Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19801015-840378
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 17:34:42+00:00

Document:
JESPERS c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche JESPERS c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; Partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8403/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-10-15;8403.78 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : JESPERSDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 8403/7 8 Guy JESPERS v/BELGIUM Guy JESPERS c/BELGIQU E DECISiON of 15 October 1980 on the admissibility of the application . DECISION du 15 octobre 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ@t e
Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention (a) A viru(ent press campaign can, in certain circumstances, adverseiy affecr the faintess of a trial and involve the State's responsibility, particularly if it is sparked off bv one of the State's organs . (b) Alleged failure by the public prosecutor's office to include in the file and contmunicate to the defence certain relevant documents which are in its possession (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 26 of the Convention : (a) Where it is alleged that the members of the jury could have been particularlv open to inf/uence by a press campaign concerning the accused, an application for the case to be referred to another court on grounds of legitimate suspicion (art . 542 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) constitutes a remedv which has to be exhausted. (b) Where it is alleged that ce rt ain relevant documents have neither been included in the criminal file nor communicated to the defence by the public prosecutor's office, a request for the review of the trial (art . 443, para. 3 of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) is not a remedy the preliminary exhaustion of which is required.
Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : (a) Une virulente campagne de presse peut, dans certains cas, nuire Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© du procÃ¨s et engager la responsabilitÃ© de l'Etat, notamment lorsqu'elle a Ã©tÃ© provoquÃ©e par l'un de ses organes .
(b) AllÃ©gations selon lesquelles le ministÃ¨re public a omis de verser au dossier et de communiquer Ã la dÃ©fense certains documents pertinents en sa possession (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable).
- 1(4i -
Article 26 de la Convention : (a) Lorsqu'il est allÃ©guÃ© que les menibres du jur9 auraient Ã©tÃ© particuliÃ¨rement influenÃ§ables par umie campagne de presse visant l'accusÃ©, une demande de renroi pour cause de suspicion lÃ©gitin i e (art . 542, par. 2, du code belge d'instruction criminelle) est un recours qui devait Ãªtre exercÃ©. (b) Lorsqu'il est allÃ©guÃ© que certains documents pertinents n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© versÃ©s au dossier pÃ©na l ni communiquÃ©s Ã la dÃ©fense par le ministÃ¨re public, le pourvoi en rÃ©vision (art . 443. par. 3, du code belge d'instruction criminelle) n'est pas un recours dont l'exercice prÃ©alable est exigÃ©.
(Fnglish : see p. 116 )
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils rÃ©sultent des dÃ©clarations du requÃ©rant et du dossier pÃ©nal joint Ã l'appui de la requ@te, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant . ressortissant belge nÃ© en 1934, Ã©tait juge d'instruction prÃ¨s le tribunal de premiÃ¨re instance de Gand . Lors de l'introduction de sa requÃªte il Ã©tait dÃ©tenu Ã la prison d'Audenarde . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Maitre Houtekier, avocat Ã la Cour de cassation, assistÃ© de Maitres Vanderveeren, Verstringhe et Van Londersele, avocats . Au mois de dÃ©cembre 1975, l'Ã©pouse du requÃ©rant Ã©chappa de justesse Ã l'incendie de sa voiture, qui fut attribuÃ© Ã l'Ã©poque par un expert Ã un dÃ©faut technique du systÃ¨me d'allumage . Madame Jespers fut trouvÃ©e morte dans sa baignoire dans la nuit du 26 au 27 juin 1976 . A la suite des rapports mÃ©dicaux, le parquet estima alors qu'il ne rÃ©sultait d'aucun Ã©lÃ©ment du dossier que cette mort ne serait pas naturelle . Le 26 fÃ©vrier 1977, Ã la suite de dÃ©clarations faites par un certain De C ., dans le cadre d'une instruction ouverte contre lui pour vol, le juge d'instruction dÃ©cerna un mandat d'amener contre le requÃ©rant . Le 27 fÃ©vrier 1977, celui-ci fut informÃ© qu'il Ã©tait inculpÃ© d'assassinat et tentative d'assassinat sur la personne de son Ã©pouse, ainsi que de complicitÃ© de vol . 11 fut placÃ© sous mandat d'arrÃªt . Le mÃªme jour . son arrestation fut annoncÃ©e Ã la presse par le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de Gand . indiquant que les soupÃ§ons contre l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã©taient . trop nombreux et trop sÃ©rieux . pour qu'il fOt laissÃ© en libertÃ© . L'instruction prÃ©liminaire fut confiÃ©e Ã un conseiller Ã la cour d'appel, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 480 du code d'instruction criminelle relatif aux poursuites contre les magistrats . - 101 -
Ce magistrat accorda aussitÃ´t un entretien Ã un journaliste, dans le cabinet du requÃ©rant . Cet entretien fut Ã©voquÃ© dans la . Semaine d'Anvers â¢ du 4 mars 1977 sous le titre : . L'affaire Jespers ou la gangrÃ¨ne de l'Ã¢me + . Il fut procÃ©dÃ© Ã de multiples interrogatoires du requÃ©rant, de De C ., principal co-inculpÃ© . ainsi que de quelques autres personnes impliquÃ©es dans l'une ou l'autre des infractions reprochÃ©es aux deux principaux inculpÃ©s . De C . a constamment soutenu que le requÃ©rant l'avait payÃ© pour organiser l'explosion de la voiture de sa femme . Il a affirmÃ© avoir Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sent la nuit du dÃ©cÃ¨s de Madame Jespers qui aurait Ã©tÃ© immergÃ©e dans la baignoire par son mari aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© droguÃ©e . Il a Ã©galement dÃ©noncÃ© la participation active du requÃ©rant Ã un vol avec violence commis au domicile d'une personne Ã¢gÃ©e, puis au vol avec fausses clÃ©s commis au prÃ©judice de la mÃ©me personne dans son coffre bancaire . Le requÃ©rant rejeta toutes ces dÃ©clarations . Il admit avoir versÃ© deux millions de FB Ã De C ., mais dans le but de financer la production d'un appareillage mÃ©dical . Le juge d'instruction ordonna une nouvelle expertise de la voiture dÃ©truite en 1975 . Les ingÃ©nieurs conclurent Ã la prÃ©sence d'un explosif dans la voiture . Il fit Ã©galement exhumer le corps de Madame Jespers et procÃ©der Ã de multiples analyses . Dans un rapport d'expertise remis le 14 avril 1977, les professeurs A . et T . dÃ©clarÃ¨rent que l'examen du corps, huit mois et demi aprÃ¨s le dÃ©cÃ¨s, ne permettait pas d'en dÃ©terminer la cause exacte . Aucune trace d'empoisonnement n'Ã©tait discernable . lls acceptaient la conclusion des premiers mÃ©decins selon laquelle la mort Ã©tait due Ã la noyade pour une cause indÃ©terminÃ©e . AprÃ¨s un examen des lieux, le professeur T . conclut le 2 mai 1977 que ni le meurtre ni l'accident ne pouvaient Ãªtre exclus . Le rapport toxicologique Ã©tabli le 15 avril 1977 confirma qu'il n'y avait aucune trace de poison, mais que les tissus contenaient des traces de tranquillisants . Tout au long de cette pÃ©riode I' . affaire Jespers . occupa une place considÃ©rable dans la presse belge, en particulier la presse d'expression flamande . Au mois d'avril 1977, certains journaux firent mÃ©me Ã©tat des rapports d'expertise relatifs Ã l'explosion de la voiture avant que ceux-ci n'aient Ã©tÃ© versÃ©s au dossier pÃ©nal et que la dÃ©fense ait pu en prendre connaissance . Le 27 avril . le requÃ©rant demanda au procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral l'ouverture d'une enquÃªte pour dÃ©terminer qui avait violÃ© le secret de l'instruction et en outre rendu possible la publication de renseignements sans possibilitÃ© de contrÃ´le de la dÃ©fense . Le 16 mai, le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral informa la dÃ©fense que, selon les rÃ©sultats de l'information qu'il avait ordonnÃ©e, les renseignements relatÃ©s pa r
la presse ne lui avaient pas Ã©tÃ© fournis par des personnes tenues au secret de l'instruction . Avant de dÃ©cider des suites Ã rÃ©server Ã la plainte, il invitait le conseil du requÃ©rant Ã prendre connaissance des piÃ¨ces de l'information . La dÃ©fense ayant encore sollicitÃ© l'audition de diverses personnes, parmi lesquelles le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ©cÃ©demment admis Ã l'Ã©mÃ©ritat quelques jours plus tÃ´t . Le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral rÃ©pliqua le 3 juin qu'il ne pouvait faire entendre ces personnes, toutes tenues au secret professionnel . Il confirmait en outre que les indiscrÃ©tions commises provenaient de tiers et indiquait son intention d'approuver la dÃ©cision du procureur du roi de Gand de classer la plainte . Par ailleurs, le 27 avril 1977, le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de Gand, admis Ã l'Ã©mÃ©ritat, accorda une interview Ã la presse au cours de laquelle il aurait notamment dÃ©clarÃ© : . J'ai plus d'une fois conseillÃ© Ã Jespers de travailler autrement et mieux . C'Ã©tait peine perdue . II dirigeait son cabinet mal et en amateur . . . . . Il aurait Ã©galement reprochÃ© Ã l'accusÃ© des relations injustifiables avec des individus touches . L'instruction prÃ©liminaire fut clÃ´turÃ©e dÃ©but juin 1977 . II appartenait alors au procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de requÃ©rir devant la chambre des mises en accusation le renvoi de l'accusÃ© en cours d'assises . Le 13 juin 1977 le conseil du requÃ©rant invita le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la Cour de cassation Ã requÃ©rir que l'affaire soit renvoyÃ©e Ã une autre cour d'assises que celle de Gand, normalement appelÃ©e Ã connaÃ®tre de l'affaire, pour cause de sGretÃ© publique (articles 542 et 544 du code d'instruction criminelle) . Il faisait Ã©tat de l'excitation de l'opinion publique et de la campagne de presse, susceptibles de menacer l'indÃ©pendance de la juridiction . Par-lettre du 23 juin 1977, le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral rÃ©pondit que rien dans les faits mentionnÃ©s par la dÃ©fense ne lui paraissait justifier une demande de renvoi Ã un autre tribunal . Par ordonnance du mÃªme jour, la chambre des mises en accusation de la cour d'appel de Gand dÃ©fÃ©ra l'affaire Ã la cour d'assises de Flandre orientale . siÃ©geant Ã Gand . Le procÃ¨s dÃ©buta le 28 novembre 1977 . Les avocats du requÃ©rant dÃ©posÃ¨rent aussitÃ´t des conclusions demandant au . PrÃ©sident de la cour qu'il ordonne que soient versÃ©es au dossier de la procÃ©dure toutes les piÃ¨ces relatives Ã l'affaire, plus prÃ©cisÃ©ment celles qui se trouvent au dossier pÃ©nitentiaire de De C . et V . (autre accusÃ©) ; ces Ã©lÃ©ments peuvent Ãªtre utiles Ã la manifestation de la vÃ© ritÃ© : il ressort par ailleurs de piÃ¨ces transmises Ã la dÃ©fense par le MinistÃ¨re public qu'il existe au parquet gÃ©nÃ©ral une chemise spÃ©ciale relative Ã cette affaire ; la dÃ©fense demande que cette chemise soit Ã©galement versÃ©e au dossier . . La dÃ©fense se fondait sur une lettre adressÃ©e le 21 aoÃ¹t au procureur du roi par un dÃ©tenu de la prison de Gand qui prÃ©tendait avoir eu une conversation avec De C . d'oÃ¹ il rÃ©sultait qu e
le requÃ©rant Ã©tait innocent dans les cas de meurtre et tentative de meurtre . En marge de cette lettre, les services du parquet avaient apposÃ© la note manusc rite suivante : . Bureau - A joindre Ã la chemise spÃ©ciale Jespers qui se trouve dans l'armoire de M . H . ( avocat gÃ©nÃ©ral) et le lui soumett re avec la lettre . 23 .8 .77 . . La dÃ©fense souhaitait Ã©galement le dÃ©pÃ´t de tous les procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã©tablis dans cette affaire aprÃ¨s la clÃ´ture de l'instruction prÃ©liminaire . La cour ordonna le lendemain que soient joints au dossier pÃ©nal les lettres et objets saisis par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires mais ajouta qu' . il ne ressortait par ailleus d'aucun Ã©lÃ©ment dont dispose la cour qu'existent d'autres piÃ¨ces utiles pour l'affaire qui n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es au dossier pÃ©nal . . Par arrÃªt rendu le 28 janvier 1978 par la cour d'assises le requÃ©rant fut condamnÃ© Ã une peine de vingt ans de travaux forcÃ©s du chef de tentative de meurtre (mais non de meurtre), de vol, faux en Ã©criture, dÃ©nonciation calomnieuse et possession d'arme Ã feu . Il se pourvut en cassation, se fondant notamment sur l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention et soutint que les droits de la dÃ©fense avaient Ã©tÃ© mÃ©connus du fait du refus de la cour d'assises d'ordonner la production par le parquet de la correspondance classÃ©e dans une chemise spÃ©ciale et de l'absence au dossier pÃ©nal de divers procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã©tablis aprÃ¨s la clÃ´ture de l'instruction prÃ©paratoire . A l'appui de ce dernier moyen, il produisait un procÃ¨s-verbal (NÂ° 87 D) rÃ©digÃ© par la gendarmerie au cours du procÃ¨s et contenant des dÃ©clarations favorables pour lui . Ce procÃ¨s-verbal, datÃ© du 28 dÃ©cembre 1977, n'avait Ã©tÃ© remis Ã la dÃ©fense qu'aprÃ¨s la clÃ´ture des dÃ©bats . Il relatait une conversation entre le requÃ©rant et De C . au cours de laquelle ce dernier avait notamment dit := Guy, dÃ¨s que tu admets la combine relative au vol, je retirerai ma dÃ©claration relative au meurtre et Ã la tentative de meurtre . . Le requÃ©rant se rÃ©fÃ©rait enfin Ã une lettre adressÃ©e au Ministre de la Justice par un membre du jury demeurÃ© anomyme et faisant Ã©tat de pressions sur les jurÃ©s par un conseiller Ã la cour d'appel de Gand en vue d'une condamnation exemplaire destinÃ©e Ã protÃ©ger la rÃ©putation de la magistrature flamande . La Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi le 25 avril 1978 . AprÃ¨s avoir relevÃ© que le juge du fond avait souverainement apprÃ©ciÃ© en fait qu'il n'existait pas de piÃ¨ces importantes Ã©cartÃ©es du dossier pÃ©nal, la cour dÃ©cida en effet que le requÃ©rant aurait pu demander au juge du fond que soit communiquÃ© le procÃ¨s-verbal favorable . Celui-ci relatait en effet une conversation entre De C . et le requÃ©rant que ce dernier savait avoir Ã©tÃ© entendue par les gendarmes . Le seul dÃ©faut de communiquer ce procÃ©s-verbal en temps utile Ã la dÃ©fense ne constituait dÃ¨s lors pas en lui-mÃªme une violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . La Cour de cassation refusa d'accueillir le moyen relatif Ã l'absence d'impartialitÃ© du jury, cette impartialitÃ© Ã©tant seulement mise en doute sur la base d'une piÃ¨ce anonyme . - fpq -
Le requÃ©rant, qui avait Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© le 7 avril 1978 Ã la prison d'Oudenaarde . fut conduit Ã la prison de Nivelles le 10 janvier 1979 . Selon un bref rapport mÃ©dical Ã©tabli le 26 avril 1979 . il souffrirait de troubles de la marche et manifesterait les symptÃ´mes d'un Ã©tat dÃ©pressif . Par la suite, pour raisons de santÃ©, il fut envoyÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises au centre mÃ©dical chirurgical de la prison de St . Gilles, puis en dehors de ce dernier Ã©tablissement .
GRIEF S Le requÃ©rant, qui n'a cessÃ© de clamer son innocence, soutient que sa condamnation est intervenue sans qu'aucune preuve matÃ©rielle ait Ã©tÃ© apportÃ©e et qu'il s'agit lÃ d'une erreur judiciaire flagrante obtenue Ã l'aide de violations rÃ©pÃ©tÃ©es de la Convention illustrÃ©es par les faits suivants : (a) Conspiration ourdie dans certairts milieux judiciaires et conditionnement de !'opinion publiqu e Le requÃ©rant fait valoir Ã cet Ã©gard que trois mois dÃ©jÃ avant son arrestation, il avait Ã©tÃ© demandÃ© Ã des membres de la police judiciaire de dresser des procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã sa charge, Ã©tablissant qu'il sabotait des instmctions judiciaires. Il souligne par ailleurs que le jour mÃªme de son arrestation le MinistÃ¨re public a tenu une confÃ©rence de presse informant l'opinion publique qu'un magistrat Ã©tait arrÃªtÃ© pour meurtre et tentative de meurtre alors qu'aucune dÃ©claration de De C ., son accusateur, n'Ã©tait au dossier ; que le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de Gand a accordÃ© une interview Ã la presse et a attaquÃ© le requÃ©rant en des termes injurieux ; que le magistrat instructeur a cm devoir recevoir des journalistes dans le cabinet du requÃ©rant en s'asseyant spÃ©cialement dans son fauteuil ; que tous ces faits dÃ©montrent une prÃ©vention fÃ¢cheuse et concertÃ©e du MinistÃ¨re public Ã l'Ã©gard du requÃ©rant et un conditionnement dÃ©favorable de l'opinion publique et du jury pour le requÃ©rant .
Il rappelle par ailleurs qu'au cours de l'instruction secrÃ¨te des renseignements confidentiels et inconnus de la dÃ©fense ont Ã©tÃ© transmis Ã la presse, toujours dans le but d'influencer l'opinion publique et le futur jury contre le requÃ©rant ; que le MinistÃ¨re public a ainsi fait une communication Ã la presse concernant le rÃ©sultat d'une expertise concernant l'exploision de la voiture, qui aurait dÃ©montrÃ© la soi-disant culpabilitÃ© du requÃ©rant dans la tentative de meurtre sur sa fentme, alors que la dÃ©fense n'en Ã©tait aucunement informÃ©e . (b) MÃ©connaissance des droits de la dÃ©fens e Le requÃ©rant se plaint du fait qu'une farde spÃ©ciale concemant la correspondance Ã©changÃ©e avec le MinistÃ¨re public n'a pas Ã©tÃ© versÃ©e au dossier . Il soutient Ã cet Ã©gard que le MinistÃ¨re public n'a pas le droit de faire un tri de sa correspondance et de ne pas produire les piÃ¨ces qui sont de nature Ã dÃ©charger le requÃ©rant .
Il se plaint Ã©galement de ce qu'un procÃ¨s-verbal important (NÂ° 87 D) Ã©tabli par la Gendarmerie au cours du procÃ¨s n'ait Ã©tÃ© remis Ã la dÃ©fense qu'aprÃ¨s la clÃ´ture des dÃ©bats, alors qu'il contenait des dÃ©clarations trÃ¨s importantes Ã sa dÃ©charge . Il soutient que d'autres procÃ¨s-verbaux, Ã©tablissant son innocence, n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©s, en violation du principe de l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes . (r) Le requÃ©rant se plaint encore d'un traitement discriminatoire en priso n Il allÃ¨gue avoir Ã©tÃ© placÃ©, sans motif, dans un Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiaire rÃ©servÃ© aux dÃ©tenus souffrant de troubles mentaux, dans le but de l'anÃ©antir moralement et intellectuellement . Il invoque la violation des articles 5, paragraphe 1, 6, paragraphes 1, 2, 3 (b) et (d), 14 et 13, de la Convention, l'invocation de cette derniÃ¨re disposition n'Ã©tant pas autrement justifiÃ©e
. PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COMMIS IO N La Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© le 2 octobre 1979 de porter la prÃ©sente requÃªte Ã la connaissance du Gouvemement mis en cause . Le Gouvemement a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit, avant le 14 dÃ©cembre 1979, ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte . Ce dÃ©lai a Ã©tÃ© reportÃ© Ã deux reprises . Le mÃ©moire du Gouvernement, datÃ© du 21 fÃ©vrier 1980, fut communiquÃ© aux conseils du requÃ©rant qui formulÃ¨rent les observations en rÃ©ponse dans deux mÃ©moires datÃ©s des 26 mars et 3 mai 1980 . Le 8 juillet 1980, la Commission dÃ©cida de tenir une audience sur la recevabilitÃ© et le fond . Cette audience eut lieu le 15 octobre 1980 . Les parties y Ã©taient reprÃ©sentÃ©es comme suit : Pour le Gouvernement, M . Niset . Agent ; MÂ° Kirschen, ancien bÃ¢tonnier, conseil . Pour le requÃ©rant, M' Houtekier, avocat Ã la Cour de cassation, M' Verstringhe et Mâ¢ Van Londersele .
