CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 96 April 2007 Gäfgen v. Germany (dec.) - 22978/05 Decision 10.4.2007 [Section V] Article 3 Torture Conviction allegedly based on evidence obtained through threats of ill-treatment: admissible   Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction allegedly based on evidence obtained through threats of ill-treatment: admissible   The applicant was arrested on suspicion of having kidnapped an eleven-year-old boy, the youngest son of a well-known banker’s family, in order to extort a ransom from his parents. During police questioning he was threatened with “considerable pain” at the hands of an interrogator if he did not disclose the child’s whereabouts. The applicant then took the police to the place where he had hidden the body before subsequently confessing to the police, the public prosecutor and a district judge to the kidnapping and killing of the boy. However, before his trial started, he lodged various motions with the trial court seeking orders discontinuing the proceedings and excluding prosecution evidence on the grounds that it had been obtained by coercion. The trial court ruled that all the confessions and statements that had been made by the applicant up to that point were inadmissible in evidence. However, it went on to hold that the rights of the defence had not been infringed to the extent that it was necessary to bar the continuation of the criminal proceedings or to exclude evidence obtained from information in the applicant’s statements. At the trial, despite being informed that he had the right to remain silent and that his earlier statements could not be used in evidence against him, the applicant again confessed to the kidnapping and killing. That confession formed an essential, if not the only, basis for the trial court’s findings of fact. The applicant was convicted of murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment. He lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, but this was dismissed, inter alia , on the grounds that there was no violation of fundamental rights if prohibited methods of investigation were remedied by the exclusion of the statements thereby obtained. The police officers involved were subsequently convicted of coercion, after their defence of necessity had been rejected. The applicant brought a claim for compensation against the Land for the trauma he alleged he had suffered at the hands of the police. Although the regional court found that the police officers had acted in breach of duty, it ruled that the applicant had already obtained sufficient redress and was not entitled to compensation. The applicant complains of torture and a breach of his right to a fair trial, including his right not to incriminate himself. Admissible under Article   3 and under Article   6 in so far as it relates to the decisions not to discontinue the criminal proceedings or to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the applicant’s statements.   © 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