Right to have a sentence review by a high court of the captain of the Prestige catastrophe

Facts

The case underscores the critical importance of fair trial rights and the review of convictions under international law. The Committee concluded that Mangouras’ right under article 14 (5) of the Covenant, which ensures the review of convictions by a higher tribunal, was violated. This highlights the necessity for States to uphold procedural rights and ensure mechanisms for reviewing convictions, reflecting a broader commitment to human rights and fair judicial processes. The Committee recommended providing Mangouras with an effective remedy and implementing measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras, a Greek citizen born in 1935, was the captain of an oil tanker that sank off the coast of Galicia, Spain, in November 2002, spilling 63,000 tons of oil. Initially acquitted of environmental damage but found guilty of disobedience and sentenced to nine months in prison in November 2013, his acquittal was overturned by the Supreme Court in January 2016. The Supreme Court declared him guilty of environmental damage, sentencing him to two years in prison but suspended the sentence for three years in May 2016. Mangouras argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling violated his rights to a fair trial and equal means of defense, as it changed facts established by a lower court and concluded new facts without hearing him. Additionally, he was not allowed to participate in the underwater inspections of the wreckage or informed of all test results. His appeals, including one to the Constitutional Court, were dismissed.

Admissibility

The Committee rejected the State’s request to reconsider the admissibility of the communication, highlighting that the author had effectively exhausted domestic remedies. It noted that although the author didn’t explicitly invoke article 14 (5) in domestic proceedings, his actions sought the protections it offers, specifically the right to have a conviction reviewed by a higher court. The Committee also considered that the constitutional appeal and nullity incident were not effective remedies for the alleged violation, in line with previous decisions that no further domestic remedies needed to be pursued once the highest court had decided the issue, when those remedies does not have a reasonable chance of success.

Merits

The Committee acknowledged the author’s claim that his conviction for environmental damage was handed down by the Supreme Court without the opportunity for a full review. While the State party argues that the Supreme Court conducted a thorough review, the author’s concern lies in the impossibility of obtaining a review of his conviction at the second instance. Therefore, the Committee must determine whether the State party violated the author’s rights under article 14 (5) of the Covenant by not allowing his conviction to be reviewed by a higher tribunal.

The Committee emphasized that article 14 (5) of the Covenant guarantees individuals the right to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. This right is violated if someone previously acquitted at first instance cannot have their conviction reviewed by a higher court. Even if a person acquitted at first instance is later convicted on appeal by a second instance court, including the highest judicial instance, this should not impair their right to a review.

Furthermore, the Committee acknowledged the State party’s argument that the Supreme Court judgment in the author’s case did not review established facts but only the legal assessment made by the court of first instance. However, the Committee highlighted the author’s contention that a review of an acquittal differs from a review of a conviction by a higher tribunal. Additionally, while the State party argued that the right to a second hearing does not include the right to appeal against a decision issued by a second instance court, the Committee noted that article 14 (5) of the Covenant does not provide for exceptions like article 2 (2) of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee underscored that the State party, having not entered a reservation to article 14 (5) of the Covenant, is obligated to guarantee this right in all circumstances, regardless of the presence of reservations.

In this case, the Provincial Court sentenced the author for disobeying orders but acquitted him of environmental damage. However, the Supreme Court overturned the acquittal and sentenced the author, also overturning the initial conviction. Despite the technical grounds, the author wasn’t given the opportunity for a review as required by the Covenant, leading to a violation of his rights under article 14 (5).

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to:

a) Provide the author with an effective remedy that allows for the review of the conviction and sentence imposed;

b) Take all necessary measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 14 January 2024

More information on the case:

— Le Point - Marée noire du Prestige : capitaine, assureur et propriétaire jugés responsables

— Antena 3 - Quedan absueltos los tres acusados de causar la catástrofe del Prestige