Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 23842/94

by Petri Lauri Johannes OVASKA

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 17 March 1994 by

Petri Lauri Johannes OVASKA against Finland and registered on

12 April 1994 under file No. 23842/94;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1966. He is a private

entrepreneur, residing in Mikkeli and apparently currently serving a

prison sentence. Before the Commission he is represented by

Mr. Matti Nurmela, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

In March 1992 a person named M was interviewed during the course

of a police investigation conducted by a police officer H from the

Central Criminal Investigation Police. In the interview the police

obtained information about certain narcotics offences. The

investigation of these offences was transferred to the Criminal Police

in Helsinki, where a police officer K questioned M further, mainly from

9 April to 15 April 1992. The relevant police reports stated that M

had participated in narcotics dealing with "a friend". The name of the

friend was not, however, mentioned.

In or around the summer of 1992 the applicant was charged with,

inter alia, aggravated narcotics offences, committed between February

1991 and January 1992, contrary to chapter 3 of the Narcotics Act

(huumausainelaki). According to the indictment the applicant had,

together with the aforementioned M, on several occasions bought a total

of 35.5 kilograms hashish from S and partly also from R-T, and sold it,

with M, on several occasions to various persons.

The case was heard by the City Court (raastuvanoikeus) of

Helsinki. In the case there were eleven co-accused, inter alia S, R-T

and M.

The applicant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the

narcotics offences. However, he pleaded guilty to the other charges

against him (illegal possessions of firearms, forgery and misleading

the authorities).

The alleged vendors of the hashish, S and R-T, pleaded not

guilty.

In the City Court M denied the contents of the police reports

maintaining that he had given his statement under duress and that the

police had put leading questions to him. He pleaded not guilty to the

narcotics offences save that he admitted having, acting alone, bought

and later, also acting alone, sold a total of 5 kilograms of hashish.

In so far as the case concerned the narcotics charges against the

applicant, the City Court heard evidence from three prosecution

witnesses, including the aforementioned police officers H and K. The

City Court also heard evidence from one witness called by the

applicant. The applicant did not call any further witnesses.

On 26 October 1992 the City Court found the applicant guilty on

all charges brought against him and sentenced him to five years and

nine months' imprisonment. M and S were also found guilty on the

charges brought against them, whereas R-T was acquitted.

The City Court based its judgment, firstly, on the evidence given

by the two police officers, H and K, about the statement given by M in

the police interviews. It did not find M's denial in the trial

credible, on the basis that his statements in the police interviews had

been very detailed and that certain details in these statements tallied

with information obtained from other sources. The court also noted that

M had given his statement about the narcotics offences in an interview

which concerned another crime, so that the police had not been aware

of the relevant narcotics dealing and thus had not been able to

influence M's statement. The court also pointed out that M had been

questioned again by the police on the grounds of his changed statement

in court and that according to the report of the renewed interview,

which M had signed, M had stated that he had given his previous

statements voluntarily. The court stated furthermore that the third

witness in the case and one co-accused had given evidence to the effect

that the applicant possessed a portable telephone and it had been

established that at the end of 1991 there had been several telephone

contacts between the applicant, S, M and two other co-accused, although

they had all denied having had any contact, or at least very little

contact, with each other. As regards the name of M's "friend", the

court stated that, according to the evidence given by police officer

K, M had used the applicant's name in the police interview but had

wanted the name to be left out of the reports. The court further stated

that the information M had given about cars and apartments used in the

narcotics dealing tallied with those owned by the applicant. Finally,

the court stated that one of the co-accused had admitted having bought

hashish from the applicant, who had sometimes been accompanied by M.

The court also noted that this information was confirmed by a statement

given by another co-accused. On the basis of these facts, the court

found M's original statement concerning the narcotics dealing credible

and it also found that the "friend", with whom M had, according to his

statement, participated in the relevant narcotics dealing, was the

applicant.

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus) of

Helsinki in relation to his conviction for narcotics offences.

By a judgment of 3 June 1993 the Court of Appeal upheld the City

Court's judgment.

On 1 November 1993 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave

to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that

his right to a fair hearing has been violated.

The applicant maintains that he was wrongly convicted. He submits

that a statement from a co-accused cannot be regarded as reliable and

sufficient evidence of his guilt. He further maintains that he did not

have a fair trial since his conviction was exclusively or at least

mainly based on the statements of his co-accused. He further submits

that the evidence given by the two police officers is not sufficient

to prove his guilt. He maintains that the alleged vendors pleaded not

guilty, no buyers were found and the police did not find any drugs on

his premises. He also maintains that the evidence given by the witness

on his behalf proved his innocence. Finally, he points out that his co-

accused changed his statement in the City Court.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that he was wrongly convicted and that

the evidence against him was not reliable and sufficient.

With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant

complains the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19

(Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance

of the obligations undertaken by the Parties to the Convention. In

particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging

that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,

except where it considers that such errors might have involved a

possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the

Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-

law (cf., for example, No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77-A p. 81).

It is true that the applicant complains that the evidence against

him was not reliable or sufficient for his conviction. In this respect

the Commission recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily

a matter for regulation by national law. As a rule, it is for the

national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Commission's

task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole,

including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (cf., for

example, Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10,

para. 26).

Furthermore, the Commission recalls that in the course of the

main hearing in the City Court several witnesses were heard as well as

the applicant and the co-accused. The Commission finds nothing which

could give rise to any misgivings as regards the fairness of the

applicant's trial in this respect. Moreover, the Commission recalls

that the question concerning the contents of the police reports was

thoroughly examined by the court and that the applicant, the

prosecution and those who had made the reports had the opportunity to

express their views directly to the court. In these circumstances the

Commission finds that the court clearly understood how the reports had

been made, that the applicant denied their contents and that,

therefore, they could not be considered to be a first-hand source of

information. In particular, it does not appear that the information

included in the police reports as the basis for the charges was

considered to be decisive in proving the subsequent charges.

Furthermore, evidence from several co-accused, who are not necessarily

under a duty to tell the truth, was confirmed by other findings. The

fact that the court, in such circumstances, took into account, as part

of the evidence in the case, statements made by a co-accused to the

police did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial.

Having regard to the above the Commission finds, when considering

the proceedings as a whole, that the application does not disclose any

appearance of a violation of the right to a fair trial within the

meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within

the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

OVASKA v. FINLANDE

OVASKA v. FINLANDE

LEXI