Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19761006-730675
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 03:21:43+00:00
Document Index: 187365409

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 3', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6210/73Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7306/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-10-06;7306.75 Analyses : (Art. 10-1) LIBERTE D'EXPRESSION, (Art. 10-2) DEFENSE DE L'ORDRE, (Art. 10-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 10-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 10-2) PREVUE PAR LA LOI, (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 17) DESTRUCTION DES DROITS ET LIBERTES, (Art. 18) RESTRICTIONS DANS UN BUT NON PREVU, (Art. 5-1) ARRESTATION OU DETENTION REGULIERE, (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURS, (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) JUGEMENT PUBLIC, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL IMPARTIAL, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL INDEPENDANT, (Art. 6-2) PRESOMPTION D'INNOCENCE, (Art. 6-3-b) FACILITES NECESSAIRES, (Art. 6-3-b) TEMPS NECESSAIRE, (Art. 6-3-c) SE DEFENDRE SOI-MEME, (Art. 6-3-d) INTERROGATION DES TEMOINSParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7306/76â¢ X . v/the UNITED KINGDOM X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 6 October 1976 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 octobre 1976 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Articfe 6, peragreph 1, of the Conven tion : Fair triat. Conviction pronounced on the basis of the evidence of an accomplice, obtained by granting the latter immunity from prosecution. Examination of the trial as a whole and particufar attention given to the fact that counsel and jury were fully aware of the circumstances under which that evidence had been obtained . ManifestN ill-founded. Articte 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : ProcÃ©s Ã©quitable. Condamnation prononcÃ©e sur la base du tÃ©moignage d'un complice, obtenu contre promesse qu'il ne serait pas poursuivi. Examen du procÃ©s dans son ensemble et importance accordÃ©e notamment au fait que la dÃ©fense et le jury Ã©taient pleinement au courant des circonstances de ce tÃ©moignage . DÃ©faut manifeste de fondement.
Ifrenpeis : voir p. 1191
The applicant was one of 26 pe rsons charged with some 20 armed robberies in which over a million pounds were stolen . The prosecutions' case against the applicant was based on the evidence of an accomplice, S . S ., when arrested on suspicion of having been involved in one of the robberies, offered to tell the police "the inside story" about all the robberies in return for what he called "a guaranteÃ©" . S .' solicito rs subsequently had meetings with one of the staff of off ice of the Director of Public Prosecutions . As a result, a letter was sent by the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions to the solicitors , the text of which was as follows : "I refer to the ma tt e rs discussed at two meetings at this office on the . . . and . . . March 1973 in this case in which you act for the two above-named defendants, the fi rst of whom, S ., has expressed his wish to give evidence for the Crown, subject to ce rtain conditions as follows : ' The Commission has declered inadmissible on the seme pmunds two simBer epp/icetions, N. 6341/73 and 7875176, intmduced by accomplices of applicant X. La Comnris.tion a ddrJerA irrecevables ppur les mAmes motih deux reoultes ena/opues, N" 894 7/73 et 7375/76 introduites per des complices du reeulrent X .
1 . The Director of Public Prosecutions will not offer, nor cause, permit or authorise the offering of any evidence upon a criminal charge in respect of any offence other than homicide which may have been committed by S . and which he may disclose in any future statement he makes to the police within the terms of this letter . 2 . S . will make to Commander A . or his designated officer(s) and in the presence of representatives of Messrs . B fsolicitorsl a statement relating to the whole of his, S .' criminal activities and enterprises and those of any associates and all other information within his own knowledge relating to his own criminal activities and enterprises and those of any other person or persons .
3 . On . . . April 1973 S . shall be remanded upon the charges already preferred against him to police cells at W . Police Station (provided the court agrees but in this respect both parties shall use their best endeavours to persuade the court to grant bail) pending his committal for trial on the . . . April 1973 . 4 . In that period S . will make the statement referred to above . This statement will not be used against S . or his common law wife D .S . in any proceedings that have or may be taken against them, but may be used in furtherance of any criminal proceedings against the persons whose names are revealed therein . 5 . Within the period between the . . . April 1973 and S .' committal for trial the information contained in the statement will be assessed by the police to ascertain whether it is of sufficient evidential value and Messrs . B . will be informed at the earliest opportunity whether or not it is intended to use the statement in proceedings against any other person or persons . 6 . If the information disclosed in the statement is not considered by the police to be of sufficient evidential value to the police and it is decided not to make use of it in criminal proceedings, the same shall be kept in conditions of secrecy on Metropolitan Police files and not used for any purpose and no mention will be made of it by the .Director of Public Prosecutions or the police in the proceedings against S ., which will continue nor shall any mention be made of any discussions between Messrs . B . and the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police with a view to S . giving evidence for the Crown but this shall not relate to statements made by S . to the police when he was being interrogated by the police subsequent to his arrest . 7 . If the statement made by S . discloses information of evidential value and is of genuine and substantial assistance to the police in the investigation of various crimes and if S . is prepared to give evidence for the Crown when so required then : a . Both parties shall use their best endeavour to persuade the court to grant bail at the committal proceedings, or upon any subsequent application for bail . b. Should bail be granted, S . shall reside at such place or places as Commander A . shall specify . c. No evidence will be offered against S . and his brother upon the charges upon which they may be committed for trial by H . Magistrates' Court on the . . . April 1973 and at the Central Criminal Court the Judge will be invited to discharge both him and his brother M .S . . d. The police will take all necessary steps for the safety of S . and his wife and children will be removed to a secret place and there guarded by not less than two police officers .
e . Upon termination of the evidence which he may be required to give (until which time the safe custody provisions referred to above would apply) S . and his wife and children shall be taken to a place selected by him in conditions of secrecy escorted by police officers . 6 . Mrs . S and her children shall on . . . April 1973 be removed to a place of safety in manner to be agreed with Messrs . B . . 9. Should S . abscond or refuse to give or refrain from giving evidence to the best of his ability in accordance with his statement the conditions set out in this letter shall have no effect . IAseistant Director of Public Prosecutions) " Later, in April 1973, S . made written statements admitt ing his own part in 20 armed robberies and named others ( including the applicant) who had taken pa rt with him, giving pa rt icula rs of the pa rt they played . The police then arrested the applicant and the other persons named by S . . On . . . July 1973 S . was arraigned at the Central Criminal Court on an indictment containing four counts against him similar to counts later contained in the indictment against the applicant and the others named by S . The prosecution offered no evidence and the judge ordered a verdict of not guilty to be entered and S . was acqui tt ed . S . was then taken to the Magistrates Court where he was called by the prosecution as a witness against the applicant and 25 others . The applicant and the othe rs were committed for trial to the Central Criminal Cou rt . Before the commencement of the trial in the Central Criminal Court the prosecution disclosed to defending counsel the lett er of . . . April 1973 from the Director of Public Prosecutions . The jury at the trial were also told what had happened . The applicant did not give evidence or call any witnesses . The jury found the applicant guilty of armed robbery of jewels and money to the total value of C296,00D and he was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment . The jury were unable to agree on two other counts against him viz . armed robbery of a bank at . . . and conspiracy to rob a bank a t
The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal against conviction but reduced his sentence to 15 years' imprisonment . . . On . . . June 1973, however, the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant [ fu rt her] complains of a violation of Art . 6(1) of the Convention, which secures to everyone in the determination of any criminal charge against him inter alia a fair and public hearing . In determining whether there has been a violation of this provision, the Commission has examined the proceedings at the trial as a whole and not one pa rt icular aspect of them only . The Commission refers to its previous case-law concerning complaints of an unfair hearing which are not connected with allegations of a violation of Art . 6(3) of the Convention Icf . Application No . 343/57 v . Denmark, Yearbook 4, p . 548 and
Application No . 1169/61 v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Collection of Decisions 13, p . 1, Yearbook 6, p . 520) . The Commission notes that, in the present case there are numerous elements in the proceedings as a whole and concerning S .' evidence in particular which indicate that the applicant had a fair hearing : a . Before the trial, prosecuting counsel disclosed to applicant's counsel the agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions ; b . The jury were told of the agreement and everything that was known of S . c . Applicant's counsel did not object to S . giving evidence ;
d. The applicant did not himself give evidence or call any witnesse s e . The Judge made it plain to the jury that unless they were satisfied that S . was to be believed they could not convict ; /. The jury convicted the applicant by a majority of 10 to 1 on one count only ; on two other counts they disagreed as to their verdict . As regard the complaint that the trial was not fair because S . in giving evidence was influenced by the inducements contained in the letter of . . . April 1973, from the Director of Public Prosecutions to S .' solicitors, the Commission observes that : a . At the time he gave evidence, there was no possibility of S . being prosecuted becaus e lil he had been acquitted of certain charges at the Central Criminal Court before the proceedings against the applicant were commenced at the Magistrates Court , (ii) if other charges were later brought against S ., his statements could not have been given in evidence against him because they had been obtained from him as a result of inducements ; b. It is true that if S . refused to give evidence or absconded without giving evidence, police protection might have been withdrawn and he and his wife and family might not have been conducted to a place of safety . The Commission observes in this connection that the use at the trial of evidence obtained trom an accomplice by granting him immunity from prosecution may put in question rhejwness of the hearing granted to an accused person and thus raise an issue undr Art . 6 (1) of the Convention . In t e prÃªsent case, however, the manner in which the evidence given by S . was obtained was openly discussed with counsel for the defence and before the jury . Furthermore the Court of Appeal examined carefully whether due account was taken of these circumstances in the assessment of the evidence and whether there was corroboration . The Commission concludes, therefore, that an examination of the trial as a whole does not disclose any appearance of a violation of Art . 6 (1) of the Convention . It follows that Ithe remainder ofl the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 121 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
I TRADUCTION I EN FAIT IExtraits l Le requÃ©rant est l'une de vingt-six personnes accusÃ©es d'une vingtaine de vols Ã main armÃ©e portent sur des biens Ã©valuÃ©s Ã plus d'un million de livres sterling . L'accusation fonda son rÃ©quisitoire contre le requÃ©rant sur le tÃ©moignage d'un complice, S ., qui, arrÃ©tÃ© sous l'inculpation de participation Ã l'un des hold-ups, offrit de raconter Ã la police Â« les dessous de l'histoire Â» concernant l'ensemble des vols, moyennant ce qu'il appelait a une garantie Â» . Les avocats de S . eurent ultÃ©rieurement des entretiens avec l'un des membres du cebinet du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de l'Etat (Director of Public Prosecutions) Ã l'issue desquels le substitut du Procureur adressa aux avocats la lettre dont teneur suit : a Je me rÃ©fÃ©re Ã l'objet des deux entretiens que nous avons eus Ã ce cabinet les . . . et . . . mars 1973, pour l'affaire oÃ¹ vous reprÃ©sentez les deux dÃ©fendeurs prÃ©citÃ©s . Le premier, S ., a exprimÃ© le dÃ©sir de fournir son tÃ©moignage Ã la Couronne (to give evidence for the Crown) sous rÃ©serve des conditions suivantes : 1 . Le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral ne produira, ne provoquera ou n'autorisera aucun tÃ©moignage sur une accusation pÃ©nale concernant un quelconque dÃ©lit autre qu'un homicide dont S . pourrait 0tre l'auteur et qu'il pourrait rÃ©vÃ©ler dans toute dÃ©claration qu'il ferait Ã© la police selon les conditions indiquÃ©es dans la prÃ©sente lettre . 2 . S . fera au capitaine A ., ou Ã son (ses) reprÃ©sentant(s) dÃ©signÃ©(s) et en prÃ©sence des reprÃ©sentants de MM . B ., avouÃ©s, une dÃ©claration relative Ã l'ensemble de ses activitÃ©s et entreprises criminelles et de celles de ses complices, ainsi que tout autre renseignement en sa possession concernant ses propres activitÃ©s et entreprises criminelles et celles de toute autre personne .
3 . Le . . . avril 1973, S . sera placÃ© en dÃ©tention provisoire dans les locaux d'arrÃªts du commissariat de police de W . du chef des accusations dÃ©jÃ© portÃ©es contre lui (sous rÃ©serve de l'agrÃ©ment du tribunal ; mais Ã cet Ã©gard, les deux parties feront tout leur possible pour convaincre le tribunal d'accorder la mise en libertÃ© sous caution) en attendant son renvoi devant la Cour d'Assises le . . . avril 1973 . 4 . Pendant cette pÃ©riode, S . Ã©tablira la dÃ©claration prÃ©vue ci-dessus . Cette dÃ©claration ne sera pas utilisÃ©e contre S . ni son Ã©pouse D . . S . dans aucune des actions qui ont Ã©tÃ© ou pourront Ãªtre engagÃ©es contre eux, mais pourra en revanche servir Ã toute poursuite pÃ©nale intentÃ©e contre les personnes dont les noms y sont rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©s . 5 . Entre le . . . avril 1973 et la comparution aux assises, la police Ã©valuera les renseignements contenus dans la dÃ©claration pour en Ã©tablir la valeur probante et informera dans les meilleurs dÃ©lais MM . B . . . . du point de savoir s'il est envisagÃ© ou non d'utiliser la dÃ©claration pour engager une action contre toute autre personne . 6 . Si la police ne considÃ©re pas les renseignaments divulguÃ©s dans la dÃ©claration comme possÃ©dant une valeur suffisamment probante et qu'elle ne dÃ©cide pas d'en faire usage dans des poursuites pÃ©nales, ladite dÃ©claration sera tenue secrÃ¨te dans les dossiers de la Police mÃ©tropolitaine et ne sera utilisÃ©e Ã aucun autre effet . Par ailleurs, aucune mention n'en sera faite ni par le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral ni par la police dans les poursuites intentÃ©es contre S ., lesquelles continueront, et aucune mention ne sera faite non plus d'entretiens entre MM . B . et le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral et la police au sujet d'un tÃ©moignage de S . pour la Couronne ; sont toutefois rÃ©servÃ©es les dÃ©clarations faites par S . Ã la police lors des interrogatoires qui ont suivi son arrestation . - 119 -
7 . Si la dÃ©claration de S . contient des renseignements qui ont une valeur probante et aident vÃ©ritablement et sincÃ©rement la police Ã enquÃªter sur diffÃ©rents crimes et dÃ©lits et si S . est disposÃ© Ã tÃ©moigner pour la Couronne s'il y est invitÃ©, alors : a) les deux parties feront de leur mieux pour convaincre le tribunal d'accorder la mise en libertÃ© sous caution lors de l'audience de renvoi en jugement ou lors de toute demande ultÃ©rieure de mise en libertÃ© sous caution . bl Si la mise en libertÃ© sous caution est accordÃ©e, S . rÃ©sidera lÃ oÃ¹ le capitaine A . le lui indiquera .
cl Aucun tÃ©moignage ne sera produit contre S . ni son frÃ©re Ã propos des accusations pour lesquelles ils seront jugÃ©s par le tribunal de district (Magistrates' Court) de H . le . . . avril 1973, et devant la Cour d'Assises (Central Criminal Court), le juge sera invitÃ© Ã relaxer S . et son frÃ©re M . S . dl La police prendra toutes mesures nÃ©cessaires Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© de S . ; sa femme et ses enfants seront transfÃ©rÃ©s en un lieu tenu secret oÃ¹ ils seront gardÃ©s par au moins deux agents de police . e) Une fois que S . aura donnÃ© le tÃ©moignage qui peut Ãªtre exigÃ© de lui (moment jusqu'auquel s'appliqueront les mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© prÃ©citÃ©es), lui-mÃ©me, sa femme et ses enfants seront amenÃ©s secrÃ©tement et sous escorte de police en un lieu choisi par lui . 8 . Mme S . et ses enfants seront transfÃ©rÃ©s le . . . avril 1973 en lieu sÃ¹r, selon des modalitÃ©s dont il sera convenu avec MM . B . 9 . Si S . prend la fuite, refuse ou s'abstient de tÃ©moigner au mieux de ses connaissances conformÃ©ment Ã sa dÃ©claration, les conditions prÃ©cisÃ©es dans la prÃ©sente lettre demeureront sans effet .ILe Substitut du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©rall Â» UltÃ©rieurement, en avril 1973, S . fit des dÃ©clarations Ã©crites reconnaissant le rÃ´le qu'il avait jouÃ© dans vingt vols Ã main armÃ©e et cita plusieurs personnes (dont le requÃ©rant) qui y avaient pris part avec lui, en donnant des dÃ©tails sur le rÃ´le qu'elles y avaient jouÃ© . La police arrÃªta alors le requÃ©rant et les autres personnes citÃ©es par S . LÃ© Ã , juillet 1973, S . fut traduit devant la Cour d'Assises (Central Criminal Court) du chef de quatre accusations portÃ©es contre lui, analogues Ã celles figurant dans l'acte d'accusation dressÃ© plus tard contre le requÃ©rant et les autres personnes citÃ©es par S . L'accusation ne produisit aucun moyen de preuve et le juge ordonna au jury de rendre un verdict de non-culpabilitÃ© ; S . fut donc acquittÃ© . S . comparut ensuite devant le tribunal de district (Magistrates' Court) oÃ¹ l'accusation le citait comme tÃ©moin Ã charge contre le requÃ©rant et vingt-cinq autres personnes . Le requÃ©rant et consorts furent ensuite renvoyÃ©s devant la Cour d'Assises . Avant le dÃ©but du procÃ©s devant cette cour, l'accusation donna connaissance Ã la dÃ©fense de la lettre du Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral du . . . avril 1973 . Le jury fut Ã©galement informÃ© de ce qui s'Ã©tait passÃ© . Le requÃ©rant ne fit aucune dÃ©claration ni ne cita aucun tÃ©moin . Le jury le dÃ©clara coupable de vol de bijoux et d'espÃ©ces pour 296 .000 Â£ au total, commis avec violence . Le requÃ©rant fut en consÃ©quence condamnÃ© Ã seize ans de rÃ©clusion . Le jury ne put suivre l'accusation sur deux autres chefs, Ã savoir vol Ã main armÃ©e contre une banque de . . . et participation Ã une association de malfaiteurs pour voler une banque Ã . . .
Le requÃ©rant fit appel ; la cour d'appel le dÃ©bouta en ce qui concerne sa condamnation mais ramena toutefois sa peine 8 quinze ans de rÃ©clusion . . . Le . . . juin 1973, la Commission des recours de la Chambre des Lords refusa l'autorisation d'interjeter appel devant la Chambre des Lords . . .
