AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 23842/94
by Petri Lauri Johannes OVASKA
against Finland
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 January 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 17 March 1994 by
Petri Lauri Johannes OVASKA against Finland and registered on
12 April 1994 under file No. 23842/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1966. He is a private
entrepreneur, residing in Mikkeli and apparently currently serving a
prison sentence. Before the Commission he is represented by
Mr. Matti Nurmela, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In March 1992 a person named M was interviewed during the course
of a police investigation conducted by a police officer H from the
Central Criminal Investigation Police. In the interview the police
obtained information about certain narcotics offences. The
investigation of these offences was transferred to the Criminal Police
in Helsinki, where a police officer K questioned M further, mainly from
9 April to 15 April 1992. The relevant police reports stated that M
had participated in narcotics dealing with "a friend". The name of the
friend was not, however, mentioned.
In or around the summer of 1992 the applicant was charged with,
inter alia, aggravated narcotics offences, committed between February
1991 and January 1992, contrary to chapter 3 of the Narcotics Act
(huumausainelaki). According to the indictment the applicant had,
together with the aforementioned M, on several occasions bought a total
of 35.5 kilograms hashish from S and partly also from R-T, and sold it,
with M, on several occasions to various persons.
The case was heard by the City Court (raastuvanoikeus) of
Helsinki. In the case there were eleven co-accused, inter alia S, R-T
and M.
The applicant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
narcotics offences. However, he pleaded guilty to the other charges
against him (illegal possessions of firearms, forgery and misleading
the authorities).
The alleged vendors of the hashish, S and R-T, pleaded not
guilty.
In the City Court M denied the contents of the police reports
maintaining that he had given his statement under duress and that the
police had put leading questions to him. He pleaded not guilty to the
narcotics offences save that he admitted having, acting alone, bought
and later, also acting alone, sold a total of 5 kilograms of hashish.
In so far as the case concerned the narcotics charges against the
applicant, the City Court heard evidence from three prosecution
witnesses, including the aforementioned police officers H and K. The
City Court also heard evidence from one witness called by the
applicant. The applicant did not call any further witnesses.
On 26 October 1992 the City Court found the applicant guilty on
all charges brought against him and sentenced him to five years and
nine months' imprisonment. M and S were also found guilty on the
charges brought against them, whereas R-T was acquitted.
The City Court based its judgment, firstly, on the evidence given
by the two police officers, H and K, about the statement given by M in
the police interviews. It did not find M's denial in the trial
credible, on the basis that his statements in the police interviews had
been very detailed and that certain details in these statements tallied
with information obtained from other sources. The court also noted that
M had given his statement about the narcotics offences in an interview
which concerned another crime, so that the police had not been aware
of the relevant narcotics dealing and thus had not been able to
influence M's statement. The court also pointed out that M had been
questioned again by the police on the grounds of his changed statement
in court and that according to the report of the renewed interview,
which M had signed, M had stated that he had given his previous
statements voluntarily. The court stated furthermore that the third
witness in the case and one co-accused had given evidence to the effect
that the applicant possessed a portable telephone and it had been
established that at the end of 1991 there had been several telephone
contacts between the applicant, S, M and two other co-accused, although
they had all denied having had any contact, or at least very little
contact, with each other. As regards the name of M's "friend", the
court stated that, according to the evidence given by police officer
K, M had used the applicant's name in the police interview but had
wanted the name to be left out of the reports. The court further stated
that the information M had given about cars and apartments used in the
narcotics dealing tallied with those owned by the applicant. Finally,
the court stated that one of the co-accused had admitted having bought
hashish from the applicant, who had sometimes been accompanied by M.
The court also noted that this information was confirmed by a statement
given by another co-accused. On the basis of these facts, the court
found M's original statement concerning the narcotics dealing credible
and it also found that the "friend", with whom M had, according to his
statement, participated in the relevant narcotics dealing, was the
applicant.
The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus) of
Helsinki in relation to his conviction for narcotics offences.
By a judgment of 3 June 1993 the Court of Appeal upheld the City
Court's judgment.
On 1 November 1993 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave
to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, under Article 6 of the Convention, that
his right to a fair hearing has been violated.
The applicant maintains that he was wrongly convicted. He submits
that a statement from a co-accused cannot be regarded as reliable and
sufficient evidence of his guilt. He further maintains that he did not
have a fair trial since his conviction was exclusively or at least
mainly based on the statements of his co-accused. He further submits
that the evidence given by the two police officers is not sufficient
to prove his guilt. He maintains that the alleged vendors pleaded not
guilty, no buyers were found and the police did not find any drugs on
his premises. He also maintains that the evidence given by the witness
on his behalf proved his innocence. Finally, he points out that his co-
accused changed his statement in the City Court.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that he was wrongly convicted and that
the evidence against him was not reliable and sufficient.
With regard to the judicial decisions of which the applicant
complains the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19
(Art. 19) of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance
of the obligations undertaken by the Parties to the Convention. In
particular, it is not competent to deal with an application alleging
that errors of law or fact have been committed by domestic courts,
except where it considers that such errors might have involved a
possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention. The Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-
law (cf., for example, No. 21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77-A p. 81).
It is true that the applicant complains that the evidence against
him was not reliable or sufficient for his conviction. In this respect
the Commission recalls that the admissibility of evidence is primarily
a matter for regulation by national law. As a rule, it is for the
national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Commission's
task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole,
including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (cf., for
example, Asch judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10,
para. 26).
Furthermore, the Commission recalls that in the course of the
main hearing in the City Court several witnesses were heard as well as
the applicant and the co-accused. The Commission finds nothing which
could give rise to any misgivings as regards the fairness of the
applicant's trial in this respect. Moreover, the Commission recalls
that the question concerning the contents of the police reports was
thoroughly examined by the court and that the applicant, the
prosecution and those who had made the reports had the opportunity to
express their views directly to the court. In these circumstances the
Commission finds that the court clearly understood how the reports had
been made, that the applicant denied their contents and that,
therefore, they could not be considered to be a first-hand source of
information. In particular, it does not appear that the information
included in the police reports as the basis for the charges was
considered to be decisive in proving the subsequent charges.
Furthermore, evidence from several co-accused, who are not necessarily
under a duty to tell the truth, was confirmed by other findings. The
fact that the court, in such circumstances, took into account, as part
of the evidence in the case, statements made by a co-accused to the
police did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial.
Having regard to the above the Commission finds, when considering
the proceedings as a whole, that the application does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the right to a fair trial within the
meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy