Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 129
April 2010
Laska and Lika v. Albania - 12315/04 and 17605/04
Judgment 20.4.2010 [Section IV]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Conviction on basis of unfairly conducted identification parade: violation
Article 46
Article 46-2
Execution of judgment
Measures of a general character
Respondent State required to take action to afford applicants opportunity to have domestic proceedings reopened or their cases re-examined
Facts – The applicants were convicted, inter alia, of armed robbery after being picked out in an identification parade at which they had been forced to wear blue and white balaclavas, similar to those used in the robbery, while the other two participants in the parade had worn black balaclavas. The applicants’ lawyer had not been present either during questioning or at the identification parade.
Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicants had been found guilty essentially on the strength of eyewitness submissions obtained during the identification parade. As the applicants had been made to wear blue and white balaclavas, similar to those worn by the robbers and in stark contrast to the black balaclavas worn by the other persons in the line, the identification parade had amounted to an open invitation to the witnesses to pick out the applicants. Even though the trial court had accepted that there had been irregularities at the investigation stage, in convicting the applicants it had relied on their positive identification at the identification parade. Neither the assistance provided subsequently by a lawyer nor the adversarial nature of the ensuing proceedings could cure the defects which had occurred during the investigation. There had been no independent oversight of the fairness of the procedure or opportunity for the applicants to protest against the blatant irregularities. The manifest disregard of the rights of the defence at the investigation stage had seriously undermined the fairness of the trial.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 46: A retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested by the applicants, would be the most appropriate form of redress. However, since the Albanian criminal-justice system did not allow cases to be re-examined in the event of a finding by the European Court of a serious violation of an applicant’s right to a fair trial, the Court ruled that the Albanian authorities should introduce a new remedy affording redress or remove any obstacles to redress in the domestic legal system. The member States’ duty to organise their judicial systems in a way that enabled their courts to meet the requirements of the Convention applied also to the reopening of the applicants’ case.
Article 41: EUR 4,800 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy