Xenofontos and Others v. Cyprus – 68725\/16, 74339\/16 and 74359\/16<\/a><\/p>\nJudgment 25.10.2022 [Section III]<\/p>\n
Article 6<\/strong>
\nCriminal proceedings<\/strong>
\nArticle 6-1<\/strong>
\nFair hearing<\/strong><\/p>\nApplicants\u2019 conviction decisively based on confession by accomplice, who was not prompted by any deal, but was later placed in a witness protection programme and spared prosecution: no violation<\/p>\n
Facts \u2013 The three applicants were convicted by the Assize Court of the murder of a private television channel\u2019s CEO and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The court relied to a \u201cmost decisive\u201d extent on evidence given by an accomplice, F.H., who was not prosecuted and was later placed in a witness protection programme. The Supreme Court dismissed their appeals.<\/p>\n
Law \u2013 Article 6 \u00a7 1: As established by the domestic courts, there had been no deal between F.H. and the prosecution. F.H. had confessed and turned in the applicants out of remorse, without having been promised anything in return. The Attorney\u2011General\u2019s decisions to grant him protection and not to charge him had involved the exercise of the official\u2019s discretion, rather than a follow-up on a promise he had given.<\/p>\n
The applicants had failed to specify the \u201cextraneous motives\u201d they alleged the police had acted on and to provide any evidence of a deal between F.H. and the prosecution. Furthermore, they had known of F.H.\u2019s identity, the contents of his confession and that he would not be prosecuted. At trial, they had been able to examine at will both F.H. as well as the police officers who had questioned him and had not asked that the Attorney-General be examined.<\/p>\n
The Assize Court had been fully aware of the dangers inherent in using accomplice evidence and had taken pains to explain in detail why it believed F.H. Unlike in Zhang v. Ukraine, it had explained why F.H. had changed his mind and confessed. Its assessment of F.H. had been reviewed by the Supreme Court, the only appellate court available. To the extent that the parties had disagreed about the existence of other incriminating evidence against the applicants, the Court considered that its role in that field was limited. It therefore accepted the Supreme Court\u2019s relevant findings and concluded, as argued by the Government, that the conviction had not relied solely on F.H.\u2019s evidence.<\/p>\n
In such circumstances, it could not be said that the Nicosia Assize Court\u2019s reliance on the accomplice testimony had rendered the trial unfair.<\/p>\n
Conclusion: no violation (six votes to one)<\/p>\n
The Court also held, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 in so far as the first applicant complained about the length of the proceedings (5 years and 9 months), their complexity justifying their somewhat lengthy duration.<\/p>\n
(See also Zhang v. Ukraine, 6970\/15, 13 November 2018, Legal Summary)<\/p>\n