EN DROIT IExtraits l Le requÃ©rent allÃ¨gue [en outrel une violation de l'article 6Â§ 1 de la Convention, qui garantit notamment que toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial qui dÃ©cidera de toute accusation pÃ©nale portÃ©e contre elle . Pour dÃ©cider s'il y a eu violation de cette disposition, la Commission a examinÃ© l'ensemble du procÃ¨s et non un aspect particulier de ta procÃ©dure . La Commission renvoie Ã sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure concernant des allÃ©gations de procÃ©s inÃ©quitable lorsque celles-ci ne sont pas accompagnÃ©es d'allÃ©gations de violation de l'article 6, Â§ 3 de la Convention (voir requÃªte NÂ° 343/57 c/Danemark, Annuaire 4, p . 548 et requÃªte N" 1169/61 c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Recueil de dÃ©cisions 13, p . 1, Annuaire 6, p . 520) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission relÃ©ve dans l'ensemble de la procÃ©dure et notamment dans le tÃ©moignage de S ., nombre d'Ã©lÃ©ments indiquant que la cause du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© Ã©quitablement entendue : al Avant le procÃ©s, l'accusation a donnÃ© connaissance Ã la dÃ©fense de l'accord passÃ© avec le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral ; b) Le jury a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© de l'existence de cet accord et de tout ce qu'on savait de S . ; cl L'avocat du requÃ©rant ne s'est pas opposÃ© Ã ce que S . tÃ©moigne dl Le requÃ©rent n'a fait lui-mÃªme aucune dÃ©claration ni n'a citÃ© aucun tÃ©moin e) Le juge a clairement fait comprendre aux jurÃ©s qu'ils ne pouvaient se prononcer pour la culpabilitÃ© que s'ils Ã©taient convaincus de la vÃ©recitÃ© des dires de S . ; f) Les jurÃ©s ont dÃ©clarÃ© le requÃ©rant coupable par 10 voix contre 1 pour un seul chef d'accusation ; pour les deux autres, la majoritÃ© nÃ©cessaire pour un verdict de culpabilitÃ© ne fut pas atteinte . Quant au grief selon lequel le procÃ¨s n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©quitable parce que, en donnant son tÃ©moignage, S . Ã©tait influencÃ© par les offres contenues dans la lettre du . . . avril 1973, adressÃ©e par le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral Ã ses avocats, la Commission relÃ¨ve que : (a) A l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ S . a donnÃ© son tÃ©moignage, il n'Ã©tait pas possible de le poursuivre parce que lil il avait Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ© de certaines des accusations qui pesaient sur lui par la Cour d'Assises de Londres avant mÃªme que la procÃ©dure intentÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant ait dÃ©butÃ© devant le tribunal de district ; liil si d'autres accusations avaient Ã©tÃ© ultÃ©rieurement portÃ©es contre S ., ses dÃ©clarations n'auraient pas pu Ãªtre retenues Ã charge contre lui puisqu'elles avaient Ã©tÃ© provoquÃ©es .
Ibl Il est exact que si S . avait refusÃ© de tÃ©moigner ou avait pris la fuite sans faire de dÃ©claration, la protection de la police aurait pu lui Ãªtre retirÃ©e et lui-mÃ©me et sa famille n'auraient pas Ã©tÃ© conduits en lieu sÃ¹r . La Commission fait observer Ã cet Ã©gard que l'utilisation au cours d'un procÃ©s d'un tÃ©moignage obtenu d'un complice contre promesse de ne pas poursuivre ledit complice peut mettre en question le caractÃ©re Ã©quitable du procÃ©s fait Ã l'accusÃ© et donc poser un problÃ©me sous l'angle de l'article 6, Â§ 1 de la Convention . En l'espÃ©ce, toutefcis, la maniÃ¨re dont le tÃ©moignage de S . a Ã©tÃ© obtenu fut ouvertement discutÃ©e avec l'avocat de la dÃ©fense et exposÃ©e au jury . De surcroit, la cour d'appel a soigneusement examinÃ© s'il avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ¹ment tenu compte de ces circonstances dans l'Ã©valuation dudit tÃ©moignage et si les dires du tÃ©moin avaient Ã©tÃ© conf irmÃ©s .
La Commission en conclut que l'examen du procÃ¨s dans son ensemble ne fait ressortir aucune apparence de violation de l'article 6, Â§ 1 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que [le reste de] la requÃ©te est man'rfestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
-122_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 06/10/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page