FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29495/24
Jorge Manuel RODRIGUES DA CRUZ SILVA
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 April 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Anne Louise Bormann, President,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 29495/24) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 October 2024 by a Portuguese national, Mr Jorge Manuel Rodrigues da Cruz Silva (“the applicant”), who was born in 1960 and lives in Charneca da Caparica, and was represented by Ms S.I. Feitor, a lawyer practising in Famões;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the alleged breach of the applicant’s defence rights in criminal proceedings brought against him for domestic violence. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Two months after an altercation the applicant had with B., partner at the material time, at their home, a criminal investigation was instituted against him.
3. At an interview with the National Republican Guard (Guarda Nacional Republicana; hereinafter “the GNR”), the applicant was granted the status of defendant in the proceedings (constituição de arguido) and informed of his statutory procedural rights, including the rights to remain silent and to be assisted by a lawyer. He expressed his wish to testify and referred to a written defence statement which he then handed to the GNR officer together with video-recordings from his home surveillance system containing images of the altercation at issue and a copy of an earlier criminal complaint lodged by him against B. on similar grounds. An interview record was drawn up and signed both by the interviewing officer and by the applicant.
4. During the trial before the Almada Criminal Court (“the trial court”, Juízo Local Criminal de Almada) the applicant decided to remain silent. B. did not attend the trial, as she could not be located by the judicial authorities. The trial court took evidence from witnesses, including GNR officers and defence witnesses proposed by the applicant. The applicant objected to the use of the video-recordings from his home surveillance system against him (see paragraph 3 above). Referring to a document handed to him by the GNR on an unspecified date and to an earlier notification issued by the public prosecutor to provide unspecified PDF files, he argued that he had been asked to provide the video-recordings by the authorities and that he had neither been assisted by a lawyer nor aware of his rights at the material time.
5. The trial court acquitted the applicant of the charge of domestic violence and convicted him of aggravated physical assault. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment which was replaced by a fine of 2,700 euros. Without relying on the written statement provided by him to the GNR, the court established the facts on the basis of the video-recordings (see paragraph 3 above) and on photos of the injuries sustained by B. on her head, face and neck, which it deemed consistent with the alleged assault, a forensic report attached to the case file and testimonies given by the witnesses. The trial court considered that the document issued by the GNR (see paragraph 4 above) was a mere note of courtesy to inform the applicant of the subsequent steps in the procedure. It further observed that the document had been handed to the applicant in reply to his own request to have the interview with the police rescheduled to enable him to gather evidence and to present his defence. In so far as the applicant had voluntarily provided the images from his own surveillance system to the police in support of his written defence statement, the court therefore considered that the video-recordings at issue were admissible as evidence.
6. On the applicant’s appeal, the Lisbon Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court’s judgment. After examining the interview record (see paragraph 3 above), it ascertained that the procedural rights had been read out and explained to the applicant, who had confirmed that he had understood the information and had signed the record. It further noted that the applicant had not disputed the veracity of the document and that the absence of a lawyer during the interview by the police did not preclude the admissibility of the video-recordings as evidence. With regard to the claim that the applicant had been pressured to hand over the video-recordings by the issuance of the public prosecutor’s notification (see paragraph 4 above), the court noted that the applicant had preserved the video-recordings for about two months after the events in issue and that he had provided them to the police before the notification was issued in a voluntary, deliberate and informed manner. The Court of Appeal deemed the document issued by the GNR (see paragraph 4 above) as inadmissible evidence in so far as the applicant had decided to remain silent during the trial.
7. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.
8. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that, by relying on the video-recordings of his home surveillance system to convict him, the domestic courts had infringed his right to remain silent and not to self-incriminate, as he had not handed over the video-recordings voluntarily, he had not been represented by a lawyer when questioned by the police and had not been properly informed of his rights on that occasion.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
9. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), will examine the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in view of the overall fairness of the proceedings.
10. The general principles with regard to access to a lawyer, the right to remain silent, the privilege against self-incrimination and the relationship of those rights to the overall fairness of the proceedings under the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention are summarised in Beuze v. Belgium ([GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 119‑50, 9 November 2018) to which the Court refers.
11. In what concerns the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself, the central question is not whether the evidence provided by the applicant incriminated him, but whether such evidence was obtained through coercion or oppression (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 267, 13 September 2016, and Bajić v. North Macedonia, no. 2833/13, § 65, 10 June 2021).
12. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was granted the status of defendant in the domestic investigation and was heard two months after the events in issue. On that occasion, after being informed of his rights, he provided a written defence statement and handed the video-recordings and other documents to the police (see paragraph 3 above).
13. The Court notes that while the applicant was not accompanied by a lawyer during the interview with the police, he was adequately informed of the right of access to a lawyer and that there is no indication that the authorities in any way obstructed his right to access to a lawyer at that time. Furthermore, his actions indicate a clear intent to actively participate in the proceedings at that stage (see paragraph 3 above).
14. The Court further notes that the applicant was neither detained at the time of the interview nor otherwise particularly vulnerable. There is no indication that the applicant was coerced or pressured into providing evidence against himself (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above). In particular, the notification from the public prosecutor’s office on which the applicant relied refers to the delivery of unspecified PDF files and does not contain any reference to video-recordings. Furthermore, it was issued after the video-recordings had already been handed over by the applicant to the police (see paragraphs 4 and 6 above). Additionally, the Court notes that the video-recordings have an independent existence vis-à-vis the will of the applicant (see El Khalloufi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 37164/17, § 38, 26 November 2019, with further references). At the trial stage he had the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented against him and to exercise his right to remain silent and, consequently, to have the prior statements provided to the police discarded (see Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 274; see also paragraphs 4 and 5 above).
15. The domestic courts thoroughly examined the applicant’s objections to the lawfulness of the evidence. In addition, they examined multiple, corresponding items in evidence to reach their conclusions (notably photos of the injuries sustained by B. on her head, face and neck, a forensic report and the testimonies given by the witnesses) after analysing in detail all the elements brought to them in order to reach reasoned decisions (see paragraphs 5 and 6 above).
16. In view of the considerations above, the Court finds that the applicant’s submissions were duly taken into account by the domestic courts in reaching decisions that were well-reasoned and do not appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. As such, the use of the video-recordings during the trial was not in violation of the applicant’s rights and there is nothing to suggest that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.
17. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 21 May 2026.
Simeon Petrovski Anne Louise Bormann
Deputy Registrar President