CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.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. 77 July-August 2005 Pandy v. Belgium (dec.) - 13583/02 Decision 5.7.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Examining magistrate who compared the accused to two historical serial killers: admissible   In the course of a criminal investigation into the applicant for several counts of murder, the investigating judge made remarks during a public hearing to the effect that the applicant should be comparing himself not with Dreyfus, but with Landru and Dr Petiot   (two notorious serial killers). The applicant’s request for the judge to be withdrawn was dismissed. The appeal court found that the investigating judge had delivered an objective report on a difficult investigation and that the impugned remarks had been of minimal importance. The applicant was committed for trial before an assize court. The indictment was released to the press by a prosecution service spokesperson, as permitted by the law (the case was the subject of intense media interest), and was served on the applicant the same day, a few weeks ahead of the commencement of the proceedings before the assize court. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for, among other offences, the murder of his two wives and four of his children and the rape and indecent assault of several of his daughters. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 and § 2 as to the impugned remarks of the investigating judge. Inadmissible under Article 6 with respect to the release of the indictment to the press. The indictment, in accordance with the legislation in force, had contained a list of the offences of which the applicant stood accused, a description of the facts and the progress of the investigation and, in its final part, a description of the charges on which the assize court was due to deliver judgment some three weeks later. The communication had been aimed solely at informing the public, via the press, of the subject of the forthcoming assize proceedings in a case which had attracted intense media interest: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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