Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 167
October 2013
Mulosmani v. Albania - 29864/03
Judgment 8.10.2013 [Section IV]
Article 6
Article 6-2
Presumption of innocence
Public accusation of murder made by chairman of independent political party in immediate aftermath of shooting: inadmissible
Facts – In September 1998 a Member of Parliament and his bodyguards were shot and fatally wounded as they came out of the Democratic Party headquarters in Tirana. Immediately afterwards, the Party Chairman, a well-known public figure, went on air accusing the applicant, a police officer, of the crime. It appears that an official Democratic Party press statement was issued later the same day also identifying the applicant as the killer. Over a year later, in December 1999, a district court ordered the applicant’s arrest at the request of the prosecutor investigating the case. Both the district court and the prosecutor expressly noted that the Democratic Party Chairman had mentioned the applicant’s name as being the perpetrator of the crime. The applicant was arrested in May 2001. At his trial he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Before the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia, that the Democratic Party Chairman’s comments in September 1998 had deprived him of the benefit of the presumption of innocence, in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
Law – Article 6 § 2: The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 is violated if a statement of a public official concerning a person charged with a criminal offence reflects an opinion that he is guilty before he has been proved so according to law.
In the instant case, however, the Democratic Party Chairman could not be regarded as having acted as a public official within the meaning of Article 6 § 2. He had not been involved in the criminal investigation into the murder as a police officer, investigator or a prosecutor. He did not hold public office or exercise public authority and, in fact, no powers had been formally delegated to him by any State body. He had acted as a private individual, in his capacity as the chairman of a political party which was legally and financially independent from the State. His statement, which was made in a heated political climate, could be regarded as his party’s condemnation of the MP’s assassination. As such, the mere fact that his actions might have been socially useful in calling for justice to be rendered did not transform him into a public official acting in the public interest.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
(See also, mutatis mutandis, Kotov v. Russia [GC], 54522/00, 3 April 2012, Information Note 151)
The Court also found that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) to (d) of the Convention.
© 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