CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 février 2006

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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. 83 February 2006 Krasniki v. the Czech Republic - 51277/99 Judgment 28.2.2006 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Failure to weigh and review the reasons for accepting anonymous witness testimony forming the basis for conviction: violation   Facts : The applicant was charged with supplying heroin to two individuals who testified as anonymous witnesses against him in the course of the investigation. The applicant pleaded not guilty. At the trial before a district court the judge heard the testimony of one of the witnesses outside the courtroom and out of sight of the applicant and his counsel. Since attempts to locate the second anonymous witness had failed, her statement was read out in court in her absence. The court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment. The court based the conviction solely on the testimonies of the two anonymous witnesses. The applicant's appeal to a regional court was dismissed as was his appeal to the Constitutional Court. Law : As there was nothing in the case-file to indicate the reasons for taking testimony anonymously it could not be established how the investigating officer and the trial judge had assessed the reasonableness of the witnesses' fear of reprisals by the applicant. The regional court also had failed to examine the reasons for granting anonymity. The Court was not satisfied that the interest of the witnesses in remaining anonymous could have justified limiting the rights of the applicant to such an extent. The district court had based the applicant's conviction to a decisive extent on the anonymous testimonies and the regional court's decision which had upheld that judgment had not been based on any new evidence from named sources. Accordingly, the proceedings as a whole had been unfair. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. In the circumstances the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a fresh trial or a reopening of the proceedings, if so requested by the applicant. He was awarded a certain amount for costs and expenses.   © 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