CASE OF GELETEY v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)
Carlo Ranzoni
5. The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Berehove. 6. In the early hours of 22 August 2004 M. was robbed and killed in Berehove, where the applicant was also living. On the same date the applicant and two other people, K.A. and St., were arrested on suspicion of robbing and killing M. 7. According to the applicant, he was apprehended by the police task force at about 10 a.m. on 22 August 2004 in the apartment of his girlfriend and taken to the police station, where he was beaten up and threatened in an attempt to force him to confess to the robbery and murder of M. 8. The case file contains two arrest warrants – one issued by a police officer and another one by the prosecutor investigating the murder (hereinafter “the investigator”), both indicating that the applicant had been arrested by the above-mentioned officials on 22 August 2004 at 6.30 p.m. at their offices. The arrest warrant issued by the investigator indicates that the applicant acknowledged his guilt, had no observations regarding his arrest and that he wished to be legally represented. It bears the applicant’s signature, with no comments. The lower part of the last page of the record contains a printed statement (“довідка”) that was added later (it was dated 2007); this additional statement is signed by the investigator only and asserts that the applicant’s relatives were informed of his arrest. The applicant alleged that his family had been informed of his arrest on the evening of the following day (that is to say 23 August 2004). 9. After his arrest, the applicant signed a record, bearing no time, explaining his rights as a suspect, including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before he was first questioned. The relevant entry in the record indicates that the applicant expressed his wish to be represented by S., a lawyer who lived in Uzhhorod, some 70 kilometres from Berehove, and noted the address of the latter. 10. At about 4 p.m. on 22 August 2004, according to the applicant, and from 9 until 10 a.m. on that day, according to the official record, the applicant was questioned as a suspect by the investigator in the presence of B., a lawyer. The record of the questioning noted that the applicant had been informed of his rights as a suspect from 6.30 until 6.45 p.m. on that day and that a separate procedural document existed in this respect evidencing that he had wished to be legally represented. The handwritten entry in the record furthermore stated that the applicant wanted to have B. as his lawyer and that he acknowledged in full his guilt in respect of the robbery and murder. During the questioning, the applicant provided details regarding the robbery and admitted that he had hit M. in the head with a bat during the robbery but that he had done so instinctively, in self-defence. The applicant did not state what had become of the bat – namely where or in what circumstances he had hidden the bat after the murder. The applicant and B. signed the verbatim record, making no objections as to its contents. B. then left. 11. Later that day, from 8 until 8.30 p.m., the applicant took part in a videotaped reconstruction of the crime in the presence of a forensic expert, an investigator from the local police, two attesting witnesses and the investigator in the case. According to the Government, B. was apparently busy and was not able to participate in the reconstruction. No other lawyer was instructed to assist the applicant during this investigative step. According to the applicant, he repeated his request for S. to be called, but this was not done and he was forced by means of threats to testify. 12. During the reconstruction, which commenced near the place where the bat used for the murder had been hidden, the applicant pointed to the exact place where the bat was; the bat was then uncovered and retained as evidence. A copy of the verbatim record of the reconstruction provided to the Court by the applicant indicates that he was informed of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself. The verbatim record bears a handwritten “not” next to the following printed “agreed to testify”. The relevant part of the text is not visible on the copy of the record provided by the Government. The record furthermore contains the applicant’s statement that he had not been forced to testify by means of any psychological or physical violence. The applicant signed the record without indicating any objections as to its contents next to his signature. 13. At an unspecified time on the same date St. and K.A were questioned as suspects. St., being represented by B. (the same lawyer who represented the applicant), acknowledged his guilt in respect of the robbery. He stated, inter alia, that he had seen the applicant carrying a bat when they had been entering the victim’s house. K.A., having waived his right to legal assistance, admitted that he had taken part in the robbery. He furthermore participated, still unrepresented, in a videotaped reconstruction of the crime during which he stated, inter alia, that he had seen the applicant with a bat in his hands but had not seen who had murdered M. 14. On 23 August 2004 the investigator appointed B. to represent the applicant, and St., and admitted him to the proceedings. 15. On the same day the applicant, in the presence of B., participated in another videotaped reconstruction of the crime in the victim’s house. The applicant admitted his guilt and gave further details about the robbery and murder. He reiterated that he had hit M. on the head with the bat and stated that another suspect in the case had helped him to hide the bat afterwards. 16. On 26 August 2004 the applicant’s mother signed a contract with the lawyer S. concerning her son’s legal representation. On the same date S. contacted the prosecutor, who allowed S. to represent the applicant instead of B. The applicant furthermore made a written statement declaring that he was refusing the services of B. and wanted S. to act as his lawyer. 