CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 mai 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 210 August-September 2017 Murtazaliyeva v. Russia (referral) - 36658/05 Judgment 9.5.2017 [Section III] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Inability of defence in criminal proceedings to question witnesses: case referred to the Grand Chamber Article 6-3-b Adequate facilities Alleged inability of defendant in criminal proceedings to examine surveillance videotapes used in evidence against her: case referred to the Grand Chamber The applicant, an ethnic Chechen, was arrested and convicted of preparing an act of terrorism, inciting others to commit an act of terrorism, and carrying explosives. She was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, reduced to eight years and six months on appeal. In the Convention proceedings, the applicant complained, in particular, that she had not been able to effectively examine the surveillance videotapes which had been used as evidence against her in the domestic proceedings and that she had not been able to question a witness testifying on her behalf nor two attesting witnesses. In a judgment of 9 May 2017 a Chamber of the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (b); by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (d) as regards the complaint concerning the absence of the witness testifying on her behalf; and by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (d) as regards the two attesting witnesses. In the Court’s view the applicant’s conviction was based on abundant evidence against her and the witness on her behalf was unlikely to have outweighed it or strengthened the applicant’s position. As regards the two attesting witnesses, the overall fairness of the trial had not been prejudiced and the applicant had been able to effectively present her case and the arguments in her defence. On 18 September 2017 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes