SHYTI v. ROMANIA
Inadmissible
Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra
1. The applicant, Mr Blenis Shyti, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1983 and is currently detained in Poarta Albă Prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Grigorescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Albanian Government, who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings, under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, gave no indication that they wished to do so. 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 3. In December 2004 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of aggravated theft, robbery, aggravated murder, human trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms. 4. On 5 April 2005 the applicant was indicted together with three other persons for human trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms. No information has been provided to the Court concerning the outcome of these proceedings before the courts. 5. On 6 June 2005 the applicant was indicted together with N.Ş., a Romanian citizen, for the crimes of aggravated theft and the robbery and aggravated murder of three persons, including an eight-year old girl. 6. In September 2005 the applicant’s trial started before the Constanţa County Court. 7. By a decision of the prison administration, issued on 29 July 2005 following an attempt to escape, the applicant was classified as “dangerous prisoner”. Between 13 October 2005 and 21 December 2010 this decision had been revised and maintained by the prison administration on twenty-three occasions, based on reasons such as the initial evasion attempt, the severity of the crimes for which the applicant was prosecuted and the fact that he had been also indicted for unlawful possession of firearms. 8. On 12 June 2008 the Constanţa County Court convicted both the applicant and N.Ş. for aggravated theft, aggravated homicide and robbery and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The court held that the applicant together with N.Ş. broke into the house of a family they were acquainted with, in order to rob and murder them. They strangled the woman and stabbed the man ten times and then buried their bodies in the woods. They also killed their eight-year old daughter by strangling her and then buried her while she was still alive. This judgment became final on 24 November 2009 when the High Court of Cassation and Justice rejected the appeals on points of law (recurs) submitted by the applicant and N.Ş. 9. According to the applicant he had to wear handcuffs during the public hearings throughout the entire criminal trial. 10. In a letter addressed to the Romanian Government’s Agent before the Court on 2 November 2011, the president of the Constanţa County Court submitted that, following verification of the entire file concerning the applicant starting from the confirmation of his pre-trial detention on 16 December 2004 and until the delivery of the final judgment on 24 November 2009, the use of handcuffs was discussed on the occasion of five hearings as follows: – at the hearing of 3 March 2006 the applicant’s representative requested the court to allow that the applicant’s handcuffs were taken off since they interfered with his freedom of expression. The court rejected this request based on the applicant’s classification as dangerous prisoner by the prison authorities; – at the hearing of 12 April 2006 the applicant’s representative renewed the request which was allowed by the court; – at the hearing of 15 December 2006 the request was again renewed and allowed by the court; – at the hearing of 23 November 2007 the applicant’s representative asked for the recusal of the trial judge alleging that he had submitted the applicant to ill-treatment by keeping him handcuffed during thirty-five hearings. This request was rejected as the reason invoked was not amongst the reasons provided by law for challenging the impartiality of a judge. The applicant was advised that a complaint of ill-treatment should be addressed to the competent authorities; – at the hearing of 14 April 2008 the applicant’s representative again requested that the applicant’s handcuffs were taken off. The request was allowed by the court. 11. An overview of the relevant provisions in force at the relevant time concerning the use of handcuffs during detention, including pending trial, is presented in Costiniu v. Romania ((dec.), no. 22016/10, §§ 14-17, 19 February 2013).