CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 janvier 2026

.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 26 January 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12324/21 Jovche VLASHKI against North Macedonia lodged on 25 February 2021 communicated on 6 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant, together with four co-accused, was convicted of robbing four illegal migrants from Palestine and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. As established by the domestic courts, the applicant and the other convicted persons, acting as a group, attacked the victims, using force and a firearm to beat and rob them. During the investigation an investigating judge heard oral evidence from the victims in the presence of some of the defendants’ lawyers on two occasions. The applicant’s lawyer was present only at one hearing of one of the victims. In the course of the criminal trial, in which the criminal panel did not include the investigating judge, the domestic courts sought, through the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs, to summon the victims by diplomatic means. However, the victims’ whereabouts remained unknown, and they did not appear at the main hearing. The trial court read the statements given by the victims during the investigative stage, a procedure which the applicant contested. In addition to the victims’ statements, the domestic courts based their judgments on the defendants’ statements, police reports, statements of witnesses that lived in the area where the victims had been robbed, DNA analysis and expert opinions. Furthermore, the courts obtained information from the mobile operators regarding the location and movements of the defendants at the critical time. The courts emphasized that the victims’ statements were consistent and corresponded to their and the defendants’ whereabouts at the relevant time. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that he was not given an opportunity to examine the victims and to challenge their statements. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, was the non-examination of the victims at the trial, compatible with Article 6   §   3   (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (see Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, §§   118-19, ECHR   2011, Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no. 9 154/10 , §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015 and Trampevski v.   the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   4570/07, §§   42-44 10   July 2012)?