CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE RYSSDAL, JOINED BY JUDGE MIFSUD BONNICI

In its judgment the Court has made several references to the Poitrimol v. France judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 277-A. In that case I dissented and found no violation of the Convention. The present case differs, however, in several respects from the Poitrimol case and can in my opinion certainly be distinguished from that case.

I agree that it is important for the fairness of criminal justice that the accused be adequately defended both at first instance and on appeal. I further agree that it is for the courts to ensure that the trial is fair, and that defence counsel who attends is given the opportunity of defending the accused in his absence.

In the instant case the accused was convicted of a very serious offence and sentenced to nine years ’ imprisonment. As the Court has come to the conclusion that there has been a violation of Article 6 para . 1 taken together with Article 6 para . 3 (c) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c), it is, however, in this case not necessary to determine whether and under what conditions an accused can waive the exercise of his right to appear at the hearing (see the Colozza v. Italy judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, para . 28, and the F. C. B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 21, para . 33).

[*]  Note by the Registrar.  The case is numbered 27/1993/422/501.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]  Note by the Registrar.  For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 297-B, of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.