The Court requires sufficient justification for the allegations of the accused concerning the accusation and the evaluation of the witnesses. The reasoning is an important aspect of the fair trial
JUDGMENT
Rostomashvili v. Georgia 08.11.2018 (no. 13185/07)
SUMMARY
Reasoning of a court’s decision and fair trial. The applicant was convicted of intentional homicide. His conviction was based on the testimony of the victim’s father who claimed that he witnesses the event. But two witnesses testified that they had announced the murder of his son to the father. The accused questioned the credibility of the alleged witness. The national courts did not consider any claim and argument and did not respond adequately to the refusal of the accusation and to the allegation that the witness was lying. Adequate justification of court rulings is a constituent element of the fair trial. Infringement of Article 6 (1) of the ECHR.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE
Important decision of the Court, which requires the national courts to respond adequately to the defendant’s allegations of denial of the accusation, non-constitution and challenge of the witness, is important. This decision is important for the reasoning of the criminal decisions. The ECtHR asks not only to substantiate the specific allegations, as in the Greek courts, but also the real allegations and on the evaluation of the evidence.
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Paata Rostomashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1973 and lives in the village of Akhaldaba (Georgia).
The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had not had a fair trial when he had been found guilty of murder.
Mr Rostomashvili was found guilty of aggravated murder in May 2006. His conviction was based to a great extent on testimony by the victim’s father, who said he had witnessed the killing.
Mr Rostomashvili appealed, arguing that there was no forensic evidence to connect him to the crime. He also questioned the testimony of the victim’s father, pointing to contradictions between his statements and those of two other people, who had said that they themselves had told the father of the murder and that he had not at the time mentioned having witnessed it.
The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance verdict in September 2006. It found that the trial court had assessed the factual circumstances fully and objectively. It did not address any of Mr Rostomashvili’s arguments, such as his submission that the trial court had failed to consider his statement that none of the evidence had implicated him in the crime and that the victim’s father, who had implicated him, may not have been at the crime scene.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Rostomashvili complained that the domestic courts had failed to give sufficient reasons for their decision to convict him.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention obliges the domestic courts to indicate with sufficient clarity the grounds on which they base their decisions. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case.
Without requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant , this obligation presupposes that parties to judicial proceedings can expect to receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings. It must be clear from the decision that the essential issues of the case have been addressed.
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the applicant’s argument concerning his alibi was addressed, even if briefly, by the court of first instance. It reasoned that the statements given by the defence witnesses were contradictory and considered the account untrustworthy.
By contrast, the applicant’s two principal arguments before the domestic courts were not given an explicit reply. Firstly, he had argued that unlike his co-accused, no piece of forensic evidence concerned him or his alleged actions and therefore did not implicate him, in any manner whatsoever, in the crimes he had been charged with. Secondly, the applicant had underlined that immediately following the murder the victim’s father was found at home, apparently unaware of his son’s death, and that it was unclear why he had allegedly pretended being unaware of his son’s murder. This, the applicant had argued, made it open to doubt whether the eyewitness had been at the crime scene at all. Based on those submissions, the applicant maintained that the prosecution’s case against him was devoid of any factual and evidentiary grounds and was based on a mere suspicion, in violation of the pertinent legislation.
The Court reiterates that it is not its task to review the manner in which forensic and witness evidence is assessed by the domestic courts. Nor is the Court called upon to rule on the guilt or innocence of a person convicted by the domestic courts, that matter being within the competence of the domestic courts. In addition, the Court recognizes that, in a case such as this, a trial court, which relies on witness statement for the accused’s conviction, is able to base itself on direct contact with the witness, the reliability of whose statement it must nevertheless properly assess. However, it is within the Court’s jurisdiction to assess whether the proceedings as a whole, including the obligation of the domestic courts to give reasons for their judgments, were in compliance with the Convention. It is against this background that the Court will proceed with its assessment of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court is of the opinion that the two arguments raised by the applicant before the domestic courts related to the core of the criminal case against him and called for a specific and explicit reply. However, none of the domestic judicial authorities addressed them. The generic response given by the domestic courts that “all the evidence available in the case file” was sufficient to convict the applicant cannot be regarded as an explicit and specific reply to the latter’s principal arguments before them. Such an answer, on the facts of the present case, amounts to a manifest lack of reasoning on the part of the domestic courts as in fact, no piece of forensic evidence had implicated the applicant, and the sole eyewitness statement was subjected to repeated reasoned yet unanswered challenges questioning its veracity and probative value. Accordingly, the domestic courts failed to address, in any manner, the applicant’s reasoned arguments.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the domestic courts adjudicating the applicant’s criminal case failed to fulfil one of the requirements of a fair hearing, namel y to provide adequate reasons for their decisions. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention(echrcaselaw.com editing).
