CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 septembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 September 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 41708/22 George Ranjit Mohamed JAMALOODIN against the Netherlands lodged on 19 August 2022 communicated on 12 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegedly incriminating statements made about the applicant in criminal proceedings conducted against a third party. On 5 May 2013 H.M. Wiels, a politician on the island of Curaçao, was shot and killed. The applicant was prosecuted and convicted of solicitation of ( uitlokking van ) murder of Mr Wiels and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment by judgment on appeal of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba (“the Joint Court of Justice”). His appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 7 June 2022. Prior to the applicant’s trial, F. had been convicted of complicity ( medeplegen ) of murder of Mr Wiels by judgment of 13 July 2018 of (another three-member bench of) the Joint Court of Justice. In that judgment, the court, in assessing the evidence against F., considered, inter alia , that: “ [..] The items of evidence used by the court demonstrate that the defendant [F.] accepted the order for Wiels’ murder from Jamaloodin, that he then negotiated with Jamaloodin and P. about the further execution of the murder and the amount to be paid for it, that he then sought a gunman and a driver through P., and that he passed on the money intended for them through P   [..].”. The press-release issued by the court the same day as the judgment, contained the following statement : “ [..] The court concludes that the defendant [F.] accepted the murder order from Jamaloodin, that he went to negotiate the amount to be paid for it with Jamaloodin, that he hired a gunman and driver through P., and that he passed on the money intended for them through P. [..]” Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that these statements, in both the judgment and the press release, with respect to his alleged involvement in the murder of Mr Wiels disregarded the principle of the presumption of innocence and that insufficient safeguards were in place ensuring that procedural steps taken in the proceedings against F. would not undermine the fairness of the hearing in the subsequent proceedings against the applicant. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? In particular, did the statements contained in the judgment of 13 July 2018 and the press-release of the Joint Court of Justice as regards the applicant’s alleged acts and intention go beyond an establishment of the facts of the case necessary for the assessment of the guilt of a third person (see Karaman v.   Germany , no. 17103/10, §§ 63-64, 27 February 2014, Bauras v. Lithuania , no. 56795/13, §§ 52-55, 31 October 2017, Mucha v. Slovakia , no. 63703/19, §§ 57-62, 25 November 2021)?