CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 24 November 2020 Published on 14 December 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59748/13 Sefedin DOCI against Albania lodged on 3 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decisions given by the domestic courts, which refused to order a second expert examination of the applicant’s deceased wife and found him guilty of her murder, were not adequately reasoned and amounted to a violation of the principle of equality of arms. The applicant, relying on a number of eye witnesses’ testimonies, including that of doctor L.B. who testified that the victim had been alive by the time he arrived at the applicant’s home and that she died on the way to the hospital, argued that his wife had died as a result of consuming a poisonous substance. However, a forensic expert report concluded that the victim had died from mechanical asphyxiation, and a toxicology expert report did not find any traces of poison in the victim’s stomach. Both expert examinations were performed during the preliminary investigation phase. During the trial, the applicant’s requests for a second expert examination of the victim were rejected and the domestic court sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. The applicant further alleges that separate criminal proceedings were instituted against doctor L.B. for obstruction of justice.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged lack of sufficient reasons given by the domestic courts? In particular: (a)     Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons with respect to the causal link that they established between the findings of the experts’ reports and the applicant’s allegedly incriminating actions? (b)     Did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons regarding their assessment of a number of eye witnesses’ testimonies, including that of doctor L.B.?   2.     Was the equality of arms, as one of the elements of the broader concept of fair hearing guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 respected in the present case? In particular: (a)     What safeguards did the domestic authorities put in place to counterbalance the applicants’ alleged inability to participate to the appointment of the experts and performance of the expert examination (see, mutatis mutandis , Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos.   11082/06 and   13772/05, § 729, 25 July 2013)? (b)     Was the applicant’s convictions based solely or to a decisive degree on the experts’ reports? Did the domestic courts rely on other direct and corroborating evidence in finding the applicant guilty of murder? (c)     Did the applicant submit relevant reasons in support of his request for the performance of a second expert examination? (d)     Did the domestic court’s refusal to order a second expert examination of the victim amount to a breach of the requirements of equality of arms ( Matytsina v. Russia , no. 58428/10, § 169, 27 March 2014)?   The Government are invited to provide a complete copy of the case file related to the applicant’s trial, including typed transcripts of records of the hearings before the District Court of Kruja and the Court of Appeal of Tirana.   3.     Were criminal proceedings instituted against doctor L.B? If so, what has been the outcome of those proceedings? The Government are invited to provide domestic courts’ decisions in support of their response.