CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 }   Communicated on 20 October 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2166/15 Amet ZIBERI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 29 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings where the applicant, who suffers from a mental handicap, was convicted for murder and attempted murder and placed under mandatory psychiatric treatment. As established by the domestic courts, the applicant had stopped a car driven by the victim and fired a firearm in the direction of the victim and J.T., who was at the co-driver seat, thereby killing the first and injuring the latter. J.T., a citizen of Albania, being the only eyewitness of the event, gave a statement during the investigation and identified the applicant in the police photographs as the perpetrator of the crime in the absence of the applicant of his representative. The domestic courts made several attempts to secure his presence at the trial, but eventually proceeded without hearing him in adversarial proceedings. His statement given in the investigative stage, including the photo identification, was read by the trial court and was the key evidence relied on by the court deciding to convict the applicant. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, was the failure of the domestic courts to examine J.T., whose evidence was used against the applicant, compatible with Article   6 § 3 (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011, Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.   9 154/10 , §§ 100 - 131, ECHR 2015 and Trampevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 4570/07, 10 July 2012)?