CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39272/15 Constantin REPEŞCO and Adrian REPESCU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 27 July 2015 communicated on 10 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants. The applicants were accused of committing a murder. During the investigation phase of the proceedings both of them were subjected to various forms of ill-treatment in order to make self ‑ incriminating statements. Their confessions became the main pieces of evidence relied upon by the courts to convict them. The courts dismissed their argument that the confessions had been extracted by means of ill-treatment but ruled that in the event that in subsequent proceedings the ill-treatment would be proven, it will be open to the applicants to seek the review of their convictions. In the meantime, both applicants complained about the ill ‑ treatment to the domestic authorities but without success. They also filed an application with the Court in that connection and were successful. The proceedings before the Court ended with a friendly settlement agreement in which the Government acknowledged a breach of Article 3 as a result of ill-treatment suffered by the applicants while in police custody and awarded them compensation ( Adrian Repesco and Constantin Repescu v. the Republic of Moldova , (dec.), no.   64785/11, 25   November 2014. After the conclusion of the above proceedings before the Court the applicants lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request to review their conviction on the basis of the outcome of the Article 3 proceedings before the Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed their request on the ground that in its decision the Court did not employ the term torture and because the applicants had already been compensated for the treatment suffered at the hands of the police. The applicants complain in essence under Article 6 § 1 and under Article   46 of the Convention that their conviction was based on evidence obtained by means of torture. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts rely, as proof of the applicants’ guilt, on incriminating evidence obtained through ill-treatment ( Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §   100, 11 July 2006)?