AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 26962/95
by Milan SULKO
against the Slovak Republic
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 6 September 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 11 July 1994 by
Mr. Milan SULKO against the Slovak Republic and registered on
3 April 1995 under file No. 26962/95;
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 Slovak national born in 1953. He is a
bricklayer and is serving a prison sentence.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicant was charged with an offence and detained from
5 April 1990 until 27 November 1991 when the charges were dropped. On
24 April 1992 he requested compensation for the detention from the
Ministry of Justice. On 11 January 1994 the applicant received a sum
which he considered inadequate. On 4 July 1994 he lodged an action for
damages before the Supreme Court (Najvyssí súd).
The action was transferred to the Banská Bystrica District Court
(Okresny súd) which has jurisdiction in the case. Upon the request of
the court the applicant made further submissions on 25 October 1994.
The applicant lodged a complaint before the Constitutional Court
(Ústavny súd) in which he alleged that there were excessive delays in
the proceedings concerning compensation for the detention. On
15 November 1994 the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that
he had failed to exhaust the available remedies, namely to lodge a
complaint with a higher court and the Ministry of Justice.
On 8 November 1994 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajsky
súd) found the applicant guilty of murder. The court established that
on 24 February 1994 the applicant had stabbed an acquaintance whom he
had suspected of having stolen money and a tape from him. At an early
stage of the investigation the applicant admitted this fact (in the
presence of his lawyer), however later he alleged that the victim had
stumbled and fallen on the sabre which the applicant held. There were
no eye witnesses.
According to four witnesses heard by the court the applicant had
alleged immediately after the incident that he wanted to stab his
opponent but not to kill him, and that the latter deserved the
punishment. The experts concluded that the victim, who had been
stabbed in the arm and in the heart, could not have wounded himself as
alleged by the applicant. It was established that blood stains on the
sabre and on the applicant's clothes corresponded to the victim's blood
group.
The court concluded from the way in which the victim had been
wounded (the attack had been repeated and violent, it was directed at
vital organs) that the applicant had intended to kill his opponent.
Furthermore, the medical expert opinion proved that the wounds were the
cause of the victim's death. In its judgment the court noted, inter
alia, that the motive for the act (punishment of a presumed thief) and
the applicant's readiness to put financial issues before human life
showed the serious nature of the offence.
The applicant was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. In
addition, he was ordered to pay damages, and the court confiscated the
sabre with which the offence had been committed.
In the proceedings before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court the
applicant was represented by a lawyer, he participated in the
reconstruction of the incident and had the opportunity to challenge the
evidence against him.
The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. He
alleged that he had not intended to wound his opponent. He claimed
that by admitting, immediately after the incident, that he stabbed his
opponent he had meant that he had merely held the sabre and the victim
had fallen onto it.
In his appeal the applicant also referred to witnesses whom he
had told that he had not intended to kill his opponent. Finally, he
complained that the evidence against him before the Regional Court had
not been sufficient, the facts had not been established correctly, and
the court had relied on expert evidence which was erroneous and
superficial.
On 19 January 1995 the Supreme Court (after an oral hearing)
upheld the prison sentence and the order to pay damages. It quashed
the decision to confiscate the sabre since it was not clear whether the
applicant owned it.
The Supreme Court found that the Regional Court had examined the
evidence before it, drawn the correct conclusions from the facts it had
established and given detailed reasons for its decision. In
particular, the Supreme Court noted that the expert evidence (which
corresponded to the applicant's first statements made after the
incident) as well as the other evidence available were sufficient proof
that the wounds had been caused by the applicant.
In the Supreme Court's view, the applicant must have had at least
an indirect intention to murder his opponent since he had attacked him
repeatedly with a weapon capable of causing death, the attack had been
violent and had been directed at vital organs. The applicant must have
been aware of the possible consequence of his acting. Finally, the
Supreme Court noted that the aforesaid conclusions were confirmed also
by the witnesses who had been heard by the court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that from 5 April 1990 until
27 November 1991 he was unlawfully detained and that he did not receive
compensation for this detention. He alleges a violation of Article 5
para. 5 of the Convention. He also complains of the length of the
proceedings concerning compensation for the detention.
The applicant further alleges a violation of his rights in the
proceedings which led to his conviction for murder in that (i) the
expert opinion was contradictory, erroneous and could not be considered
as a sufficient proof of his guilt, (ii) he could not defend himself
since the courts failed to establish the real facts of the case and
convicted him without sufficient direct evidence against him, (iii) the
reconstruction of the incident was not correct and did not correspond
to the reality, (iv) the Regional Court wrongly concluded that he put
financial issues before respect for human life although he had not been
examined by a psychiatrist, (v) one of the witnesses gave different
evidence in preliminary proceedings and later before the Regional
Court, (vi) there could have been no blood stains on his clothes since
the clothes sent for the analysis were different from those which he
had had on during the incident. The applicant expressly alleges a
violation of Articles 3 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 5
(Art. 5-5) of the Convention in that from 5 April 1990 until
27 November 1991 he was unlawfully detained. The Commission notes that
the facts complained of relate to a period prior to 18 March 1992,
which is the date of the ratification of the Convention by the former
Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, as well as to 1 January 1993, which
is the date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to
the Slovak Republic. However, the Convention only governs, for each
Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with
respect to that Party.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione temporis with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. a) To the extent that the applicant complains that the Slovak
authorities failed to pay compensation for the detention, and even
assuming that an issue under the Convention arises in this respect, the
Commission notes that the proceedings are still pending before the
Banská Bystrica District Court. This complaint is therefore premature.
b) As to the complaint of the length of the proceedings which
concern compensation for the detention, and again assuming that issues
arise under the Convention, the Commission recalls that the
Constitutional Court refused to examine the applicant's petition since
he had failed to exhaust other remedies available under Slovak law.
c) The applicant further alleges a violation of his rights in the
proceedings relating to his charge with murder in that (i) the
reconstruction of the incident was not correct and did not correspond
to the reality, (ii) the Regional Court wrongly concluded that he put
financial issues before respect for human life, (iii) one of the
witnesses gave different evidence in preliminary proceedings and later
before the Regional Court, (iv) there could have been no blood stains
on his clothes as alleged by the Regional Court.
However, it appears from the documents submitted that the
applicant did not raise these issues in his appeal before the Supreme
Court. He therefore failed to comply with the requirement as to the
exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of
the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected
pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
3. Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of his rights in the
proceedings before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court and the Supreme
Court in that (i) the expert evidence was contradictory, erroneous and
could not be considered as sufficient proof of his guilt, (ii) the
courts violated his right to defend himself since they failed to
establish the real facts of the case and convicted him without
sufficient direct evidence against him. He alleges a violation of
Articles 3 and 17 (Art. 3, 17) of the Convention.
The Commission finds that in substance these complaints fall
under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention and considers it appropriate
to examine them under this head.
So far as relevant, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention
guarantees to everyone charged with a criminal offence a fair and
public hearing by a tribunal, the right to defend himself in person or
through legal assistance of his own choosing and to examine and have
examined witnesses against him.
The applicant alleges that the courts failed to establish the
facts properly and based their decision on erroneous evidence which
could not be regarded as sufficient proof of his guilt. The Commission
recalls that its task is to determine whether the proceedings
considered as a whole were fair (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Barberà, Messegué
and Jabardo judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31,
para. 68, with further references).
In particular, the Commission has no general jurisdiction to
consider whether domestic courts have appraised the evidence correctly
or incorrectly; its task is to establish whether evidence produced for
or against the accused was presented in such a way as to ensure a fair
trial (cf. No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 127).
In the present case, the applicant was represented by a lawyer.
He took part in the hearings on his case and it does not appear from
his submissions that he was deprived of the opportunity to challenge
the evidence against him in an adversarial procedure and to comment on
the evidence in argument. Furthermore, both the Banská Bystrica
Regional Court and the Supreme Court gave detailed reasons for their
decisions.
Under these circumstances the Commission considers that the
proceedings which resulted in the conviction of the applicant were not
contrary to the requirements laid down in Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention.
It follows that this part of 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 Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy