EIT:ssa suuren jaoston kuuleminen saksalaistapauksessa

4.3.2015 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimessa (EIT) järjestettiin tänään suullinen kuuleminen tapauksessa, jossa on kyse siitä, että vakavista rikoksista tuomitulla henkilöllä ei ollut oikeudenkäynnin missään vaiheessa ollut oikeutta esittää kysymyksiä jutun kahdelle asianomistajalle – joiden kertomus oli ainoa suora näyttö väitetystä rikoksesta.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The applicant, Swiadi Schatschaschwili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kashuri Surami (Georgia).

In April 2008 Mr Schatschaschwili was convicted by a German court of two counts of aggravated robbery in conjunction with aggravated extortion by means of coercion – committed with others in October 2006 in Kassel and in February 2007 in Göttingen – and sentenced to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. As regards the offence allegedly committed in Göttingen, the trial court relied in particular on the witness statements by the two victims of the crime in the course of police interrogations at the pre-trial stage, which were read out during the trial. Shortly after their examination, the witnesses had left Germany and subsequently refused to testify at Mr Schatschaschwili’s trial, stating that they were traumatised by the crime. Finally, in October 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider Mr Schatschaschwili’s constitutional complaint.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Schatschaschwili complains that his trial was unfair as neither he nor his counsel had had an opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to question the only direct witnesses of the crime allegedly committed in February 2007.

Tapauksessa EIT:n jaosto päätyi äänin 5-2 katsomaan, että 6 artiklaa ei ollut loukattu. Vähemmistöön jäänyt brittiläistuomari totesi jaostoratkaisussa seuraavaa:

5.  In Al-Khawaja and Tahery the
Court examined the explanation given for the non-attendance of a
witness at each applicant’s trial. One reason was death and the other
was fear. It was accepted that in both cases a trial may proceed despite
the non-attendance of a witness. However, the Court concluded:-

“[G]iven
the extent to which the absence of a witness adversely affects the
rights of the defence, the Court would emphasize that, when a witness
has not been examined at any prior stage of the proceedings, allowing
the admission of a witness statement in lieu of live evidence at trial
must be
a measure of last resort. Before
a witness can be excused from testifying on grounds of fear, the trial
court must be satisfied that all available alternatives, such as witness
anonymity and other special measures, would be inappropriate or
impracticable.” (§ 125)

6.  Neither death nor fear was advanced as a reason for the absence of the two key witnesses in the applicant’s trial (§
67). The Court notes only that they ‘refused to attend and testify at
trial’ (§ 64). If ‘all available alternatives’, including the adoption
of ‘special measures’, are required to be pursued before one can excuse a
fearful witness from testifying, one might expect, at the very least,
that similar efforts would be required of authorities before a court
could excuse a witness who just refuses to attend.

7.  I
am not at all convinced that admitting the untested evidence of O and P
at the applicant’s trial was ‘a measure of last resort’. Apart from one
failed witness hearing (in Latvia) which had been scheduled for the 13
th of February 2008 and one unanswered letter of the 21st
of February 2008, nothing further was done after that date to have the
witnesses testify whether by video-link, anonymously or otherwise. It
seems that the domestic authorities allowed the requirement for
proceedings to be conducted expeditiously (
§ 21) to take precedence over the greater obligation to conduct them fairly.

Jutun lopputuloksella voi hyvinkin olla merkitystä myös Suomen kansallisen prosessin kannalta. Uudessa, eduskunnan helmikuussa hyväksymän oikeudenkäymiskaaren 17 luvun 24 §:n 2 momentissa säädetään: ”Tuomioistuimessa ei saa käyttää todisteena
esitutkintapöytäkirjaan tai muulle asiakirjalle merkittyä tai muulla
tavalla tallennettua lausumaa, ellei laissa toisin säädetä, paitsi jos
lausuman antajaa ei voida kuulustella pääkäsittelyssä tai pääkäsittelyn
ulkopuolella taikka hän on jäänyt
asianmukaisista toimenpiteistä huolimatta tavoittamatta, eikä asian
ratkaisemista tulisi enää viivyttää
.”

EIT:n suuren jaoston ratkaisulta voidaan odottaa ohjeistusta siihen, minkälaisia toimenpiteitä viranomaisilta voidaan edellyttää, jotta esitutkinnassa annettuja kertomuksia voidaan hyödyntää loukkaamatta vastaajan oikeutta oikeudenmukaiseen oikeudenkäyntiin.

Koko EIT:n lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki jaostoratkaisuun, löytyy täältä: here

Tilaa
Ilmoita
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments