CASE OF CĒSNIEKS v. LATVIA
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano
6. The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained currently in Matīsa Prison. The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 7. On 21 March 2002 the State Police telephoned the applicant and asked him to appear at their station. According to the applicant, at the State Police station, prior to any formal charges being laid against him, he was accused of murdering Ģ.Č. The police officers used physical force against him in order to obtain a confession to the crime. As a result of the duress brought to bear upon him, the applicant made a written confession. 8. On 23 March 2002 the applicant was transferred to a short-term detention facility. 9. On 23 May 2002 the police opened an investigation into the alleged misconduct of police officers at the time of the applicant’s questioning. On 25 June 2005 a prosecutor concluded that the complaint was no longer subject to the prosecutor’s review. The prosecutor referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 April 2005 (see paragraph 40 below) dismissing the allegation of ill-treatment. 10. Further details in relation to the events following the applicant’s appearance on 21 March 2002 at the State Police station are set out in the decision in Cesnieks (cited above), where the Government acknowledged, inter alia, that the applicant had been ill-treated while in police custody and there had been a lack of effective investigation of the applicant’s complaint of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 30, 32 and 36). 11. The typewritten transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a witness dated 21 March 2002 from 5.20 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. recorded the applicant’s statement to the police. 12. The applicant declared that he had given Ģ.Č. documents concerning his late father’s company, T.S.C., because Ģ.Č. had been looking for a company to carry out the leasing of motor vehicles. Later, Ģ.Č. had asked the applicant whether he knew anyone who could make withdrawals at the bank. The applicant had suggested his acquaintance Z.K. Occasionally Z.K. had sent Ģ.Č. sums of money that he had withdrawn from the bank via the applicant. 13. On the applicant’s evidence at the end of January 2002 he travelled to Moscow. While there Ģ.Č. had called him looking for Z.K., because Ģ.Č. had needed Z.K. to collect money at the bank. 14. The applicant gave further information in his police statement about meeting Z.K. in Riga upon his return from Moscow and Z.K. telling him about a withdrawal of the funds and their handover to Ģ.Č. 15. The applicant stated that he had learnt of Ģ.Č.’s murder from the police officers on the day the police had contacted him. 16. In the applicant’s handwritten confession dated 22 March 2002, he stated that in October 2001 he had borrowed the sum of 4,500 Latvian lati (LVL), which he had been unable to pay back. 17. On 25 January 2002 the applicant together with his acquaintance O.O. had travelled to Moscow hoping to obtain money there, but they were unsuccessful. 18. The applicant had told O.O. about the transfers of money to Ģ.Č. by Z.K. and himself. O.O. had also learnt that the sum of LVL 17,000 would arrive in the coming days in the bank account, to be sent on to Ģ.Č., and had told the applicant that he could resolve the issue of the debt if the applicant gave him full information. 19. On 1 February 2002 they had left Moscow and had arrived the next day in Riga. At around 2 p.m. the applicant had phoned Z.K., who later gave him LVL 5,600 and told him that the remaining amount would be withdrawn on Monday. On Sunday O.O. called the applicant, saying that everything was in order. Later the applicant realised that something terrible had occurred. 20. The same handwritten confession contained an addendum to the effect that O.O. had said that he would murder Ģ.Č. 21. According to the typewritten transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a suspect dated 22 March 2002 from 11 a.m. to 12.30 p.m., the applicant confirmed the truthfulness of his confession. 22. He added that he had concealed the circumstances and the purpose of his travel to Moscow. 23. He declared that he had borrowed a sum of money from his acquaintance O.O. which he had failed to return. O.O. had demanded to be repaid in a threating manner and to go with the applicant to Moscow. O.O. had insisted that the applicant keep the money intended for Ģ.Č. and give him some of it in repayment of the debt instead. O.O. had told the applicant to forget about Ģ.Č., meaning that O.O. had decided to kill him. 24. After their return to Riga, on 3 February 2002 O.O. had told the applicant over the phone that he could now forget about Ģ.Č. and that nobody would ever find him. The applicant had understood him to mean that Ģ.Č. had been murdered. 25. A typewritten transcript of a further interview of the applicant as a suspect dated 22 March 2002 from 11.30 p.m. to 12.50 a.m. indicated that the applicant wished to supplement his previous statement. 26. The applicant stated that he had concealed the fact that he had sought the killing of Ģ.Č. in order to obtain the LVL 17,000 belonging to Ģ.Č. He had wanted Ģ.Č.’s money because he had been experiencing serious financial difficulties. He had ordered parts for his sports car from Japan but did not have the means to pay for them. 27. The applicant added that while in Moscow Ģ.Č. had phoned him, looking for Z.K. The applicant then had learnt that Z.K. was to withdraw the sum of LVL 17,000 for Ģ.Č. On 31 January 2002 the applicant had asked O.O. to kill Ģ.Č. That same day, using the applicant’s phone, O.O. had called an acquaintance in Riga about the job and told his acquaintance that he would give details later. In the evening they had again phoned the same person from a hotel. That person had been Latvian and had had difficulty understanding Russian. O.O. had passed the phone over to the applicant, who had provided more information about Ģ.Č. On 1 February 2002, while on a bus to Riga, O.O. had again called the same person. 28. Both transcripts of the applicant’s questioning recorded that he had wished to give a statement in the absence of a lawyer. 29. The applicant and three co-accused O.O., V.Z. and J.G. were brought before the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) to stand trial on charges related to the murder of Ģ.Č. 30. On 11 October 2004 the Riga Regional Court found V.Z. and J.G. guilty of aggravated murder. The Regional Court established that V.Z. and J.G. had murdered Ģ.Č. on 2 February 2002, which they had partly admitted in the course of the trial. 31. The Regional Court was unable to establish the guilt of the applicant and O.O. 32. With reference to the applicant, the Regional Court reasoned that at trial he had pleaded not guilty to the criminal offences he was charged with and recanted the statements he had given to the police. According to the applicant, he had provided these statements as a result of ill-treatment by police officers, who had beaten him and broken his nose. In this regard the Regional Court reasoned: “In assessing the [applicant’s] explanation the court does not have a reason to not believe it, because, as is evident from the case materials, on 21 March 2002 from 5.20 p.m. to 6.40 p.m. [the applicant] was questioned as a witness ... however ... he was taken into custody on 21 March at 8 p.m. ... [but] he was not transferred to a detention facility until 1 a.m. on 23 March, remaining in the premises of the Riga police station (Rīgas rajona policijas pārvalde)... The fact that [the applicant] had been asked at around 11 a.m. on the morning [of 21 March] to attend the police station was confirmed by the witness [S.R.], an employee of the Department for the Combat of Organised Crime (Organizētās noziedzības apkarošanas pārvalde)... The foregoing was also confirmed by witnesses [A.B.], a police employee, and [I.K.], an inspector, who were unable to explain to the court why [the applicant] had not been released from the police station after having been questioned as a witness. The fact that [the applicant] ... suffered bodily injuries while in custody is confirmed by the expert reports contained in the file...” 33. In that light, the Regional Court found that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated with respect to the applicant, irrespective of the fact that the criminal case against the police employees had been terminated. 34. The Regional Court also added that the applicant’s statements of 22 March 2002 had been contradictory. It deemed unreliable an expert report finding that there were no signs that the applicant had written the confession “in the circumstances of anxiety, fear or physical ill-treatment”. The Regional Court reasoned that the expert report did not contain “a study section” (izpētes daļa) that would allow it to understand how the expert had arrived at her conclusion. 35. Accordingly, the Regional Court ruled that the applicant’s statements of 22 March 2002 could not be used in the applicant’s conviction. 36. It further held that no other evidence had been obtained to the effect that the applicant had in any way organised, assisted or incited another person to commit Ģ.Č.’s murder. The evidence established that transactions involving money transfers had taken place between the applicant, Z.K. and Ģ.Č. This was corroborated by the evidence of witness I.Š., a police inspector who testified about an ongoing criminal investigation into illegal transactions involving all three individuals. 