CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sEAE3FFDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2BF5EB6D { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 7 September 2020 Published on 28 September 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24425/15 Marzpetuni AVUSHYAN against Armenia lodged on 11 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his alleged inability to examine key witness V.M. and his conviction based on the pre-trial statements of his co ‑ accused H.U. and A.S. which had been retracted in court. The applicant relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was the use of the applicant’s co-accused H.U.’s and A.S.’s pre-trial statements by the Armavir Regional Court to secure the applicant’s conviction in breach of his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given that those statements had been retracted during the trial (see Makeyan and Others v. Armenia , no. 46435/09, §§ 37-48, 5   December 2019; Vidgen v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 68328/17, §§ 34-43, 8 January 2012; and Camilleri v. Malta (dec.), no. 51760/99, 16 March 2000)? (b)     Did the fact that the applicant was not able to obtain the attendance and examination of witness V.M. at his trial violate his rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-131, ECHR 2015)?