The violent extraction of a confession without the presence of a lawyer is contrary to the principle of fair trial.
JUDGMENT
Dimitar Mitev v. Bulgaria 8.3.2018 (no. 34779/09)
SUMMARY
Prosecution for intentional homicide. Police abuse and confession during an informal interview without the presence of a lawyer. Violation of the right to a fair trial.
PROVISIONS
Article 6 § 1
Article 6 § 3 (c)
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Dimitar Mitev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and is currently detained at Varna Prison (Bulgaria).
The case concerned his allegation that the criminal proceedings against him for murder had been unfair.
In February 2008 Mr Mitev was convicted of a theft and the murder of his parents’ 75-year-old neighbour. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court relied, among other things, on a confession he had made during his informal questioning with two police officers when he was arrested in June 2006. His conviction and sentence were then upheld on appeal and, ultimately, in a final judgment of November 2008 by the Supreme Court of Cassation.
Throughout the trial and subsequent proceedings, Mr Mitev denied the offences of which he stood accused and contested the testimony given by the two police officers, arguing that he had only confessed because the officers had beaten him. However, the courts allowed the officers’ testimony, finding it credible and that it had been assessed in the light of other evidence.
Relying in substance on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Mitev alleged that his conviction had been based on a confession he had made to the police immediately after his arrest, under duress and without the assistance of a lawyer.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)
Just satisfaction: 3,000 euros (EUR) (costs and expenses)(echrcaselaw.com editing).
