CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 février 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s60238A51 { margin-top:9pt; margin-bottom:9pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sB230F2F8 { margin-top:9pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDCF20F75 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:16pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDF40DEA0 { margin-top:16pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5BB93D78 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBBC8FB00 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     resolution DH   (99) 126 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 21 APRIL 1998 IN THE CASE OF DAUD AGAINST PORTUGAL (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 February 1999 at the 659th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Daud case delivered on 21 April 1998 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 22600/93) against Portugal, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 March 1993 under Article 25 of the Convention by Mr   Juan Carlos Daud, an Argentinean national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that the criminal proceedings which had led to his condemnation to nine years’ imprisonment were unfair due to inadequate legal assistance, the failure of the officially assigned lawyers to appear, the refusal of his application for a judicial investigation and of his application to submit evidence, as well as the poor quality of the interpretation at the hearing;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 20 January 1997 and by the Government of the Republic of Portugal on 31 March 1997;   Whereas in its judgment of 21 April 1998 the Court, unanimously; - held that there had been a violation of paragraph   1 in conjunction with paragraph   3 c, of Article   6 of the Convention and that it was unnecessary to determine whether there had been a breach of paragraph   1 in conjunction with paragraph   3 e, of Article 6 of the Convention; - held that the present judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article   54 of the Convention;   Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 21 April 1998, having regard to Portugal’s obligation under Article   53 of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State accordingly indicated that the Court's judgment had been published in the Review of the Prosecutor’s office ( Revista do Ministério Pùblico , No.   75, July   -   September 1998) and sent out to the authorities directly concerned; Whereas the applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Commission and therefore no question of individual measures arises;   Declares, in the light of this circumstance and after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Portugal, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.