CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     778   31.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SOLAKOV v. “THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a Chamber judgment (which is not final [1] ) in the case of Solakov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ” (application no. 47023/99). It is the first Court judgment in respect of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Blagoj Solakov, is a national of the “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. On 30 September 1997 he was arrested on charges of smuggling around 10,5 kg of drugs from Bulgaria and the FYROMacedonia to the United States and of setting up an international drug-trafficking network.   On 28 November 1997 the investigating judge summoned Mr Solakov’s first lawyer to a hearing in the United States. He was not issued with a visa, but was informed that a visa would be issued once he had supplied the relevant papers. The applicant appointed another lawyer to represent him, who allegedly told the courts he was unable to pay the travel expenses and that there was no need for him to be present.   Witness statements from the United States hearing were read out at the applicant’s trial before Skopje Municipal Court (Основен суд), which rejected both the applicant’s objection that the defence had not been able to cross-examine the witnesses in the United States and his request that two additional witnesses be heard. On 26 January 1998 the court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment. On 6 March 1998 he appealed unsuccessfully to Skopje Appellate Court (Апелационен суд).   Following an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Appellate Court increased the applicant’s sentence to thirteen years' imprisonment. His appeal on points of law was dismissed on 2 July 1998 by the Supreme Court. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 3 December 1998 and declared admissible on 25 January 2001. A hearing was held on 31 May 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , András Baka (Hungarian), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Egils Levits (Latvian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention that his trial was unfair, in that he could not cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony served as the sole basis for his conviction or have witnesses on his behalf examined.   Decision of the Court   Article 6   The Court noted that both the applicant’s lawyers were summoned to the hearing. The applicant’s argument that his second lawyer was not summoned was not supported by the documents, since the lawyer had signed the summons, albeit in the wrong place.   There was also no indication that the applicant or his second lawyer expressed any intention to attend the cross-examination of witnesses in the United States. On 4 December 1997 the applicant declared before the investigating judge that he had left the decision to his second lawyer and that he had sufficient means to cover the travel expenses. The applicant’s second lawyer neither filed an application for a visa with the United States Embassy nor requested that the hearing be postponed. In addition, the applicant’s first lawyer never renewed his application for a visa and on 2 December 1997 the applicant withdrew his power of attorney.   Turning to the trial and the appellate stage of the proceedings, the Court observed that the applicant never complained that he had been unable to cross-examine the respective witnesses due to lack of time or information, nor had he expressly asked for the witnesses to be summoned. It did not appear that he had contested the content of the witness statements. Neither had he provided questions he wanted put to the witnesses. Furthermore, it was only at the second hearing that he claimed he had been unable to cross-examine the witnesses. The domestic courts made a thorough and careful analysis of the witness statements and took into consideration various relevant factors when assessing the credibility of the witnesses, and the veracity and the weight to be given to their statements. Other items of evidence corroborating the witness statements were also examined.   The Court found no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations that he had expressed the desire to verify the accuracy of the transcripts but was denied that right because the prosecutor’s office claimed the tape recording had been needed for translation. Moreover, there was no evidence that the applicant had asked to hear the tape recording either at the trial or the appellate stage of the proceedings. Nor had he complained that the translation was inaccurate. The Court noted that the witnesses took an oath and made their statements in the presence of a certified court interpreter.   Regarding the applicant’s complaint that he had been unable to obtain the attendance and the examination of two additional witnesses, the Court observed that he had had the opportunity to request the summoning of the witnesses during the preliminary investigations, in his submissions that there had been no case to answer, or at the hearings of 12 and 13 January 1998. However, he filed such a request only at the hearing held on 22   January   1998.   The Court noted that it would have been difficult to summon the two witnesses, who lived either in Bulgaria or the United States, because their addresses were unknown. Having regard to the reasons invoked by the applicant for hearing the witnesses, the Court found that the refusal to hear them in the prevailing circumstances was not as such contrary to Article 6 § 3 (d).   In conclusion, the Court was satisfied that the applicant was given adequate opportunity to present his defence and that the refusal to summon the two witnesses did not restrict his defence rights to such an extent that he was not afforded a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). It therefore followed that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.