Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115
January 2009
Mika v. Sweden - 31243/06
Decision 27.1.2009 [Section III]
Article 6
Article 6-3-d
Same conditions
Inability of the accused to question a rape victim who had committed suicide after making a statement to the police: inadmissible
In 2004 the applicant started working in the same factory building as a Mrs K. One evening, when K. was working late, she was found by a security guard claiming that she had been raped by an unknown man. Two days later, K. gave a statement to the police claiming that the unknown man had come to her from behind and forced her to have intercourse with him. She said that she had seen the man some days before in the factory, gave a description of him and stated that she was “quite sure” that she recognised her assailant from a photograph which was not of the applicant. Four days later, K. committed suicide. Almost a year later the applicant was arrested and charged with the rape of K. A blood sample taken from the applicant matched sperm which had been found in K's vagina and underwear after the rape. The applicant denied all charges. During the proceedings, the district court heard evidence from several witnesses and took into account K's statement given to the police before her suicide. The court convicted the applicant to two and a half years' imprisonment and his conviction was upheld on appeal.
Inadmissible: The applicant had complained that he had not had a fair trial, in particular since he had not been given the opportunity to question K. The Court found, however, that since K. had died only a few days after the rape and before any charges had been brought against the applicant, the authorities could not be held responsible for failing to ensure her presence at the trial or for the fact that the applicant never had the opportunity to question her. The domestic courts' decision to allow K's statement in evidence was therefore not in itself contrary to Article 6. It was however necessary to determine whether the applicant's conviction was based solely, or in a decisive manner, on that statement in such a way that his right to a fair trial was violated. In this connection, the Court noted that the national courts had heard several witnesses and examined other written evidence, so K's statement had not been the only relevant evidence. Further, the applicant had had the opportunity to dispute K's statement and to give his own account of events, an account which was later considered improbable and contradictory to the technical evidence available. The applicant had apparently never requested the police officer who interviewed K to be called to testify so that he could be questioned about his written report and give his impression and opinion of K and what she had told him. Instead, he had asked for another witness to be called to give evidence before the appeal court, and that request had been granted. In light of the above, the Court concluded that the national courts had carried out a detailed analysis of all the evidence presented in the case and that K's statement had been corroborated by other evidence and had thus not been decisive for the applicant's conviction: manifestly ill-founded.
© 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