Communicated on 12 September 2019

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 39654/15 Jana HASÁLIKOVÁ against Slovakia lodged on 3 August 2015

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicant, who has an intellectual disability, was convicted of murder and sentenced to a fifteen-year prison term.

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (a), (b) and (c) and on Article 17 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the proceedings against her were unfair since no adjustments were made with regard to her intellectual disability and, consequently, her rights were not duly and effectively protected. She notably alleges that, due to her condition, the procedure followed by the authorities on her arrest fell short of the requirements of the Convention, that she did not have enough time to choose herself a lawyer and prepare her defence, that no reasonable steps were taken to address her condition when she was first interrogated by the police and that her confession made at this occasion served as a basis for her conviction although she withdrew it later.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant informed promptly, in a language which she understood, of the reasons for her arrest and of any charge against her, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the applicant benefit from sufficient procedural guarantees during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings?

(b) Taking into account the circumstances of the applicant ’ s interview on 25 October 2009, was her right to remain silent and not to incriminate herself respected?

(c) Did the authorities take “reasonable steps” to address the applicant ’ s condition, in order to promote her ability to understand and participate in the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis , V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999 ‑ IX; Z.H. v. Hungary , no. 28973/11 , 8 November 2012)?

(d) Given that the applicant was unable to obtain the attendance of her co-defendant, Mr J.O., who committed suicide after having entered a plea bargain, was her right to examine or have examined witnesses respected?