RESUME DE L'ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S A . Conspiration et conditi onnement (Article 6 de la Convention) (a) Quant ti l'Ã©puisemen t Il n'est pas contestÃ© entre les parties que le requÃ©rant ne pouvait utilement saisir la Cour de cassation d'un pourvoi contre l'arrÃªt de la cour d'assises Ã cet Ã©gard . Le Gouvernement soutient en revanche que le requÃ©rant n'a pas utilisÃ© toutes les possibilitÃ©s de renvoyer l'affaire Ã une cour d'assises siÃ©geant dans une autre province . Le requÃ©rant aurait pu en effet saisir directement la Cour de cassation, non le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral, en dÃ©ssaisissement pour cause d e
- 1pG -
suspicion lÃ©gitime et non de sÃ»retÃ© publique et demander le renvoi Ã un autre juge d'instruction ou Ã une autre cour d'assises ( a rticle 542, al . 2, du code d'instruction c ri minelle) . Il cite Ã cet Ã©gard un arrÃªt de la Cour de cassation du 12 dÃ©cembre 1960 (Pas . 1961 1, 403) . Le requÃ©rant rÃ©torque que, vu le refus du procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de requÃ©rir le renvoi, il pouvait estimer que tout recours ultÃ© ri eur Ã©tait vouÃ© Ã l'Ã©chec et n'Ã©tait plus adÃ©quat et efficace . En effet, le MinistÃ¨re public prÃ¨s la Cour de cassation pa rt icipe aux dÃ©libÃ©rations de cette Cour, sans avoir droit de vote . Il y dÃ©fend naturellement son point de vue, en l'absence du requÃ©rant . (6) Quant Ã l'apparence de fondemen t Il y a lieu de distinguer ici les divers faits ou griefs spÃ©cifiquement mentionnÃ©s dans la requÃªte . (i) Le Gouvernement fait valoir qu'il n'est nullement dÃ©montrÃ© que, trois mois dÃ©jÃ avant l'arrestation du requÃ©rant, il aurait Ã©tÃ© demandÃ© Ã des membres de la police judiciaire de dresser des procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã sa charge, Ã© tablissant qu'il sabotait des instructions judiciaires . Le requÃ©rant demande Ã la Commission de pouvoir citer les tÃ©moins pouvant apporter la preuve de ce fait . (ii) Le Gouvernement soutient que les dÃ©clarations faites Ã la presse par le procu re ur gÃ©nÃ©ral lors de l'arrestation du requÃ©rant puis lors de sa propre admission Ã l'Ã©mÃ© ri tat n'ont, ni dans leur principe ni par leur contenu pu influencer le dÃ©roulement de l'ins truction et du procÃ¨s ou en prÃ©juger . Le requÃ©rant estime au contraire que les dÃ©clarations du procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral le dÃ©cri vant comme un bien mauvais magistrat ont profondÃ©ment influencÃ© l'opinion publique et gravement violÃ© l'obligation de rÃ©serve . (iii) Le Gouvernement invite la Commission Ã constater que les propos tenus devant un journaliste par le magistrat instructeur ne rÃ©vÃ¨lent ni prÃ©vention conce rt Ã©e ni tentative de . conditionnement de l'opinion publique â¢ . Le requÃ©rant souligne que le fait mÃªme pour ce magistrat de s'adresser Ã la presse depuis son propre cabinet dont on venait de fai re sauter les scellÃ©s Ã©tait rÃ©prÃ©hensible au regard de l'a rt icle 6 . (iv) Le Gouvernement souligne enfin que l'indiscrÃ©tion commise au profit de la presse, par la communication d'un rÃ©sultat confidentiel d'expertise, n'Ã©manait pas du MinistÃ¨re public, dans le but d'influencer l'opinion . B . MÃ©connaissance des droits de la dÃ©fense (article 6 de la Convention ) (a) Quant Ã l'Ã©puisemen t Le Gouvernement admet que le requÃ©rant a bien invoquÃ© l'article 6, paragraphe 1 devant la Cour de cassation, Ã propos des faits qu'il dÃ©nonc e
mais souligne qu'il aurait pu dÃ©velopper d'autres moyens . En particulier il aurait pu invoquer devant cette Cour la violation de l'article 97 de la Constitution en faisant valoir que la cour d'assises n'avait pas rÃ©pondu Ã ses demandes de communication de procÃ¨s-verbaux de la Gendarmerie . u relÃ¨ve en outre que si le requÃ©rant affirme aujourd'hui que les piÃ¨ces dont il a eu communication aprÃ¨s l'arrÃªt de condamnation Ã©taient trÃ¨s importantes pour sa dÃ©fense, il n'a pas sollicitÃ© la rÃ©vision de sa condamnation sur la base de l'article 443, 3 0 . du code d'instruction criminelle . Le requÃ©rant souligne que sa plainte tend Ã faire Ã©tablir que son procÃ¨s n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©quitable ; le moyen de violation des droits de la dÃ©fense articulÃ© en l'espÃ¨ce ne constitue pas, aux termes de l'article 443, 3Â° . du code d'instruction criminelle, une voie de rÃ©vision .
(b) Quant Ã l'apparence de fondemen t (i) La non-communication du , dossier administratif . Le Gouvernement confirme que tout parquet gÃ©nÃ©ral ouvre au sujet d'une affaire une chemise de section, dite aussi . dossier administratif ., dans lequel sont classÃ©s le cour ri er interne, par exemple entre le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral et le procureur du roi, le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral et le ministre de la justice, des piÃ¨ces administratives, lettres d'avocats, a rticles de presse, lettres anonymes . etc . ~ . Ces piÃ¨ces, qui ne sont pas des piÃ¨ces de la procÃ©du re , sont dÃ©nuÃ©es d'intÃ©rÃªt pour la manifestation de la vÃ©ritÃ© . La confection de ces dossiers n'est pas une pratique clandestine . Le Gouvernement cite Ã ce propos une sÃ©rie de circulaires de procureurs gÃ©nÃ©raux et procureurs du roi relatives Ã leur tenue . Tout en admettant que le ministÃ¨re public ne peut dissimuler une piÃ¨ce qui serait de nature Ã Ã©clairer le juge, le Gouvernement soutient que ce serait l'Ã©garer que de gonfler un dossier rÃ©pressif . En l'espÃ¨ce, il est inexact d'affirmer, comme le fait le requÃ©rant, que la cour d'assises ait rejetÃ© la demande de communication de la chemise spÃ©ciale du parquet gÃ©nÃ©ral . L'arrÃªt du 28 novembre 1977 ( lire 29 novembre 1977) reproduit les conclusions par lesquelles le requÃ©rant affirmait qu'il rÃ©sultait des piÃ¨ces qui avaient Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©es Ã la dÃ©fense par le MinistÃ¨re public qu'il existait un . dossier spÃ©cial Â» du parquet gÃ©nÃ©ral ayant trait Ã l'affaire, et en rÃ©clamait le dÃ©pÃ´t . La cour d'assises, aprÃ¨s avoir dÃ©cidÃ© que des piÃ¨ces ( rÃ©clamÃ©es par l'accusÃ© De C .) devaient Ãªtre dÃ©posÃ©es au dossier parce qu'il apparaissait qu'elles Ã©taient utiles Ã la manifestation de la vÃ©ritÃ©, relevait au contrai re qu'il ne rÃ©sultait d'aucun des Ã©lÃ©ments soumis Ã la cour qu'il existerait d'autres piÃ¨ces qui n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© jointes au dossier rÃ©pressif et qui seraient utiles pour (l'examen) de la cause .
La Cour de cassation, qui Ã©tait sans pouvoir d'ordonner le dÃ©pÃ´t du dossier administratif, a jugÃ© que la cour d'assises avait ainsi rÃ©pondu aux conclusions du requÃ©rant, sans violer les droits de la dÃ©fense . Le Gouvernement fait observer au surplus qu'en dÃ©pit du large pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire qui lui est confÃ©rÃ© par les articles 268 et 269 du code d'instruction criminelle, le PrÃ©sident de la cour d'assises ne peut donner d'injonction au MinistÃ¨re public et ordonner, par exemple, la production de tout ou partie du dossier administratif, en vertu de la sÃ©paration des pouvoirs et de l'indÃ©pendance du MinistÃ¨re public . L'Ã©galitÃ© des armes serait au reste rompue si tous les Ã©lÃ©ments dont le MinistÃ¨re public a connaissance devaient Ãªtre communiquÃ©s Ã la dÃ©fense, alors que, par exemple . la teneur des entretiens entre l'accusÃ© et son dÃ©fenseur n'est, comme il se doit, pas communiquÃ©e au MinistÃ¨re public . Le requÃ©rant rÃ©plique qu'il avait spÃ©cifiquement demandÃ© devant la cour d'assises la production de la . farde correspondante du parquet gÃ©nÃ©ral ., farde dans laquelle se trouvent diffÃ©rentes piÃ¨ces d'un grand intÃ©rÃªt pour sa dÃ©fense car elles concernent notamment la crÃ©dibilitÃ© des personnes qui l'ont accusÃ© . Il n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© fait droit Ã cette demande . Il en rÃ©sulte une violation des droits de la dÃ©fense . (ii)
La non-comrnunication de procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã©tablis par la Gendarmerie aprÃ¨s le dÃ©but du procÃ¨ s
Le Gouvernement admet qu'un procÃ¨s-verbal (NÂ° 87 D) Ã©tabli le 28 dÃ©cembre 1977 par la gendarmerie a Ã©tÃ© remis Ã la dÃ©fense aprÃ¨s l'arrÃªt de condamnation . Il plaide l'erreur humaine mais assure que cette erreur n'a eu aucune consÃ©quence . Il rÃ©sulte en effet du procÃ¨s-verbal 87 D du 28 dÃ©cembre 1977 que les paroles adressÃ©es par De C . au requÃ©rant ont Ã©tÃ© connues de ses dÃ©fenseurs puisque, le mÃªme jour, l'un de ceux-ci Ã©mettait le souhait de connaÃ®tre les noms des gendarmes les ayant entendues . Le requÃ©rant et son avocat pouvaient ainsi, dÃ¨s la reprise de l'audience, demander au PrÃ©sident de faire confirmer par De C . le propos qu'il venait de lui tenir et de faire confirmer par le gendarme la rÃ©alitÃ© de ces propos . Ils ne l'ont pas fait . Il parait inexact d'affirmer que la production de ce document ait Ã©tÃ© demandÃ©e, avec son dÃ©pÃ´t, au cours de la procÃ©dure devant la cour d'assises et spÃ©cialement au cours de l'audience du 5 janvier 1978 . Dans le mÃ©moire Ã l'appui de son pourvoi en cassation, le requÃ©ran t faisait valoir dans la troisiÃ¨me branche' du troisiÃ¨me moyen que l'arrÃ©t du 28 janvier 1978 avait Ã©tÃ© rendu en violation des droits de la dÃ©fense, . de 7ospiÃ¨cemrtanlsquepocÃ¨-vrbalNÂ°87D,Ã©tie2dcmbr197 par la gendarmerie de Gand et contenant des dÃ©clarations Ã dÃ©charge pour l e
demandeur n'ont Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ©es aux dÃ©fenseurs du demandeur qu'aprÃ¨s la fin des dÃ©bats â¢ . L'arrÃ©t de la cour rejettre cette branche du moyen . Le requÃ©rant, pour Ã©tayer ses affirmations, invoque le procÃ¨s-verbal de l'audience de la cour du 5 janvier 1978 . La lecture de ce procÃ¨s-verbal permet, d'une part, de s'assurer que le requÃ©rant n'a pas rÃ©clamÃ© la jonction de piÃ¨ces et, prÃ©cisÃ©ment, dudit procÃ¨s-verbal 87 D et, d'autre part, permet aussi de vÃ©rifier combien et le MinistÃ¨re public et la cour ont eu le souci constant de faire en sorte que soit respectÃ© l'article 6 de la Convention des Droits de l'Homme . Le requÃ©rant indique avoir apprisque, pendant le procÃ¨s, la Gendarmerie aurait dressÃ© plusieurs procÃ¨s-verbaux, contenant des dÃ©clarations de De C . et dans lesquelles celui-ci retirait les accusations qu'il avait faites Ã l'Ã©gard du requÃ©rant . Le procÃ¨s-verbal NÂ° 87 D est un de ces procÃ¨s-verbaux . Il produit encore deux autres procÃ¨s-verbaux de Gendarmerie relatifs Ã des discussions entre des jurÃ©s et des tiers . Il joint au dossier une dÃ©claration Ã©crite d'un ancien commandant de brigade de la Gendarmerie, chargÃ© de la garde des accusÃ©s au procÃ¨s d'assises, dans laquelle il dÃ©clare avoir fait rÃ©diger et transmis des procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã propos des multiples incidents, conversations et propositions entre les dÃ©tenus . Le parquet n'a pas communiquÃ© ces procÃ¨s-verbaux pendant le procÃ¨s . Il en a donc cachÃ© l'existence au requÃ©rant et Ã la dÃ©fense puisque le parquet connaissait l'existence de ce procÃ¨s-verbal . Si les gendarmes n'avaient pas averti la dÃ©fense de leur existence, personne de la dÃ©fense ne l'aurait su . Le fait de ne pas communiquer ces piÃ¨ces est une violation flagrante des droits de la dÃ©fense . Le requÃ©rant se permet de rappeler que le devoir primordial d'un magistrat du parquet est d'Ãªtre impartial, objectif et d'apporter au juge tous les Ã©lÃ©ments concernant l'affaire Ã juger . Il s'agit de faire Ã©clater la vÃ©ritÃ© et non de faire condamner, en cachant des piÃ¨ces, un homme innocent en violant ses droits Ã©lÃ©mentaires de dÃ©fense . Un parquet objectif et impartial avait le devoir de joindre d'office ce procÃ¨s-verbal au dossier . Cela aurait permis Ã la dÃ©fense et Ã la cour de confronter De C . ainsi que les gendarmes . Sans ce procÃ¨s-verbal NÂ° 87 D, et les autres, la dÃ©fense ne disposait d'aucune preuve formelle des dÃ©clarations de De C ., qui pouvait se rÃ©tracter comme il l'a fait auparavant . C . Discri mination en matiÃ¨re de dÃ©tention (articles 14 et 5 combinÃ©s ) Le Gouvernement indique que le transfe rt du requÃ©rant Ã la prison d'Audenarde le 7 avril 1978 Ã© tait une mesure parf aitement normale . De tous les Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires de Flande, cette p ri son est la mieux outillÃ©e, aprÃ¨s - 110 -
celle de Louvain oÃ¹ se trouve dÃ©tenu le principal complice du requÃ©rant, pour recevoir des condamnÃ©s Ã de longues peines . Il est exact que cet Ã©tablissement est destinÃ© Ã hÃ©berger Ã©galement les condamnÃ©s dont l'Ã©tat mental devient tel qu'ils ne peuvent plus supporter le rÃ©gime d'un Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiaire ordinaire, tout en n'Ã©tant pas suffisamment malades pour Ãªtre internÃ©s dans un Ã©tablissement psychiatrique en application de l'article 21 de la loi de dÃ©fense sociale . Cette prison a cependant reÃ§u de tout temps d'autres condamnÃ©s, dans la mesure oÃ¹ sa capacitÃ© le permettait . Le traitement rÃ©servÃ© au requÃ©rant n'y Ã©tait certainement pas d'une excessive rigueur puisqu'il fut autorisÃ© Ã se marier le 9 mars 1978 . Le requÃ©rant fut ensuite transfÃ©rÃ© en janvier 1979 Ã la prison de Nivelles avec une vingtaine d'autres dÃ©tenus dont l'Ã©vacuation Ã©tait rendue nÃ©cessaire par des travaux . Il a par la suite Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© au centre mÃ©dical chirurgical de la prison de St . Gilles pour y recevoir les soins que son Ã©tat requiert . Le 27 juin 1980, il a Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ© provisoirement pour raisons de santÃ© . Rien ne permet ainsi de prÃ©tendre que l'un quelconque des droits garantis pas la Convention aurait fait l'objet, dans le chef du requÃ©rant, d'une mesure discriminatoire prohibÃ©e par l'article 14 de la Convention . Les conseils du requÃ©rant affirment, pour leur part, que leur client a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©duit, en deux ans d'incarcÃ©ration, Ã un Ã©tat d'Ã©pave humaine . Ils ont joint une lettre du docteur D ., en date du 26 fÃ©vrier 1980, indiquant que le requÃ©rant prÃ©sentait les symptÃ´mes d'une affection cÃ©rÃ©brale extrÃªmement grave et qu'il devait Ãªtre, le plus rapidement possible . extrait du milieu carcÃ©ral .
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que son procÃ¨s aurait rÃ©sultÃ© d'une conspiration ourdie dans certains milieux judiciaires et aurait Ã©tÃ© prÃ©cÃ©dÃ© d'un conditionnement de l'opinion publique de nature Ã influencer le jury appelÃ© Ã le juger . Il allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention qui garantit Ã tout accusÃ© en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale le droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable . (a) La Commission observe en premier lieu qu'il ne rÃ©sulte d'aucun Ã©lÃ©ment versÃ© au dossier que la police judiciaire aurait Ã©tÃ© chargÃ©e, plusieurs mois avant l'arrestation du requÃ©rant, de dresser des procÃ¨s-verbaux Ã sa charge et que le requÃ©rant n'a donnÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard aucune indication prÃ©cise . I l - 111 -
n'a pas Ã©tÃ© allÃ©guÃ© au surplus que de tels procÃ¨s-verbaux auraient pu avoir d'autre objet que la faÃ§on dont le requÃ©rant exerÃ§ait Ã l'Ã©poque ses fonctions de juge d'instruction . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ il fait Ã©tat d'une conspiration, le grief ne s'appuie ainsi sur aucun Ã©lÃ©ment de nature Ã le rendre vraisemblable et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement au sens de l'article 27 . paragraphe 2 . de la Convention . (b) Il n'est pas contestÃ©, en revanche, que le procÃ¨s du requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© prÃ©cÃ©dÃ© de plusieurs dÃ©clarations Ã la presse de la part de membres du parquet ou du juge d'instruction ni que I' . Affaire Jespers â¢ ait suscitÃ© dans la presse locale et rÃ©gionale une Ã©motion considÃ©rable et une trÃ¨s vive curiositÃ© . Or, ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jÃ admis, une virulente campagne de presse peut, dans certains cas, nuire Ã l'Ã©quitÃ© du procÃ¨s (cf . dÃ©cisions sur requÃªtes NÂ° 1476/62 c/Autriche, Rec . 11 p . 31 ; NÂ° 3444/67 c/NorvÃ¨ge, Ann . 13 p . 302) et engager la responsabilitÃ© de l'Etat, notamment lorsqu'elle a Ã©tÃ© provoquÃ©e par l'un de ses organes (cf . a contrario, dÃ©cision sur requÃªte NÂ° 2291/64, Rec . 24 p . 20) . Tout en affirmant que tel n'Ã©tait pas le cas en l'espÃ¨ce, le Gouvernement a soutenu que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã cet Ã©gard, car il avait omis de requÃ©rir auprÃ¨s de la Cour de cassation le renvoi de l'affaire Ã une autre cour d'assises, en application de l'article 542, al . 2, du code d'instruction criminelle . Cette disposition autorise le renvoi Ã une cour pour cause de suspicion lÃ©gitime . sur la rÃ©quisition des parties intÃ©ressÃ©es . Dans une affaire oÃ¹ il Ã©tait allÃ©guÃ© que les membres d'un jury auraien t Ã©tÃ© particuliÃ¨rement influenÃ§ables par une campagne de presse, la Commission a dÃ©jÃ admis qu'une demande de renvoi pour cause de suspicion lÃ©gitime pouvait constituer un recours vraisemblablement efficace et suffisant (cf . Rapport sur requÃªte NÂ° 788/60 . Autriche c/Italie, paragraphe 75) . Rien ne permet de penser qu'un tel recours serait, en Belgique, thÃ©orique ou illusoire . Le Gouvernement en a du reste donnÃ© un exemple d'application rÃ©cente, dans des circonstances analogues Ã celles de la prÃ©sente requÃªte (Cass . 12 dÃ©cembre 1960 - Pas . 61, 1, 402) . Le requÃ©rant objecte cependant que le recours ne prÃ©sentait en l'espÃ¨ce aucune chance de succÃ¨s . Il fait valoir Ã cet Ã©gard que le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral auquel il avait demandÃ© de requÃ©rir le renvoi pour cause de sÃ»retÃ© publique n'avait pas estimÃ© devoir faire une telle rÃ©quisition, pour ce motif ou pour motif de suspicion lÃ©gitime . Or, le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral prÃ¨s la Cour de cassation assiste aux dÃ©libÃ©rations de la Cour, sans voix dÃ©libÃ©rative il est vrai (article 1109 du code judiciaire) ; il pouvait ainsi dÃ©fendre son point de vuÃ© en l'absence de l'accusÃ© et indiauer Ã la cour qu'il n'y avait pas lieu Ã renvoi .
De l'avis de la Commission, cette circonstance ne suffit pas Ã Ã©tablir que le recours n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ©, en l'espÃ¨ce, vraisemblablement efficace et suffisant . Elle rappelle Ã cet Ã©gard que le systÃ¨me de l'article 1109 du code judiciaire (anciennement article 39 de l'arrÃªtÃ© du RÃ©gent du 15 mars 1815), qui confÃ¨re au MinistÃ¨re public le droit d'assister Ã la dÃ©libÃ©ration de la Cour de cassation, n'a pas Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© incompatible avec l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention (Cour Eur. D .H ., affaire Delcourt, arrÃ©t du 17 janvier 1970, notamment paragraphe 37) . Certes, contrairement Ã l'affaire Delcourt, la Cour de cassation aurait Ã©tÃ© exceptionnellement invitÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce Ã apprÃ©cier des faits et non la lÃ©galitÃ© d'une dÃ©cision judiciaire ; le rÃ´le du procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral en eUt Ã©tÃ© lÃ©gÃ¨rement modifiÃ© . Faute pour le requÃ©rant de s'Ãªtre directement adressÃ© Ã la Cour de cassation, rien ne permet cependant de conclure que l'opinion for mulÃ©e par le MinistÃ¨re public, conseil indÃ©pendant et impartial de la cour, et sa prÃ©sence Ã la dÃ©libÃ©ration, auraient dÃ©terminÃ© la dÃ©cision de cette juridiction . En invitant le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral Ã requÃ©rir lui-mÃªme le renvoi de la cause Ã une autre cour d'assises au lieu de formuler eux-mÃªmes de telles rÃ©quisitions devant la Cour de cassation, les conseils des requÃ©rants paraissent au surplus s'Ãªtre placÃ©s sur le terrain de la tactique . Ils n'ont pas Ã©tabli, en tous cas, qu'une demande de renvoi pour cause de suspicion lÃ©gitime introduite conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 542, alinÃ©a 2, du code d'instruction criminelle, ne constituait pas un recours accessible et adÃ©quat . Il s'ensuit que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã l'Ã©gard de ce grief et que cette partie de la requÃ©te doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable en application des articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que certaines piÃ¨ces dont disposait le MinistÃ¨re public n'aient pas Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es au dossier rÃ©pressif ni communiquÃ©es Ã la dÃ©fense . Se fondant notamment sur la dÃ©claration Ã©crite d'un ancien commandant de brigade de gendarmerie et sur trois procÃ¨s-verbaux communiquÃ©s aprÃ¨s le procÃ¨s, il soutient ainsi que de nombreux procÃ¨s-verbaux furent Ã©tablis Ã l'Ã©poque des audiences et intentionnellement maintenus Ã l'Ã©cart du dossier rÃ©pressif, vraisemblablement dans une farde spÃ©ciale du parquet . Il allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard une violation des droits de la dÃ©fense garantis par l'article 6 de la Convention . Le Gouvernement a admis qu'Ã la suite d'une erreur humaine un procÃ¨sverbal (NÂ° 87 D) n'a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ© Ã la dÃ©fense qu'aprÃ¨s la clÃ´ture des dÃ©bats d'assises . Les deux autres procÃ¨s-verbaux citÃ©s n'avaient, selon lui, pas de rapport direct avec l'affaire . Sous rÃ©serve de vÃ©rifications, il a dÃ©clarÃ© ignorer l'existence d'autres piÃ¨ces . - 113 -
Le Gouvernement a fait valoir toutefois que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours Ã cet Ã©gard . D'une part, il n'aurait pas soulevÃ© devant .la Cour de cassation tous les moyens envisageables ; d'autre part, il aurait toujours la facultÃ© de demander la rÃ©vision de son procÃ¨s sur la base des piÃ¨ces communiquÃ©es tardivement . (a) Quant au pourvoi en cassation, auquel le Gouvernement n'a d'ailleurs plus fait allusion Ã l'audience, il suffit de relever que le requÃ©rant a critiquÃ© dans son pourvoi le refus du PrÃ©sident de la cour d'assises d'ordonner la production de toutes les piÃ¨ces pas jointes au dossier rÃ©pressif et invoquÃ© Ã ce propos la mÃ©connaissance de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention et des droits de la dÃ©fense . Le grief soumis Ã la Commission a donc Ã©tÃ© au prÃ©alable soulevÃ© devant la Cour de cassation ; le requÃ©rant a soulevÃ© devant cette Cour le moyen de droit essentiel pour le bien-fondÃ© de sa rÃ©clamation et a fait ainsi un usage normal de cette voie de recours . (b) Quant Ã la demande en rÃ©vision, la Commission rappelle qu'une procÃ©dure qui tend Ã rouvrir une affaire ou Ã tenir un nouveau procÃ¨s sur le fond ne constitue pas normalement une voie de recours devant nÃ©cessairement Ã©tre Ã©puisÃ©e . Elle renvoie sur ce point Ã sa jurisprudence constante (voir, par exemple, dÃ©cision sur requÃªte NÂ° 6243/73, Rec . 46 p . 202) . L'article 443, paragraphe 3, du code belge d'instruction criminelle dispose que la rÃ©vision d'une condamnation pourra Ã©tre demandÃ©e - si la preuve de i'innocence du condamnÃ© ( . . .) parait rÃ©sulter d'un fait survenu depuis sa condamnation ou d'une circonstance qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã mÃªme d'Ã©tablir lors du procÃ¨s . . Cette disposition n'a donc pas pour objet la censure d'une irrÃ©gularitÃ© de procÃ©dure ; elle permet seulement de prendre en considÃ©ration des faits ou circonstances dont il Ã©tait impossible de faire Ã©tat lors du procÃ¨s . Elle exige que la preuve de l'innocence puisse en rÃ©sulter . Il ne s'agit pas lÃ d'un recours relatif Ã la violation incriminÃ©e (Cour EuropÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, arrÃªt Airey du 9 octobre 1979 . sÃ©rie A NÂ°32, par . 19), lorsque, comme en l'espÃ¨ce, il est allÃ©guÃ© que des piÃ¨ces - connues ou inconnues - ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment Ã©cartÃ©es . Le moyen de non-Ã©puisement n'est ainsi fondÃ© dans aucune de ses deux branches . Cette partie de la requÃªte ne peut Ãªtre rejetÃ©e en application de l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . La Commission a procÃ©dÃ© Ã un premier examen des faits et argument s des parties . Elle estime que les problÃ¨mes qui se posent en l'espÃ¨ce se rÃ©vÃ¨lent suffisamment complexes pour que leur solution doive relever de l'examen du fond de l'affaire . Les g ri efs du requÃ©rant ne sauraient dÃ¨s Iors Ãªtre rejetÃ©s sur ce point pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement au sens de l'article 27 . paragraphe 2, de la Convention . - 114 -
3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint enfin d'avoir Ã©tÃ© la victime d'un traitement discriminatoire en prison . II allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 5 garantissant le droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ©, combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Convention qui prohibe la discrimination dans la jouissance des droits reconnus par la Convention . Ce traitement discriminatoire aurait profondÃ©ment Ã©prouvÃ© le requÃ©rant et dÃ©labrÃ© sa santÃ© . La Commission observe que le seul fait prÃ©cis dÃ©noncÃ© par le requÃ©rant est son placement pendant neuf mois dans un Ã©tablissement destinÃ© Ã hÃ©berger des condamnÃ©s Ã tendance psychopathique non soumis Ã la Loi de dÃ©fense sociale . Il ressort des dÃ©clarations non contestÃ©es du Gouvernement que l'Ã©tablissement d'Audenarde accueille aussi des condamnÃ©s sans tendance psychopathique . Le placement du requÃ©rant dans cette prison ne saurait dÃ¨s lors Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© en tant que tel comme une forme de discrimination dans l'exÃ©cution des peines privatives de libertÃ© . La Commission observe au surplus que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã se remarier, qu'il a bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© de soins intensifs et bÃ©nÃ©ficie depuis le 27 juin 1980 d'une libÃ©ration provisoire pour raisons de santÃ© . Aucune des piÃ¨ces mÃ©dicales versÃ©es au dossier ne permet de conclure Ã l'existence d'un lien direct entre les conditions de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant et son Ã©tat de santÃ© . Un examen des faits ne permet dÃ¨s lors pas de dÃ©celer l'apparence d'une quelconque violation de la Convention et en particulier des dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es .
Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est, Ã cet Ã©gard, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃ©clare IRRECEVABLES les griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs Ã Ia prÃ©tendue conspiration judiciaire et au conditionnement de l'opinion publique ainsi qu'au traitement discriminatoire dont il aurait Ã©tÃ© victime en prison ; DÃ©clare la requÃªte RECEVABLE pour le surplus .
(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The facts, as they emerge from the applicant's submissions and the file attached in support of the application, may be summarised as follows : The applicant, a Belgian national born in 1934, was an investigating judge at the Ghent Court of first instance . When he lodged his application, he was detained in prison at Audenarde . . He is represented before the Commission by Mr Houtekier, lawyer at the Court of Cassation, assisted by MM . Vanderveeren, Verstringhe and Van Londersele, lawyers . In December 1975, the applicant's wife narrowly escaped a fire in her car which was attributed at the time by an expert to a technical fault in the ignition system . Mrs Jespers was found dead in her bath on the night of 26-27 June 1976 . Following a medical report, the Public Prosecutor's Office decided at the time that there was nothing to indicate that death was not the result of natural causes . On 26 February 1977, following a statement made by a certain De C . in the context of preliminary investigations instituted against him for theft, the investigating judge issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest . On 27 February 1977 the latter was informed that he was accused of murder and attempted murder of his wife and of complicity in theft, and he was arrested . On the same day, his arrest was announced to the press by the Public Prosecutor attached of the Ghent Court of Appeal on the grounds that the suspicions against the person concerned were "too numerous and too serious" for him to be left at liberty . The preliminary inquiries were entrusted to a judge in the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 480 of the Code of criminal Procedure relating to proceedings againstjudges . This judge immediately granted an interview to a journalist in the applicant's office . A report on the conversation appeared in "La Semaine d'Anvers" of 4 March 1977 under the heading :"L'affaire Jespers ou la gangrÃ¨ne de l'Ã¢me" ("The Jespers case or gangrene of the soul") . The applicant and De C ., the other principal accused, were examined on numerous occasions, together with a number of other persons involved in one or other of the offences for which the two principal parties were indicted . De C . constantly maintained that the applicant had paid him to organise the explosion in his wife's car . He alleged that he had been present on the night of Mrs Jespers's death and that she had been submerged in the bath by her husband afler being drugged . He also denounced the applicant for having actively participated in robbery with violence in the home of an elderly perso n
and, subsequently, in theft committed with counterfeit keys from that same person's bank safe . The applicant denied all these statements . He admitted to having paid De C . . 2 million BF, but said that he had done so to finance the production of a medical apparatus . The investigating judge ordered a further expert examination of the motor car destroyed in 1975 . The engineers established the presence of explosives in the car . He .also had Madame Jespers' body exhumed and many tests carried out . In an expert report submitted on 14 April 1977, Professors A . and T . stated that an examination of the body eight and a half months after death did not make it possible to determine the exact cause . It was impossible to perceive any trace of poisoning . They accepted the conclusion in the first medical expert's report to the effect that death had resulted from drowning, the causes remaining unknown . After an on-the-spot examination, Professor T . conctuded on 2 May 1977 that it was impossible to rule out either murder or an accident .The toxicological report drawn up on 15 April 1977 confirmed that there was no trace of poison, but that the tissues contained traces of tranquillisers . Throughout this period the "Jespers case" was given considerable prominence in the Belgian press, particularly in the Flemish language newspapers . In April 1977 some papers even referred to the expert reports on the explosion of the car before these had been included in the file or counsel for the defence had been able to see them .
On April, the applicant requested the Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal to open an inquiry in order to establish who had violated the secrecy of preliminary investigations and also made it possible to publish information without prior agreement of the defence . On 16 May, the Public Prosecutor to the Court of Appeal informed counsel for the defence that, according to the results of the enquiry carried out on his orders, the details referred to in the press had not been supplied by persons required to respect the secrecy of preliminary investigations . Before deciding what further action should be taken in the case, he invited counsel for the applicant to acquaint himself with the various items of information . Counsel for the defence also asked that a number of persons be examined, including the public prosecutor to the court of appeal who had been placed on the retired list a few days previously . The public prosecutor to the Court of Appeal replied on 3 June that he could not allow these persons to be examined since all were required to observe professional secrecy. He also confirmed that the indiscretions came from third parties and said that he intended to approve the Ghent public prosecutor's decision to file and dispose of the case . - 117 -
Furthermore, on 27 April 1977, the public prosecutor to the Ghent Court of Appeal, who had been placed on the retired list, gave an interview to the press in which he allegedly said :"On more than one occasion I advised Jespers to alter and improve his working methods . I was wasting my time . He ran his office badly . like an amateur . . . . . . He also allegedly rebuted the accused for having unjustifiable relations with doubtful individuals . The preliminary investigations were completed in June 1977 . It was then up to the public prosecutor at the Court of Appeal to request the Indictment Chamber to comit the accused for trial before the Court of Assizes . On 13 June 1977 counsel for the applicant applied to the public prosecutor attached to the Court of Cassation to request that the case be refered to a Court of Assizes other than that at Ghent, which would normally have tried the case, on grounds of public safety (Sections 542 and 544 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) . He referred to the emotional state of public opinion and the press campaign which might jeopardise the court's independence . In a letter dated 23 June 1977, the public prosecutor replied that nothing in the facts referred to by counsel for the defense seemed to him to justify a request that the case be referred to another court . In an order issued on the same day, the Indictment Chamber of the Ghent Court of Appeal referred the case to the Court of Assizes of Eastern Flanders, which sits in Ghent . The trial began on 28 November 1977 . The applicants' lawyers immediatly submitted conclusions requesting the "President of the Court to order that all documents relating to the case and, more pa rt icularly, those contained in the prison re cords of De C . and V . (another accused), should be included in the file for the proceedings . These items might be useful in establishing the truth . Fu rt hermore, documents made available to the defence by the Public Prosecutor's Depart ment reveal that there is a special folder on this case in the Public Prosecutor's Office . Counsel for the defence requests that this folder be also included in the file" . Counsel for the defence based his arguments on a letter sent to the Public Prosecutor on 21 August by a prisoner in Ghent p ri son who alleged that he had a conversation with De C . from which it had transpired that the applicant was innocent of the charges of murder and attempted murder . The Public Prosecutor's Department had added the following hand-written note in the margin of that letter : Â°Office-to be placed in the special Jespers folder kept in Mr H's ( Public Prosecutor at the Cou rt of Appeal) cupboard and submitted to him with the letter. 23 .8 .77 . " Counsel for the defence also requested that all the repo rt s drawn up i n this case after the completion of the preliminary investigations should be included in the file .
The next day the court ordered that the tetters and objects seized by the prison authorities should be included in the file, but added that "no information available to the court suggests that any other documents of use in the case exist which have not been included in the file" . By decision of the Court of Assizes, dated 28 January 1978 : the applicant was sentenced to 20 years' hard labour for attempted murder (but not murder), theft, forgery, calumnious denunciation and the possession of firearms . He appealed to the Court of Cassation, basing his arguments in particular on Article 6 (1) of the Convention, and submitted that the rights of the defence had been disregarded because of the Court of Assizes' refusal to order the Public Prosecutor's Office to produce the correspondence filed in a special folder and of the absence from the file of a number of reports drawn up after the preliminary investigations had been concluded . In support of his submission, he produced a report (No . 87 D) drawn up by the Gendarmerie during the trial and containing statements in his favour . This report, dated 28 December 1977, had not been made available to the defence until after the hearing . It described a conversation between himself and De C . in which the latter had said, inter alia :Â°Guy, as soon as you confess to that business concerning the theft, I shall withdraw my statement about murder and attempted murder" . Lastly, the applicant referred to a letter, sent to the Minister of Justice by an anonymous member of the jury, which referred to pressure exerted on the jurors by a judge in the Ghent Court of Appeal with a view to securing an exemplary conviction designed to protect the reputation of the Flemish magistrature . The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on 25 April 1978 . After pointing out that the trial court as the exclusive fact finding instance had found that no important documents had been left out of the file, the court found that the applicant could have asked the court that the favourable police report he communicated to him . The latter did indeed describe a conversation between De C . and the applicant which the applicant knew had been overheard by the police . The mere fact of failing to transmit this report in good time to the defence did not in itself constitute a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention . The Court of Cassation refused to accept the plea concerning the jury's lack of impartiality, since doubt as to impartiality was based solely on an anonymous document . The applicant, who had been transferred on 7 April 1978 to Oudenaarde prison, was moved to the prison at Nivelles on 10 January 1979 . According to a brief medical report dawn up on 26 April 1979, he was having difficulty in walking and displaying symptoms of depression . Subsequently . for health reasons, he was sent on a number of occasions to the surgical medical centre at St Gilles prison, and then outside that institution .
COMPLAINTS The applicant, who has constantly protestÃ©d his innocence, submits that he was convicted in the absence of any . mate ri al evidence and that this is a case of a flagrant judicial error made possible by tepeated violations of the Convention, as shown by the following acts : ( a) Plot hatched in opinio n
certain judicial circles and - the conditioning of public
The applicant submits in this connection ; that three months before his arrest, members of the police c riminal investigitions depa rtment had already been asked to prepare repo rts against him in order to establish that he was sabotaging judicial investigations . He also points out that on the very day of his arrest the Public Prosecutor's Office had t eld a p re ss conference to inform the public that a judge had been arrested formurder and a tt empted murder, although no statement by De C ., his accuser, i was in the file ; that the Public Prosecutor to the Ghent Court of Appeal htid granted an interview to the press and attacked the applicant in slanderous terms ; that the investigating judge had taken it upon himself to receive journalists in the applicant's office and even sat in his arm chair ; that all these facts revealed a deplorable and conce rted p rejudice against the applicant on the pa rt of the Public Prosecutor's Office and a desire to create an unfavourable impression of the applicant in the public mind and in the eyes of his jury . He also recalls that during the secret investigations, confiden ti al information, unknown to the defence, w w made available to the press, again with a view to influencing public opinionâ¢ .and the future ju ry against the applicant ; that the Public Prosecutor's Office issued a statement to the press concerning the result of an expe rt report on'the explosion of the motor car which allegedly demonstrated the applicant's so -called guilt in the a tt empted murder of his wife, although the defenceâ¢â¢had not been informed of the contents . (b) Disregard for the rights of the defence The applicant complains that a special folder containing correspondence with .the Public Prosecutor's OfHce was not included in the file . He submits in this connection that the Public Prosecutor's Office is not entitled to sort his correspondence out and withhold documents likely to exonerate him . He also complains that an impo rtant report ( No . 87 D) established by the Gendarme rie du ri ng the t ri al was not made available to the defence until the hea ri ngs had ended, although it contained ve ry important statements in his defence . He submits that other repo rt s establishing his innocence were not made available, thus violating the principle of equali ty of arms .
(c) The applicant complains further of discriminatory treatment in prison He alleges that he was placed without good reason in an institution used for prisoners suffering from mental disorders with a view to destroying him morally and intellectually . He alleges the violation of Articles 5 (1), 6(1), (2) (3) (b) and (d), 14 and 13 of the Convention, the reference to the last provision not being otherwise explained.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N On 2 October 1979 the Commission decided to bring this application to the notice of the respondent Government . The Govemment was invited to present its observations on the admissibility of the application in writing before the 14 December 1979 . This time limit was extended on two occasions . The Government's memorial, dated 21 Febmary 1980, was communicated to counsel for the applicant who submitted observations in reply in two memorials dated 26 March and 3 May 1980 . On 8 July 1980, the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits . This hearing took place on 15 October 1980 . The parties were represented as follows : For the Government, Mr Niset, Agent Mr Kirschen, former president of the bar, counsel . For the applicant Mr Houtekier, lawyer at the Court of Cassation, MM . Verstringhe and Van Londersele, lawyers .
SUMMARY OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S A . Conspiracy and condltioning (Article 6 of the Convention ) (a) As to the exhaustion of dornestic rernedies The fact that the applicant could not usefully seize the Court of Cassation of an appeal against the Court of Assizes' decision in this respect is not disputed by the parties . On the other hand, the Government submit that the applicant did not avail himself of all the possibilities of having the case referred to a court of assizes in another province . Actually, the applicant could have applied directly to the Court of Cassation, and not to the Public Prosecutor to the Court of Appeal for the case to be withdrawn on grounds of legitimate suspicion and not of public security and asked for it to be referred to another investigating judge or another Court of Assizes (Section 542 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) . In that connection they refer to the Court of Cassation's decision of 12 December 1960 (Pas . 1961 1, 403) .
The applicant objects that, in view of the Public Prosecutor's refusal to have the case referred to another court, he was entitled to assume that any subsequent appeal was doomed to failure and was no longer adequate and effective . Actually, the Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the Court of Cassation takes part in that court's deliberations without having the right to vote . Naturally, it defends its point of view in the absence of the applicant . (b) As to the question whether this complaint is manifestly ill-founde d A distinction should be made here between the various facts or complaints specifically referred to in the application . (i) The Government submit that the allegation that three months before the applicant's arrest members of the criminal investigation department had already been asked to submit reports against him by establishing that he was sabotaging preliminary investigations has in no way been substantiated . The applicant requests the Commission to allow him to call witnesses who could prove this fact . (ii) The Government submit that the statements made to the press by the Public Prosecutor at the time of the applicant's arrest and also after he himself had been placed on the retired list, could not, in principle or because of their content, have influenced the preliminary investigations and the trial or prejudiced them . On the other hand, the applicarrt is of the opinion that the Public Prosecutor's statements, describing him as a very bad judge, considerably influenced public opinion and seriously violated the latter's obligation to respect the confidential nature of the proceedings . (iii) The Government invite the Commission to find that the remarks made before a journalist by the investigating judge do not reveal concerted prejudice or an attempt to "condition public opinion" . The applicant submits that the very fact that this judge addressed the press from his (the applicant's) own office whose seals had just been broken was reprehensible from the point of view of Article 6 . (iv) Lastly, the Government submit that the indiscretion to the press resulting from the communication of the confidential result of an expert report did not originate from the Public Prosecutor's Office with a view to influencing opinion . B . Disregard for the rights of the defence (Article 6 of the Convention ) (a) As to the exhaustion of domestic remedie s The Government concede that the applicant did indeed invoke Article 6(1) before the Court of Cassation in connection with the facts he denounces, bu t
subniit that he could have used other grounds of appeal . In particular, he could have invoked the violation of Article 97 of the Constitution before that Court by submitting that the Court of Assizes had not responded to his requests for the communication of the police reports . They also point out that although the applicant now alleges that the documents made available to him after sentence had been passed were very important for his defence, he did not ask for a review of his conviction on the basis of Section 443 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The applicarrt submits that his complaint is designed to establish that his trial was not fair ; the argument concerning the violation of the rights of the defence put forward in the present case does not constitute a plea under Section 443 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . (b) As to the questiorr whether this cornplaint is manifes!ly il!-founded (i) Failure to produce the "administrative file " The Governnient confirm that every Public Prosecutor's Office opens a so-called "adntinistrative file" in connection with a case, which contains the internal post, e .g . between the Public Prosecutor at the court of appeal and the Public Prosecutor of the lower court, the Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice, Administrative documents, letters from lawyers, press articles, anonymous letters etc . These documents which are not procedural papers, are of no importance for establishing the truth . Constituting such files is not a secret practice . The Government refer in this connection to a number of circulars by Public Prosecutors both to the Courts of Appeal and Lower courts relating to such files .
Whilst admitting that the Public Prosecutor's Office may not conceal a document which might provide the judge with useful information, the Government submit that an unduly voluminous file would mislead him . In the present case, it is inaccurate to submit, as the applicant does, that the Court of Assizes dismissed the request for the production of the special folder from the Public Prosecutor's Office .e . 29 November 1977) contains the .Thedcisonf28Nvmber197(i conclusions in which the applicant alleged that the documents which had been made available to the defence by the Public Prosecutor's Office revealed that there was a "special file" in the Public Prosecutor's Office, and asked for it to be included in the file . After deciding that the documents (called for by the accused De C . ) should be included in the file because it appeared that they were useful in establishing the truth, the Court of Assizes decided, on the contrary, that none of the elements submitted to the court suggested that there were other documents which had not been included in the file but which would be of use in the examination of the case . - 123 -
The Court of Cassation which was not competent to order that the administrative file be produced, found that the Court of Assizes had thus responded to the applicant's conclusions without violating the rights of the defence . The Government further point out that in spite of the wide discretionary powers conferred on him under Sections 268 and 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the President of the Court of Assizes cannot issue an injunction against the Public Prosecutor's Office and order, for instance, the production or all or part of the administrative file, because of the separation of powers and the independence of the Public Prosecutor's Office . Furthermore, equality of arms would cease if all the elements known to the Public Prosecutor's Office had to be made available to the defence whilst, for instance, the tenor of conversations between the accused and counsel for the defence is very rightly not made known to the Public Prosecutor's Office . The applicant objects that he had specifically asked before the Court of Assizes for the production of the "relevant file from the Public Prosecutor's Office", a file containing various documents of considerable importance for his defence because they concerned, in particular, the credibility of the persons who had accused him . This request has never been granted . Accordingly, the rights of the defence were violated . (ii)
Failure to produce (he reports drawn up by the police after the trial had begu n
The Governmeru admit that a report ( No. 87 D) . drawn up on 28 December 1977 by the police, was made available to the defence after sentence had been passed . They plead human error, but insist that this was of no consequence . In fact, the report No . 87 D of 28 December 1977 shows that the words addressed by De C . to the applicant were known to his lawyers, because on the same day one of them asked to know the names of the poGcemen who had heard them . Thus, as soon as the trial was resumed, the applicant and his lawyer were able to ask the President to order De C . to confirm the remarks he had just made to the applicant and ask the policeman to endorse them . They did not do so . It seems inaccurate to allege that the production of this document was asked for, together with its inclusion in the file, during the proceedings before the Court of Assizes and, more particularly, at the hearing on 5 January 1978 . In the memorial supporting his appeal to the Court of Cassation, the applicant pointed out, in the third limb of the third plea, that the decision of 28 January 1978 had been taken in violation of the rights of the defence ; "important documents, such as report No . 87 D, drawn up on 28 December 1977
by the police at Ghent, containing statements exonerating the petitioner were not sent to his lawyers until after the hea ri ng" .
The court's decision rejects this limb of the plea . In order to substantiate his allegations, the applicant refers to the minutes of the cou rt hea ri ng of 5 Janua ry 1978 . An examination of these minutes makes it possible to establish that the applicant did not ask for the inclusion of documents, more precisely the aforesaid report No . 87 D, in the file and they also show that the Public Prosecutor's Office and the court had the constant concern of ensu ri ng that Article 6 of the Convention on Human Right was complied with . The applicant says that he heard that during the trial the police allegedly drew up a number of reports containing statements by De C . in which the latter withdrew the accusations he had made against him . Report No . 87 D is one of these documents . He also produced two other police reports conceming discussions between the jurors and third parties . He submits a written declaration by a former police brigade commander responsible for guarding the accused at assize trials in which the latter stated that he had arranged for reports to be drawn up and submitted in connection with numerous incidents, conversations and proposals amongst prisoners . The Public Prosecutor's Office did not present these reports during the trial . Accordingly it concealed their existence from the applicant and his lawyers, since the Public Prosecutor's Office was aware of them . If the police had not warned the defence of their existence, nobody would have known about them .
Failure to present these documents is a flagrant violation of the rights of the defence . The applicant also points out that the first duty of a member of the Public Prosecutor's Office is to be impartial, objective and provide the judge with all items concerning the case to be tried . The object is to reveal the truth and not to ensure that an innocent man is convicted by concealing documents and violating his elementary rights of defence . An objective and impartial Public Prosecutor's Office was duty bound to include this report in the file of its own volition . That would have enabled the defence and the court to bring De C . and the police officers concemed face-to-face . Without report No. 87 D and the others, the defence had no formal evidence of De C .'s statements and he was thus able to withdraw them as he had done earlier . C . Discrimination with regard to detentlon (Article 14 in conjunction wit h Article 5 ) The Government point out that the applicant's transfer to Audenarde Prison on 7 April 1978 was a perfectly normal measure . Of all the p ri sons i n
- )25-
Flanders, this one is the best equipped, after that in Louvain where the applicant's main accomplice is detained, to accomodate prisoners serving long sentences . Admittedly, this establishment is also intended to accomodate prisoners whose mental state is such that they can no longer stand up to the ordinary prison regime, although they are not sufficiently sick to be intemed in a psychiatric institution under Article 21 of the Social Defence Act . Nevertheless, this prison has always been used to house other convicted persons in so far as there was room for them . The applicant was certainly not subjected to excessively rigorous treatment, since he was allowed to get married on 9 March 1978 . The applicant was subsequently transferred in- January 1979 to the prison at Nivelles with about 20 other prisoners whose evacuation had become necessary because of building work . He was later transferred to the Surgical Medical Center at St Gilles Prison in order to receive the treatment made necessary by his health . On 27 June 1980 he was granted conditional release on health grounds . Thus there is nothing to justify the claim that any of the rights safegarded by the Convention was violated, in the applicant's case, by a discriminatorv measure prohibited under Article 14 of the Convention . Counsels for the applicant allege . for their part, that their client was reduced by two years of imprisonment to a human wreck . They attach a letter from Dr . D . dated 26 February 1980 stating that the applicant displayed symptonts of an extremely serious brain damage and should be removed from the prison environment as soon as possible .
THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains that his trial was the result of a conspiracy hatched in certain judicial circles and was allegedly preceded by the conditioning of public opinion likely to influence the jury which tried him . In this connection he alleges a violation of Article 6 (1) of the Convention which guarantees to everyone accused of a criminal offence the right to a fair trial . (a) In the first place, the Commission points out that there is nothing in the file to show that the criminal investigation department was instructed to draw up reports against the applicant some months before his arrest and that the applicant was furnished no specific details in this connection . Furthermore, it has not been alleged that such reports could have concerned any subject other than the way in which the applicant performed his duties as an investigating judge at the time . In so far as he speaks of a conspiracy, the complaint is not supported by any factor likely to make it probable and must be
dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . (b) On the other hand, it is not denied that the applicant's trial was preceded by a number of statements to the press by members of the Public Prosecutor's Office or the investigating judge and that the "Jespers Case" aroused considerable excitement and keen curiosity in the local and regional press . The Commission has already found that, in certain cases, a vimlent press campaign can adversely affect the fairness of the trial (cf . decisions on Applications No . 1476/62 against Austria . Collection of Decision 1 1 , p . 31 ; No . 3444/67 against Norway, Yearbook 13 p . 302) and involve the State's responsability particularly when it is sparked off by one of the State's organs (cf ., a contrario, decision on Application No . 2291/64, Collection of Decisions 24, p . 20) . Whilst stating that this was not so in the present case, the Government submitted that the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies in this matter, because he had omitted to petition the Court of Cassation for the case to be referred to another court of assizes pursuant to Section 542, (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . This provision authorises reference to another court on grounds of legitimate suspicion, on the request of the parties concerned . In a case in which it was alleged that the members of a jury had been particularly open to influence by a press campaign, the Commission has already held that an application for a case to be referred elsewhere on grounds of legitimate suspicion could constitute a remedy which would probably be effective and sufficient (cf . Report on application No . 788/60, Austria against Italy, para . 75) .
There is nothing to substantiate the belief that such an appeal would have been purely theoretical or vain in Belgium . Furthermore, the Govemment has quoted an example of a recent petition in circumstances similar to those o . 12 December 1960 - Pas - 61, 1, 402) . fthisaplcon(C Nevertheless the applicant objects that an appeal in the present case had no chance of succeeding . He points out that the public prosecutor to the court of appeal to whom he had applied for the case to be referred to another cour tongrudsfpblicetyhadnofsecrytmaduheqs . Since the public pros-utonhagrd onsflegitmaupcon ecutor attached to the Court of Cassation is present at the Court's deliberations, admittedly without a vote (Section 1109 of the Judicial Code) he could defend his point of view in the absence of the accused and suggest to the court that there was no reason for the case to be referred elsewhere . In the Commission's view, that is not in itself enough to establish that i n the present case an appeal would probably not have been effective an d - 12' -
sufficient . It recalls in this connection that the machinery of Section 110c`'n the Judicial Code (formerly Article 39 of the Regent's Decree of 15 March l' o )), which empowers the Public Prosecutor's Office to be present at the CotP; of Cassation's deliberations, has not been deemed incompatible with Article 6 (1) of the Convention (European Court of Human Rights, Delcourt case, judgment of 17 January 1970, in particular para . 37) . Admittedly, unlike the Delcourt Case, the Court of Cassation would, by way of exception, have been asked in the present case to assess the facts and not the lawful nature of a judicial decision ; the Public Prosecutor's role would thus have been slightly altered . But since the applicant did not approach the Court of Cassation directly, there is nothing to support the conclusion that the opinion formulated by the Public Prosecutor's Office, acting as an independent and impartial adviser to the court, and its presence at the deliberations, could have decisively influenced the court's decision . By requesting the PubGc Prosecutor himself to request that the case be referred to another court of assizes instead of formulating such a request to the Court of Cassation, the applicants' lawyers also seem to have adopted a tactical approach . In any case they did not establish that a request for the case to be referred elsewhere on grounds of legitimate suspicion and lodged in pursuance of Section 542 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not constitute an available and sufficient remedy . It follows that the applicant did not exhaust all domestic remedies in respect of this complaint and that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible in putsuance of Articles 26 and 27 (3) of the Convention . 2 . The applicant complains that a number of documents in the possession of the Public Prosecutor's Office were not included in the file or made available to the defence . Referring, in particular, to a written statement by a former brigade commander in the Gendarmerie and to three reports made available after the trial, he therefore submits that many reports were drawn up at the time of the hearings and deliberately withheld from the file, probably in a special folder kept in the Public Prosecutor's Office . He alleges in that connection a violation of the rights of defence safeguarded under Article 6 of the Convention . The Government has admitted that, as a result of a human error, a report (No. 87 D) was not made available to the defence until after the hearing at the Court of Assizes . It claims that the two other reports referred to had no direct connection with the case . Subject to further checks, the Government states that it is not aware of the existence of other documents . Nevertheless the Govemment did argue that the applicant had not exhausted all possible remedies in this matter .
On the one hand, he allegedly failed to put forward all possible grounds of appeal before the Court of Cassation ; on the other it is allegedly still open to him to ask for his trial to be reviewed on the basis of documents made available belatedly . (a) As to the appeal to the Court of Cassation, to which the Government did not refer at the hearing, it is only necessary to point out that in his appeal the applicant criticised the refusal by the President of the Court of Assizes to order the production of all documents not contained in the file and invoked in that connection disregard for Article 6(I) of the Convention and the rights of the defence . The complaint submitted to the Commission has thus already been made before the Court of Cassation ; the applicant raised before that court the legal ground of appeal which was essential to establish his complaint as well founded and thus made the normal use of that remedy . (b) As to the petition for the case to be reviewed, the Commission points out that a procedure designed to reopen a case or to hold a new trial as to the merits does not normally constitute a remedy which must be exhausted . It refers in this respect to its constant case law (see decision on Application No . 6243/73, Collection of Decisions 46, p . 202) . Section 443 (3) of the Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that application may be made for a review of a conviction "if evidence of the condemned person's innocence ( . . .) seems to emerge from a fact which became known after his conviction or a circumstance which he was unable to establish during the trial" . Accordingly this provision is not designed to censure any procedural irregularity ; it simply makes it possible to take into consideration facts or circumstances which could not be referred to at the time of the t ri al . It requires that this must result in proof of innocence . To allege, as in the present case, that documents-known or unknown-have been deliberately withheld, does not constitute an appeal relating to the alleged violation (European Court of Human Rights, Airey Judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A . No . 32, paragraph 19) . Thus neither of the two limbs of the plea of non-exhaustion is wellfounded . This part of the application cannot be rejected pursuant to Article 27 (3) of the Convention . The Commission has made a prelimina ry examination of the facts and arguments of the parties . It is of the opinion that the problems arising in the present case are sufficiently complex for their solution to depend on an examination of the merits of the case . Accordingly the applicant's complaints on this count could not be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
3 . . Lastly the applicant complains that he was the victim of discriminatory treatment in prison . In this connection he alleges a violation of Article 5 guaranteeing the right to liberty and security, in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention which prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention . This discriminatory treatment allegedly caused the applicant considerable suffering and undertnined his health . The Commission points out that the only precise fact criticised by the applicant is his detention for nine months in an institution designed to accomodate convicted persons displaying psychopathic symptoms, and not subject to the Social Defence Act . It transpires from statements not disputed by the Government that the Audenarde prison also admits convicted persons who do not have psychopathic symptoms . The applicant's detention in this prison can thus not be regarded in itself as a form of discrimination in the execution of prison sentences . The Commission further points out that the applicant was authorised to remarry, that he received intensive care and that on 27 June 1980 he was conditionally released on health grounds . None of the medical documents included in the file warrants the conclusion that there is a direct link between the applicant's conditions of detention and his state of health . Consequently an examination of the facts does not reveal any appearance of a violation of the Convention and, in particular, of the aforesaid provisions . It follows that in this respect the application is inanifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) . For these reasons, the Commissio n Declares INADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaints relating to the alleged judicial conspiracy and the conditioning of public opinion, as well as the discriminatory treatment to which he was allegedly subjected in prison . Declares the remainder of the application ADMISSIBILE .
-130-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/10/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 480
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 97
 l'article 443
 l'article 443
 l'article 6
 l'article 21
 l'article 14
 l'article 6
 l'article 27
 l'article 542
 l'article 1109
 l'article 6
 l'article 542
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 L'article 443
 l'article 27
 l'article 27
 l'article 5
 l'article 14
 l'article 27