Information Note on the Court’s case-law 53
May 2003
Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.) - 73557/01
Decision 6.5.2003 [Section III]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Alleged incitement by agents provocateurs to commit a crime: inadmissible
The applicant participated in the import of a significant quantity of cocaine from Brazil with A., a person connected to drug trafficking circles. A. established contact with C., the owner of a boat, in order to organise the transport of the drug to Portugal. C. had already collaborated with the police on a number of occasions in drug trafficking cases. He persuaded A. to collaborate with the police too, without the applicant’s knowledge. C.’s boat, with A. and an undercover police officer on board, took the drugs from another boat off Brazil. C. took the boat to a Portuguese port and then A. transported the drugs to a farm which the applicant had bought, where the drugs were unloaded. After A. had left, the police, who were monitoring the entire operation, arrested the applicant and seized the cocaine. The applicant – but not A. or C., who were not prosecuted – was accused of drug trafficking and criminal association. The applicant was convicted at first instance and at second instance. A., C. and the police officers who had participated in the operation gave evidence at the hearing before the court, which also relied on documents seized from the applicant. The Supreme Court agreed with the courts below that A. and C. had acted as undercover agents and not as agents provocateurs. None the less, it considered that the particular circumstances of the case, concerning in particular the involvement of these undercover agents, justified increasing the applicant’s sentence to nine years’ imprisonment.
Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: A.’s and C.’s conduct did not exceed that of an undercover agent: they began to collaborate with the police when the applicant had already established contact with A. in order to organise the transport of the cocaine. From that point, A.’s and C.’s conduct was monitored by the police and the prosecution authorities were informed of the operation. Last, the authorities had good reasons to suspect that the applicant intended to organise drug trafficking. Furthermore, A. and C. took part in the proceedings and gave evidence in public before the court. The applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine them and to cast doubt on their credibility and that of the police officer who, acting as an undercover agent, had also participated in transporting the cocaine. Last, the court did no rely solely on the testimony of the infiltrated agents but also on that of the other police officers who had participated in the operation and on documents found on the applicant – 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