Information Note on the Court’s case-law 107

April 2008

Grădinar v. Moldova - 7170/02

Judgment 8.4.2008 [Section IV]

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Criminal charge

Fair hearing

Unfair criminal proceedings following the accused’s death: violation of the widow’s right to a fair trial

Article 34

Victim

Continuation of criminal proceedings after the accused’s death: victim status afforded to widow

Facts : The applicant ’ s husband was accused of murdering a police officer. In 1997 he was acquitted by a regional court. On appeal a retrial was ordered. The applicant, whose husband had in the meantime been shot dead, asked for the case to be reheard in order to prove his innocence. Ultimately, however, the courts found him guilty as charged.

Law

Victim status of the applicant – Applicability of Article 6 : Domestic law allowed the applicant to have the case examined by the courts and to exercise her own civil rights within the criminal proceedings against her late husband. In particular, if she succeeded in proving his innocence, she would be allowed to claim compensation and public apologies from the prosecutor ’ s office for his unlawful detention and conviction. She could therefore rely on Article 6 of the Convention under its civil head. Any shortcomings in the proceedings capable of preventing the fair examination of the case against her late husband and leading to an unfair conviction would necessarily result in violations of her own civil rights. Furthermore, neither the domestic courts nor the Government had raised any objection relating to her victim status, or lack of it. In the exceptional circumstances of the instant case, the applicant had standing to introduce the application.

Merits – The Court had serious reservations about a legal system which allowed the trial and conviction of deceased persons, given the obvious inability of such persons to defend themselves. While accepting as “ decisive evidence ” self-incriminating statements made by the accused, the domestic courts had simply chosen to remain silent with regard to a number of serious violations of the law noted by the regional court and to certain fundamental issues such as the fact that the accused had an alibi for the presumed time of the murder. The Court could not find any explanation for such omission in the courts ’ decisions and neither had the Government provided any clarification in this respect. In the absence of sufficient reasons, the conviction of the applicant ’ s late husband had necessarily breached the applicant ’ s own right to a fair trial.

Conclusion : violation (five votes to two).

© 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