CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 25 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 720/24 Toni JAKOVCHEVSKI against North Macedonia lodged on 20 December 2023 communicated on 6 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the issue of reducibility of a sentence of life imprisonment. In 2003 the applicant was convicted of murder, robbery and forgery of documents and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2005 the Supreme Court requalified the robbery charge to another count of murder and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment. Since 2002 the applicant has been in detention and is currently serving the prison sentence in Idrizovo Prison. Between 2017 and 2023 the applicant lodged nine requests for conditional release – the last one was filed on 9 May 2023 at which point he had served 20 years and 6 months of his sentence. He submitted that he had met all conditions stipulated under Article 36 of the Criminal Code, namely he had served the statutory minimum of 15 years and showed good progress in resocialisation, as evident by his exemplary and respectful behaviour and remorse for the criminal acts committed. The applicant argued that his continued incarceration was no longer justified by legitimate penological grounds in view of his rehabilitation. In his last request, the applicant asked that he, and if necessary, the psychologists and prison staff who worked with him, be heard in person. He also submitted an academic legal expert report regarding the relevant domestic practice. The applicant’s requests were dismissed by a three-judge panel of the first-instance court (“the criminal panel”). The criminal panel based its assessment on written reports from the prison, without hearing either the applicant or the prison staff. Despite the positive reports, each time the panel considered that the applicant’s rehabilitation had not been completed and that he should remain incarcerated to prevent reoffending. The panel mainly referred to the severity of the criminal offence and the way the crimes had been committed, and on one occasion it also referred to three disciplinary offences of possession of a cell phone committed by the applicant. The last decision of the criminal panel was dated 6 July 2023. The applicant challenged the last two refusal decisions complaining that the criminal panel had failed to provide reasons as to why it dismissed the favourable prison reports and failed to hear the applicant and the prison staff, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. He also argued that contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the domestic legal system did not provide a de   facto possibility of conditional release. In support, he relied on the legal expert opinion and the alleged lack of domestic practice where such requests have been granted. Lastly, he emphasized that the conditions in Idrizovo Prison were among the worst in Europe, as confirmed by relevant reports. On both occasions, the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals without hearing him in person. It endorsed the reasoning of the criminal panel and considered that due to the urgency of the appeal proceedings and the clarity of the applicant’s written request, an in camera examination was justified. The last decision of the Skopje Court of Appeal was dated 22 August 2023. The applicant submits that he did not apply for a presidential pardon alleging that such pardon was never granted to persons convicted to life sentences. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his sentence of life imprisonment was de facto irreducible due to a lack of relevant domestic practice, lack of sufficient procedural guarantees accompanying the review (decisions were made in camera and petitioners were not heard in person) and lack of programmes enabling prisoners to make progress towards rehabilitation. He relies on academic legal papers to support this position. Furthermore, relying on Articles   5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of procedural guarantees in the review process (decisions were made in camera and petitioners were not heard in person). Moreover, the courts dismissed the prison reports without hearing the prison staff. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the applicant’s life sentence de facto reducible as required by Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a) Did the applicant have access to a review mechanism requiring the competent authorities to assess, based on rules having a sufficient degree of clarity and certainty and on the basis of objective, pre-established criteria, whether, while serving his sentence, he had changed and progressed to such an extent that continued detention could no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, §§ 107-09 and 119-22, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, §§   99 ‑ 100 and 113-27, 26 April 2016)?   (b) If so, was that review surrounded by sufficient procedural guarantees, (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 105, 12 February 2008, and Murray , cited above, § 100)?   (c) Has the applicant been offered an adequate possibility of rehabilitation in order to have a realistic “prospect of early release” (see Vinter and Others , cited above, §§ 110-18 and 127, 9 July 2013; Murray , cited above, §§ 101-04, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, §§ 264-68, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   The Government are invited to submit information and relevant practice on the use of the review mechanism provided under Article 36 of the Criminal Code (request for conditional release), including the number of persons sentenced to life imprisonment who have successfully applied for conditional release.   The Government are also invited to submit information on the relevant legal framework, including any rules governing the work of the Commission for presidential pardon, relevant practice, as well as information on the applications for presidential pardon, including the number of persons sentenced to life imprisonment who have applied for and who have been granted pardon.   The Government are further invited to provide information on the programmes and activities aimed at rehabilitation implemented in Idrizovo Prison for prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and long sentences.   2. Were the proceedings regarding the criminal panel decision of 6   July 2023 to refuse the applicant’s request for conditional release, and his subsequent appeal, dismissed by the Skopje Court of Appeal on 22   August 2023, compatible with Article 5   §   4 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts required to hold an oral hearing and question the applicant and the prison staff that worked with him (see, for general principles, Derungs v. Switzerland , no. 52089/09, § 72, 10   May   2016, and the cases therein)?