Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)205[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
W., A.H., D. and A.L. against Finland
(Application No. 14151/02, judgment of 24 April 2007, final on 24 July 2007
Application No. 46602/99, judgment of 10 May 2007, final on 10 August 2007
Application No. 30542/04, judgment of 7 July 2009, final on 6 November 2009)
Application No. 23220/04, judgment of 27 January 2009, final on 27 April 2009
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings in that the applicants were convicted for sexual abuse of children on the basis of a video recording of the children’s statements, without having the opportunity to question the children (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1, taken together with Article 6, paragraph 3 (d) (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 only in D) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)205
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
W., A.H., D. and A.L. against Finland
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the unfairness of criminal proceedings relating to the applicants’ convictions, final between 1998 and 2004, for sexual abuse of children. The European Court noted that the applicants had not been given the opportunity to put questions to the children during the proceedings, and the only direct evidence (virtually the sole evidence in W) against the applicants were the children’s’ videotaped statements (violation of Article 6 paragraph 1, taken together with Article 6, paragraph 3 (d) (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 only in D)).
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
W. (14151/02)
-
3,000 EUR
8,062
11,062 EUR
Paid on 24/10/2007
A.H. (46602/99)
-
3,000 EUR
6,000 EUR
9,000 EUR
Paid on 9/11/2007
D. (30542/04)
-
4 000 EUR
6 917 EUR
10 917 EUR
Paid on 08/02/2010
A.L. (23220/04)
-
3 000 EUR
402 EUR
3 402 EUR
Paid on 26/06/2009
b) Individual measures
The applicants had an opportunity to request the reopening of the proceedings (Chapter 31, Article 2, of the Code of Judicial Procedure). In addition, the European Court awarded them just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Consequently, no other individual measure appears necessary.
II.General measures
The Code of Judicial Procedure was amended on 1 October 2003 to the effect that the testimony of a person under 15, or a mentally disturbed person, recorded on audio or videotape during a pre-trial investigation may be used as evidence only on condition that the accused has been provided with an opportunity to have questions put to the person testifying (Chapter 17, Article 11 (2)).
A press release was issued the same day as each judgment. Additionally, the judgments of the European Court were sent out to the relevant national authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgments have been published in the legal database Finlex in English, along with summaries in Finnish ().
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required in these cases apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy