Denial of request for examination of key witnesses. Violation of due process
JUDGMENT
Vasaráb and Paulus v. Slovakia 15.12.2022 (app. no. 28081/19 and 29664/19)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the trial of the applicants for a contract murder allegedly carried out by Mr
Paulus for Mr Vasaráb. In particular it concerned the courts’ refusal to examine witnesses that would
have allegedly been able to rebut key evidence that had led to their convictions.
The Court found in particular that the request to have the rebuttal witness evidence examined had
been relevant; it noted that the domestic courts had not given reasons for that refusal; and
concluded that the fairness of the trial had as a result been compromised.
The Court added that the finding of a violation in the present case did not imply that the applicants
had been wrongly convicted.
PROVISIONS
Article 6 par.1 and par. 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Ladislav Vasaráb and Roman Paulus, are Slovak nationals who were born in 1971 and
1977 and live in Diakovce and Pata (both Slovakia) respectively.
In February 2010 an individual was shot while driving in the town of Šaľa. During the proceedings
that followed the domestic courts adjudged that Mr Paulus had been the shooter on the orders of
Mr Vasaráb. Among other findings, the courts found that the murder had been carried out pursuant
to a contract and payment; that Mr Vasaráb had had “longstanding differences” with the victim; and
that Mr Paulus had obtained a rifle (the murder weapon) from a third person. They were ultimately
convicted of the murder and related crimes. Mr Vasaráb was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment,
while Mr Paulus received a 25-year sentence.
During the court proceedings, the applicants had legal representation and pleaded not guilty. They
asked for evidence to be taken from, among others, five witnesses who could attest to Mr Vasaráb’s
relationship to the victim, and from seven witnesses concerning the veracity of the testimony of the
individual who had supplied the weapon used in the crime. The investigator refused as he did “not
consider the taking of that evidence necessary”. Their subsequent indictment referred only to the
evidence put forward by the prosecution. The Specialised Criminal Court, which tried the applicants,
held a preliminary examination of the indictment, in which the applicants raised the issue of the
evidence not having been taken. The prosecution asserted that the witnesses had been interviewed
already as part of other lines of enquiry. With reference to the relevant law, the court “refuse[ed] to
take and examine the evidence [in question]”. The court minutes state that the presiding judge ha[d]
provided reasoning for her decision”.
The applicants appealed, reiterating their arguments about evidence in their defence not having
been taken. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals, holding that the authorities had adequately
established the facts. Their subsequent appeal on points of law and constitutional complaints were
found inadmissible. They later applied twice in vain to the courts to have the trial reopened on the
basis of new evidence.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT….
The requests to examine witnesses who could attest to the relationship between Mr Vasaráb and
the victim, and to the whereabouts of the person who had allegedly sold the murder weapon on the
day he had allegedly done so – both key determinants in the ultimate conviction – meant that the
Court found them relevant. Any reasons given for not taking and examining the evidence in question
had mainly consisted of references to the applicable procedural rules, without any case-specific
elements, and there was nothing to support any suggestion that the “reasoning” noted in the
minutes of the trial hearing had added anything to this.
The Court also noted that the Government’s arguments on the relevant witnesses having already
been interviewed was irrelevant as those interviews had not been examined by the domestic courts.
Indeed, it was not disputed by the Government that the domestic courts had not given specific
reasons in response to the applicants’ requests. Thus the Court held that, even assuming that the
relevance of the evidence in issue had in fact been adequately considered, the domestic courts had
failed to provide sufficient reasons for not taking and examining it.
As a result, the applicants’ trial took place essentially on the basis of evidence put forward by the
prosecution. The Court observed that the authorities had seemed to examine only one version of the
facts actively – the prosecution’s – and that they had actively refused to examine the version
presented by the applicants. It noted that the applicants’ allegation that certain key witnesses may
have been incriminated and so had incriminated the applicants in return for immunity did not
appear to have been investigated or later examined by the domestic courts.
Overall, as a result the trial of the applicants was unfair. There had therefore been a violation of
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held the that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for
any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court added that the finding of a
violation in the present case did not imply that the applicants had been wrongly convicted.