37. The Regional Court in its judgment referred to telephone call records admitted in evidence. On 1 February 2002 at 5.27 p.m. a phone call had been made from the applicant’s mobile number to V.Z.’s mobile number. At the same time, it reasoned that V.Z. had never testified having spoken on the phone to the applicant or having previously known him. In addition, the Regional Court considered that it had no reason to conclude that O.O.’s testimony that he had used the applicant’s phone in order to contact V.Z. about a vehicle had been false. It was evident from the telephone call records that on several occasions between 20 January and 18 March V.Z. had been contacted from a number which according to O.O. was his. 38. The first-instance judgment was appealed against to the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) on behalf of the prosecution, the victim and both co-accused convicted at first instance. 39. On 26 April 2005 the Supreme Court overturned the applicant’s acquittal and found him guilty of the aggravated murder of Ģ.Č. 40. The judgment of the Supreme Court noted that in the appeal proceedings the applicant had continued to deny his initial statements and maintain that he had given them as a result of ill-treatment by police employees. In that regard, the Supreme Court reasoned as follows: “The Regional Court groundlessly (nepamatoti) accepted that [the applicant’s] statements and [his] confession given during the pre-trial investigation were not truthful. The file does not contain impartial evidence affirming [the applicant’s] assertion that he gave these statements as a result of physical and psychological ill-treatment by police employees, [and] that police employees dictated the testimonies [to him]. That it was merely a coincidence that during the commission of the crime [the applicant] was together with [O.O.] ... [and] that a call was made from his phone at that time to [V.Z.]. The criminal case ... against police employees that they possibly had exceeded their powers and inflicted injuries on [the applicant] has been terminated and [the applicant’s] defence has not disputed this decision... The Regional Court groundlessly rejected the expert report ... which concluded that the confession had been written by [the applicant] and [that there was] no indication ... of it being written in the circumstances of anxiety, fear or physical ill-treatment ... because the said expert report provides answers to the questions put to the expert. The expert report contains a study section providing the manner in which the expert reached the conclusion. Furthermore ... in comparing [the applicant’s] complaint of 25 March 2002 ... and the confession written on 22 March 2002 ... [there can be] no doubt ... that it is [the applicant’s] free style (brīvais stils) [of handwriting].” 41. The Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s statement of 22 March 2002 to be admitted in evidence and relied on it in its judgment. 42. The applicant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment, with confiscation of property and police control for two years. The applicant was immediately taken into custody. 43. The defence lodged an appeal on points of law with the Criminal Cases Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments), arguing that the Supreme Court had convicted the applicant in violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention because he had given the pre-trial confession and other statements relied upon by the court as a result of ill-treatment by police employees. The defence presented an extensive volume of evidence and pointed out that the applicant had been injured while in police custody and the circumstances of the injuries had not been explained. They submitted that there had been no other evidence in the file attesting to the applicant’s guilt. The court had been under an obligation to assess the material in the criminal case against the police employees and not merely to rely on the fact that the case against them had been terminated. In the defence’s submission, on 7 April 2004 they had appealed against the decision terminating that criminal case. Pursuing appeal had subsequently become impracticable “because the criminal case regarding the [applicant’s] beating had been joined, as evidence, to the criminal case concerning [Ģ.Č.’s] murder”. 44. On 26 August 2005 the Senate of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the appeal without holding a hearing. 45. The decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court in its relevant part read as follows: “... contrary to the [requirements of the] Criminal Procedure Code, the appeals filed ... are not substantiated with [submissions as to] a violation of the said provisions of the law, but [rather] factual submissions are put forward [with the aim of obtaining] a re-evaluation of the evidence on which the appeals court’s guilty verdict is based. ... Pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code ... the re-evaluation of evidence and establishment of new facts ... is not within the competence of the cassation court. The reference in the appeal on points of law to a violation of ... the relevant international Convention in the course of [the lower court’s] adjudication is not based on the materials of this case and is therefore [purely] formal in nature.” 46. The decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court was not subject to appeal.