Delayed contesting violations of trial rights through domestic remedies

Facts

The author, a Spanish citizen, alleges a violation of his rights under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. He worked as a manager in an agricultural company accused of tax fraud. Despite initial dismissal, after appeals, he was convicted in a trial in 2012. Lack of impartiality in the judicial process is alleged due to the involvement of judges who were involved in previous decisions. Citing article 219 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, the author argues that one of the magistrates should have abstained from hearing the appeal due to prior involvement in the case. The author notes the contrast with another magistrate who did abstain from the initial trial proceedings, which is seen as significant.

Although he attempted to appeal, his appeal was rejected. Then, when attempting to file a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court, it was not admitted. The sentence became final in 2013, and despite requesting the suspension of the execution of the sentence, this was denied, resulting in the issuance of a prison order.

The author alleges a violation of his right to a fair trial under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. He contends that the State party denied him access to the recusal procedure against judges and magistrates, as provided for in Spanish law, and failed to correct the violation of his right to an impartial tribunal. Despite exhausting domestic remedies, he argues that the Magistrate in question did not recuse himself despite grounds for abstention, violating his right to a fair trial. The author seeks a declaration of violation and redress, including nullifying the rulings and fair compensation.

Admissibility

The Committee considers the State party’s claim that the communication constitutes an abuse of the right to submit communications under article 3 of the Optional Protocol due to filing the motion to set aside proceedings six months after being notified of the appeal dismissal. However, since the author submitted the communication within the five-year period after exhausting domestic remedies, the Committee deems it not an abuse of the right.

Regarding the timeliness of the motion to set aside proceedings, the Committee notes that the author raised the issue of the magistrate’s impartiality nearly six months after being notified of the appeal dismissal, which was beyond the legally established 20-day period. The Committee emphasizes that authors must exercise due diligence in utilizing available remedies. In this case, the author did not provide justification for the delay or demonstrate that he became aware of the grounds for recusal later. Therefore, the Committee finds the communication inadmissible due to the author’s lack of diligence in utilizing available domestic remedies.