defendants seek to adduce, there might be exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (see Destrehem v. France, No. 56651/00, § 41, 18 May 2004, and Bricmont v. Belgium, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No. 158, p. 31, § 89).
32. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the applicant limited his argument to witnesses B, T, S and R and made no submissions in respect of any other persons. The Court also notes that this complaint relates to the first episode of drug trafficking for which he was charged. Thus, the Court will examine the applicant's complaint only in so far as it concerns his inability to obtain the attendance and examination of those four persons in relation to that episode.
33. The Government contended that the applicant should have made his request for witnesses during the preliminary investigation. Without denying the probable effectiveness of adducing an alibi defence at the stage of a preliminary investigation, the Court observes that the Code of Criminal Procedure, in force at the material time, required a trial judge to determine who should be called as witnesses (see paragraph 19 above). Thus, it does not appear that the applicant was barred from making a request for witnesses during the trial, which he actually did on several occasions. The Court considers that the Government's argument, as presented, to the effect that the applicant had not objected to concluding the trial proceedings in the absence of the witnesses is devoid of any substance. Accordingly, the Court does not need to examine it.
34. The Court notes that, according to the prosecution, on 19 October 1999 the applicant sold heroin to Ms U. The applicant claimed that he had not met U on that date. Thus, it appears that one of the elements of the applicant's defence position was to prove his alibi for that date. It has not been claimed that the applicant's request for defence witnesses was vexatious or that he made no reasonable effort to obtain their attendance, for instance, by omitting to provide their full names and addresses. There is no doubt that the request was sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject-matter of the accusation and could arguably have strengthened the defence position or even led to the applicant's acquittal (see, in this respect, Perna v. Italy [GC], No. 48898/99, § 29, ECHR 2003-V, and Guilloury, cited above, § 64; Dorokhov v. Russia, No. 66802/01, § 74, 14 February 2008). The above finding is supported by the fact that the prosecution did not oppose the applicant's request.
35. The Court further notes that the applicant's offer to produce evidence was rejected by the trial court, without any reasons having been given. In that connection, it is observed that under Russian law, in force at the material time, an application to call additional witnesses or adduce evidence should have been granted in all cases and a refusal to grant it should have been given in a reasoned decision (see paragraph 19 above). It appears that no such decision was issued. Neither did the trial judgment contain any reasoning to that effect. Furthermore, the court of appeal did not address the applicant's argument concerning the trial court's refusal to call witnesses (see paragraph 16 above).
36. The Court has already found that the applicant's request was relevant to the subject matter of the accusation. The only direct evidence showing that the applicant had sold drugs on 19 October 1999 was the putative purchaser's deposition made during the pre-trial investigation, which she retracted at the trial. Thus, the Court considers that in circumstances where the applicant's conviction was based primarily on the assumption of his being in a particular place at a particular time, the right
> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
