CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 septembre 2003

.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 56 September 2003 Makhfi v. France (dec.) - 59335/00 Decision 23.9.2003 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-b Adequate facilities Adequate time Defence lawyer obliged to plead in the early hours of the morning after a hearing in the Assize Court lasting more than 15 hours: admissible Article 6-3-d Obtain attendance of witnesses Citation of witnesses by a legally aided accused in proceedings in the Assize Court: inadmissible The applicant was accused of rape and of theft as part of a gang and as a re-offender and was committed for trial before an Assize Court. He provided the State Attorney’s Department with a list of three witness whom he wished to be called at the expense of the State Attorney’s Department. The prosecutor rejected that request. On the first day of the case, the hearing lasted 5 hours and 15 minutes. On the following day, the hearing began at 9.15 a.m. It was adjourned at 1.00 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m., until 4.40 p.m., then continued from 5.00 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. and from 9.00 p.m. until 12.30 a.m. The hearing was resumed at 1.00 a.m. The applicant’s lawyer requested that the hearing be adjourned, but his request was refused. The other counsel stated that they were in favour of continuing with the hearing. The hearing continued until 4.00 a.m. It was adjourned for 25 minutes before the defence lawyers made their submissions. Thus, the defence lawyers made their submissions after being present at a hearing lasting a total of 15 hours 45 minutes and on the second day the hearing lasted 17 hours and 15 minutes. The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He appealed on a point of law, but was unsuccessful. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 and   § 3. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 and   § 3 (d): The applicant did not do what was necessary to ensure that his witnesses were heard. As he had legal aid, the witnesses whom the prosecution refused to call could have been called by the applicant or his counsel, at no cost to the applicant.   © 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