4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Skopje.
5.  On 7 May 2005 a person holding a handgun stopped a car driven by F.N. and fired several shots in his direction, as a consequence of which F.N. died on the spot, and J.T., an Albanian national who had been in the passenger seat, was injured. J.T. was taken to hospital, where he was interviewed by the police. An on-site examination was also carried out.
6.  On 8 May 2005 the police presented J.T. with photographs of potential suspects, from which he identified the applicant as the person who had fired at him and F.N.
7.  The next morning the police conducted a search of the applicant’s house, where he lived with his parents, and recovered a handgun. Subsequent to the search, the applicant was arrested.
8.  On the same day an identification parade was organised by the police, in which J.T. identified the applicant as the perpetrator.
9.  On 11 May 2005 J.T. gave a statement before an investigating judge and a prosecutor. According to the record of the examination, the applicant’s lawyer had agreed to the interview taking place in his absence. J.T. stated that he had been asked to work on F.N.’s house as a handyman. He had arrived in Skopje on the day of the murder and he had been picked up by F.N. On their way to the house, a young man holding a handgun, around 24-25 years old, had intercepted the car. When F.N. had tried to open the car door the man had fired several times, killing F.N. and injuring J.T. The man had been standing in close proximity to the car when he had fired and J.T. had been able to see his face clearly.
10.  On 6 July 2005 the applicant was indicted for murder and attempted murder before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”). The prosecution proposed to call J.T. as a witness.
11.  On 30 September 2005 the trial court requested that the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) summon J.T. via diplomatic means, as he had returned to Albania. The trial court was not informed as to whether J.T. had received the summons.
12.  At a hearing held on 22 November 2005 the applicant testified. He was disoriented and claimed to have no knowledge of the murder. A psychiatrist who attended the hearing as an expert clarified that that was as a result of his reduced mental capacity. Given the severity of his condition, the expert expressed concerns about how the applicant could have arrived at the place of the crime, which was located some 8-9 kilometres from his house (не би можела да тврдам како се случило да се оддалечи).
13.  At the same hearing two of the applicant’s neighbours testified. M.J. stated that he had seen the applicant at home at the time of the murder. A.M. stated that he had seen the applicant in front of his house at about the same time, adding that the applicant could only walk very short distances unaccompanied.
14.  On 23 November 2005 the trial court sent another summons to J.T. through the Ministry.
15.  A hearing scheduled for 16 February 2006 was postponed on account of J.T.’s absence. There was no information as to whether he had received the summons. On the same day the trial court requested information regarding the summons of 23 November 2005. The Ministry responded that it had forwarded the summons to the Albanian authorities and that the trial court should allow more time between hearings to ensure a timely delivery of the summons.
16.  A hearing scheduled for 14 March 2006 was postponed owing to the absence of J.T., who had not been summoned properly. The trial judge sent another summons to J.T. via diplomatic means. The Ministry again informed the trial judge that she should allow more time between hearings.
17.  The trial court held four hearings and sent four summonses to J.T. in the period between June 2006 and December 2007. One summons was not delivered to him until after the hearing had taken place. He was properly summoned for another hearing, but he did not appear.
18.  On a hearing dated 29 January 2008, the trial court admitted into evidence the statement that J.T. had given before the investigating judge, stating that it had made numerous attempts to secure his attendance. It concluded that J.T. had been properly served with several summonses, but had failed to appear. In view of the above, it ruled that there were justified reasons to admit his statement into evidence. In his closing argument, given at the same hearing, the applicant’s lawyer protested against that decision. He argued that admitting J.T.’s statement into evidence was a violation of section 351 of the Criminal Proceedings Act, by which the trial court had to provide the defence with an opportunity to cross-examine him. Failing that, a judgment could not be based merely on his statement.
19.  On 7 February 2008 the trial court acquitted the applicant, holding that there had been no nitrate particles found on his body, the handgun that had been seized from the his house had not been the one used in the murder and there was no fingerprint evidence to suggest that he had been the perpetrator. The sole evidence in support of the prosecution had been the evidence provided by J.T., which was insufficient for a conviction.
20.  The Skopje Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд Скопје) quashed the judgment, finding that the lower court had not given adequate weight to the evidence provided by J.T.
21.  After two more remittals, on 24 October 2013 the trial court convicted the applicant as charged and ordered him to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment. It reiterated its earlier findings (see paragraph 19 above), but concluded that the applicant had been guilty of the crimes on the basis of the on-site examination, the statement of J.T., the identification parade and the fact that J.T. had identified the applicant from the photographs.
22.  The applicant appealed, asking that J.T. be cross-examined. He further stated that there was no basis in domestic law to admit J.T.’s statement into evidence and that all remaining evidence pointed to his innocence.
23.  On 4 July 2014, after holding a public hearing, the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the judgment finding that the evidence produced by J.T. had been admitted in compliance with section 351 of the Criminal Proceedings Act.