17. On 8 October 2004 medical experts examined the applicant following his complaint that he had been ill-treated by the police. No injuries were discovered on the applicant’s body. 18. On 14 October 2004 the video recording of the reconstruction of the crime of 23 August 2004 was played to the applicant in the presence of S. The applicant retracted his earlier confession and explained that he had only given it because he had been threatened and beaten up by the police on 22 August 2004. 19. On 2 September 2004, and 20 and 28 January and 17 February 2005 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his defence lawyer but refused to give any evidence. 20. On 19 January 2005 the prosecutors refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegation that he had been beaten up by the police, having found the police officers’ actions to be lawful. 21. On 18 February 2005 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant – together with St. and K.A. – was charged with robbery and murder. It was established that another person, I.K., had also participated in the robbery, but as he had absconded, he would have to be tried separately. 22. During the trial the applicant denied having participated in the robbery and the murder and refused to give any evidence. He stated that his earlier confessions to the crimes should not be admitted as evidence as they had been made under duress and in breach of his defence rights, including his right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing. He also argued that the bat which had been retained as evidence and examined by experts during the investigation had not been the same bat as that which he had pointed out during the reconstruction. He supported his allegation by referring to the fact that in the verbatim record, the prosecutor had described the bat as blue, while the experts who had subsequently examined it had described it as grey. 23. In April 2005 the police detained I.K. In the course of the trial St., A.K. and I.K all pleaded guilty to robbery but denied killing M. 24. On 29 August 2006 the Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as the first-instance court, convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. St., A.K. and I.K. were also found guilty of robbery but acquitted of murder. The hearing was held in the presence of the applicant’s new lawyer, D., who had replaced the lawyer S. on an unspecified date. 25. The court based the applicant’s conviction, among other evidence, on the confessions he had made during his questioning by the investigator on 22 August 2004, the reconstructions of the crime on 22 and 23 August 2004, the statements of his co-defendants that they had seen him with a bat in M.’s house, and physical evidence, including an expert’s report suggesting that the traces of blood found on the bat (the location of which had been pointed out by the applicant during the reconstruction of the crime on 22 August 2004) could have belonged to M. 26. By the same judgment, the court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s submissions that he had made his self-incriminating statements under duress, referring to the results of the medical examination of 8 October 2004 (see paragraph 17 above) and the prosecutors’ decision of 19 January 2005 (see paragraph 20 above). 27. The court also found no violation of the applicant’s defence rights. It noted, inter alia, that on 22 August 2004 the prosecutor’s decision to appoint B. as the applicant’s lawyer had been lawful, because at the material time the applicant had not had a contract with S. for legal representation. It also observed that on 22 August 2004 the applicant had raised no objections to the questioning record. The court also suggested, without giving details, that there had been some technical errors in the procedural documents, in particular as regards the time of the applicant’s arrest and questioning, but that they did not affect the fairness of the respective investigative actions. 28. The court refuted the applicant’s allegation that the bat retained as evidence had been switched with another (see paragraph 22 above), noting that the disparity in the bat’s description by the experts and the prosecutor could have been explained by the fact that the latter was colour blind. 29. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on points of law, reiterating his complaints. He stated, in particular, that he had not been represented by the lawyer of his choice, S., on 22 and 23 August 2004, but by B., who had been appointed by the investigator against the applicant’s will. He further stated that he had not been assisted by any lawyer when he had been forced to confess during the crime reconstruction of 22 August 2004. He also complained about the fact that B. had represented him and his co-accused St. at the same time (see paragraph 13 above) – a conflict of interest (as there had been important discrepancies in their respective statements) that should have prevented him from being allowed to do so. 30. On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court, acting as the second-instance court, upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence in his presence. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer during the hearing, but he did not provide any further details in this regard. 31. The Supreme Court found that the applicant’s guilt was proved, inter alia, by the statements he had made during his questioning of 22 August 2004 and during the reconstructions of the crime. It noted in this respect that those statements had been corroborated by other evidence, including the testimony of his co-accused, and concluded that the lower court had correctly admitted the applicant’s self-incriminating statements as evidence. The court also noted that the details of the crime which the applicant had revealed in his statements could not have been known to him unless he had been the direct perpetrator. 32. Without mentioning the applicant’s arguments regarding the alleged breach of his defence rights, the Supreme Court found no procedural violations during the proceedings serious enough to necessitate it quashing the judgment. 33. On an unspecified date the applicant was released from prison.