Communicated on 4 February 2021
Published on 22 February 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 49295/18
Vladimir Yuryevich MATVIYENKO
against Russia
lodged on 12 October 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s conviction of bribe and petrol trafficking inter alia on the basis of pre-trial statements by an anonymous witness, whom the applicant and his lawyer were unable to question at trial. The statements of this witness had been read out at trial despite the objections of the defence, while allegedly the authorities had not undertaken effective attempts to locate him and ensure his presence at trial.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, was the applicant able to examine the anonymous witness testifying against him as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
2. Were there good reasons to keep secret the identity of the witness “Ivanov” at trial (see Pesiikic v. Switzerland, no. 25088/07, § 45, 6 December 2012, and Scholer v. Germany, no. 14212/10, §§ 50-51, 18 December 2014)?
(a) If so, what were these reasons and were these reasons duly reviewed by the domestic courts?
(b) What were the grounds in the Russian law and practice on which the national courts relied in keeping secret the identity of these witnesses?
3. What were the reasons for this anonymous witness absence at trial and what attempts undertook the domestic courts in order to locate him and ensure his presence at trial? Were these attempts effective?
4. Was the applicant’s conviction based solely or to a decisive degree on the statements of the witness “Ivanov” whose identity was kept secret?
5. Were there strong procedural safeguards in place under Russian law and practice or specific arrangements in the applicant’s case, which would counterbalance the use of statements by an anonymous witness absent at trial?
6. Was the overall fairness of the proceedings ensured by the domestic courts as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,
(a) Did the competent national courts assess the impact of keeping secret the identity of the witness “Ivanov” and his absence at trial on the overall fairness of the proceedings?
(b) Did the national courts ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings as prescribed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by reflecting in the judgments, where appropriate, the reasons for keeping the witness identity secret and conducting the proceedings in his absence?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy