CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 juillet 2002

.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 } .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 44 July 2002 Parris v. Cyprus (dec.) - 56354/00 Decision 4.7.2002 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction for manslaughter on basis of autopsy carried out illegally: inadmissible In February 1996 the applicant’s wife was found dead. The applicant was arrested and charged with manslaughter. He contended that his wife had committed suicide by jumping out of the window of their apartment, which is on the second floor of a block of flats. A post-mortem examination was conducted by two pathologists at the coroner’s request. Dr M., a pathologist representing the deceased’s family, was present as an observer during the post-mortem. He also carried out an examination of the scene of the incident. The pathologists concluded that a deep fracture of the skull and the inhaling of blood had caused death. They noted that the deceased had received blows in the neck and had thus been unable to scream. Moreover, in view of the bleeding of the respiratory system, they considered that she could not have jumped out of the window of her own free will. After the post-mortem, the coroner issued an order for the immediate burial of the body. However, upon request of the relatives of the victim and with the oral approval of the Attorney General and the police, Dr M. conducted a second post-mortem examination of the body. The cause of death given by Dr M. was strangulation. In March 1997 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter. During the proceedings, he challenged the accuracy of the second post-mortem report and Dr M. was cross-examined. The defence were able to present their own expert. The Assize Court evaluated both reports and relied on the second one to reach its verdict. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The court held however that the second report breached both section 15(2) of the Coroners Law and the order for immediate burial of the body. It further stated that it had been carried out with the oral consent of the Attorney General and the police, neither having competence in this matter. It noted that, in spite of this, the applicant had had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him and had enjoyed full equality of arms. Furthermore, the court relied on evidence given by the victim’s father, who was in the flat below the one where the incident had taken place. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: Both post-mortem reports were produced before the Assize Court, which decided to rely on the second one, allegedly obtained in violation of the relevant provisions of the Cypriot law. However, the Supreme Court also took into account the testimony of the victim’s father who corroborated Dr M.’s findings and contradicted the applicant’s line of defence whereby the victim had committed suicide by jumping out of the window. Moreover, the applicant was able to challenge the accuracy of the second report and its author was cross-examined at length by the defence. Besides, Dr M. carried out an examination of the scene of the incident and participated in the first post-mortem examination; his findings at the time did not exclude the applicant’s guilt. Furthermore, the nature and scope of the provision of domestic law which was breached could not be overlooked; section 15(2) of the Coroner’s Law forms is primarily intended to ensure respect for the body of the deceased and not the procedural rights of the accused. Finally, the applicant did draw the attention of the domestic courts to a possible violation of Article 6 and the Supreme Court assessed the effect of admission of the evidence on the fairness of the trial. Therefore, the proceedings as a whole could be considered as fair: 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