ECHR 2011; and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, 15 December 2015, §§ 119-131). 4.     Were the domestic courts’ decisions adequately reasoned?