Right to obtain translation of rulings and second expert opinion on evidence

Facts

The author is a French national who was handed over to the Belgian police by the French authorities under a European arrest warrant in connection with a series of thefts that had occurred in Belgium, after finding the author’s DNA in evidence. The author, on questioning, denied his involvement in the thefts. The author was sentenced by the Ypres Tribunal de Grande Instance to 11 years imprisonment. The author highlights that the judgment was in Dutch, a language he was unfamiliar with. The author appealed to the Ghent Court of Appeal claiming that the European arrest warrant was inapplicable to some of the offences for which he had been charged, and that his right to fair trial had been violated as some of the evidence which led to his DNA identification had not been deposited with the court registry and that, in addition, he did not have access to it. The Court of Appeal ordered the Belgian authorities to obtain a second expert opinion of the contested evidence. The opinion came back with the information that the evidence had been deposited with the court registry. The author submitted a request to a Federal Judge asking for another review of the evidence, which was refused. Subsequently, the Federal Judge suo moto requested a new expert opinion on the evidence without informing the author. Thereafter, the Ghent Court of Appeal stated that the author had been unable to obtain a genuine second expert opinion. The Court held that the author’s fair trial rights had not been violated and sentenced the author to 13 years of imprisonment. A cassation appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. The author claims that all these judgments were rendered in Dutch. The author in the communication, claims the violation of the principle of equality of arms under articles 2 (1) and (3), 9, 10, 14 and 26 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

Noting that the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for States parties and by themselves cannot give rise to separate claims under the Optional Protocol unless invoked in conjunction with other substantive articles of the Covenant, the Committee held that the author’s claims under articles 2 (1) and (3) as inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. With respect to the author’s claims that the State party violated the principle of equality of arms under article 14 as it had been impossible for the author to obtain a second expert opinion on the only evidence incriminating him, the Committee observed that article 14 is aimed at the proper administration of justice and it is not for the Committee to review facts and evidence in cases before domestic courts. The Committee held that it was not in a position to conclude that the Belgian Courts had acted arbitrarily or that their conduct amounted to a denial of justice, and hence the claims under article 14 were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

Merits

With respect to the author’s claims regarding the lack of translation of judgments violating his rights under article 14 (3), the Committee noted that the author was assisted by a Dutch-speaking interpreter and lawyer at all hearings, and hence had the opportunity to put forth arguments and defend himself at all stages of his trial in accordance with article 14 (3) (f). The Committee observed that the author had failed to explain how he had been subject to discrimination under article 26. The Committee was of the opinion that neither the author nor his family could have been unaware of the reasons for his conviction as he was provided with a translator as well as lawyer. Just because the ruling had not been translated did not prevent the author from filing an appeal. The Committee held that there was no reason to conclude that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (3) read alone and in conjunction with article 26 of the Covenant.

Recommendations

Regarding the author’s claims that the arbitrarily long and disproportionate nature of his sentencing (11 and 13 years) amounted to a violation of article 26, the Committee noted the State party’s claims about the seriousness of the crimes, and observed that the claims of the author under article 26 were similar to those raised under article 14 above. The Committee again held that it is unable to establish that the domestic courts acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner and hence the claims under article 26 was inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Furthermore, the Committee held that as the author did not explain how his rights under articles 9 and 10 of the Covenant were violated, these claims are inadmissible. However, the Committee considered the author’s claims regarding the failure of translation of the judgments as violations under article 14 (3) read alone and in conjunction with article 26 as sufficiently substantiated and hence admissible.