CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 septembre 1993

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. September 1993 Saïdi v. France - 14647/89 Judgment 20.9.1993 Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Criminal conviction based exclusively on the statements of witnesses not confronted with the accused: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 (D) OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government's preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Applicant had not called witnesses in Criminal Court or asked Court of Appeal to summon them: objection unfounded - at first instance applicant manifested desire that the court should hear the persons who had denounced or identified him and several considerations militated in favour of this - on appeal applicant stressed inadequacy of the investigation; attitude of the court which went into substance of the matter and gave detailed reasons for refusal to hear witnesses - in cassation proceedings applicant's sole ground of appeal based exclusively on Article 6 § 3 (d). Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint Testimony obtained before trial: constituted sole basis for applicant's conviction, after being only ground for his committal for trial - yet neither at the stage of the investigation nor during trial was accused able to examine or have examined the witnesses concerned   ‑   lack of any confrontation deprived him in certain respects of a fair trial - Court fully aware of the undeniable difficulties of fight against drug-trafficking, in particular with regard to obtaining and producing evidence, and of ravages caused to society by problem of drugs, but these considerations could not justify restricting to such an extent the rights of the defence of "everyone charged with a criminal offence". Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   New trial or adoption of administrative measures: Court lacked jurisdiction to direct respondent State to comply with applicant's demands. B.   Damage: Court could not speculate as to outcome of the contested proceedings had violation not occurred - judgment sufficient compensation for damage. C.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed in part. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant (unanimously).   © 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