Communicated on 8 October 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 6962/13
Dean ŠKARO
against Croatia
lodged on 3 January 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dean Škaro, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Šibenik. He is represented before the Court by Mr C. Prodanović, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 May 1997 the applicant was indicted before the Split County Court on charges of murder. On 19 July 2000 he was acquitted by a panel of two professional judges and three lay judges. Upon an appeal by the Split County State Attorney’s Office, the Supreme Court quashed that judgment on 5 December 2002. The Supreme Court also ordered that fresh proceedings be conducted by a trial panel composed of different judges.
On 10 July 2007 a panel of two different professional judges and three different lay judges of the Split County Court again acquitted the applicant. That judgment was also quashed by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2008, which again ordered a fresh trial with different judges.
In a third round of proceedings, on 16 June 2011, a panel of two different professional judges and three different lay judges of the Split County Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to eleven months’ imprisonment, suspended for five years. A.B., one of the crucial witnesses and the only one who said that he had seen the applicant attacking the victim, did not give oral evidence before the trial panel. Instead, a prior statement by the witness was read out. A request by the applicant for the trial panel to hear the witness in person was denied on the grounds that the witness was undergoing treatment for alcoholism in a psychiatric institution and that any absence from the institution would have a negative effect on his treatment.
In an appeal of 5 August 2011, the applicant, inter alia, challenged the veracity of the evidence given by A.B. and objected to the trial court’s decision not to hear oral evidence from that witness in person. The applicant countered the reason given by the trial court for not requesting A.B. to come to the hearing by submitting that the witness’s psychiatric treatment was scheduled to be completed in about two months and that such a delay would not affect the applicant’s trial.
On 27 March 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 16 June 2011.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 12 July 2012.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on the grounds that witness A.B. did not give oral evidence before the trial panel which ultimately convicted him.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was he able to examine witness A.B. before the trial panel that convicted him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy