CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 mai 2020

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 244 October 2020 Mraović v. Croatia (referral) - 30373/13 Judgment 14.5.2020 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Exclusion of public from entire rape trial in order to protect victim, even though she had given interviews to media about the case: case referred to the Grand Chamber During the applicant’s first trial on rape charges he asked for the proceedings to be in camera. He was acquitted but his acquittal was quashed. He wished his second trial to be held in public, but the victim’s request for an in camera hearing was upheld. During the second trial, the victim gave several interviews to national newspapers on the subject in which the experience of giving evidence during the trial was discussed. In a judgment of 14 May 2020 ( Information Note 240 ), a Chamber of the Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 for exclusion of the public from the criminal proceedings. The Court’s main findings were as follows: - In criminal proceedings concerning such a serious and intimate crime as rape, the exclusion of the public from part or all of the proceedings might be necessary for the protection of rape victims’ private life, in particular their identity, personal integrity and dignity; as well as to protect from secondary victimisation and discouraging victims from participating in the justice system.     - The reasons given by the county court for the exclusion of the public had a clear basis in domestic law and the Court was satisfied that the discretion which it had exercised was not incompatible with the applicant’s right to a public hearing. - The fact that the victim had previously given interviews in national newspapers on several occasions did not dispense the State from its positive obligation to protect her privacy and to protect against secondary victimisation. - Intimate details from a rape victim’s life could be disclosed not only during cross-examination of the victim, but at any stage of a criminal trial against the alleged perpetrator. Closing only part of the proceedings would therefore not have sufficed to protect her rights. On 12 October 2020 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