Failure to provide timely access to accurate court minutes

Facts

The author, D.K., a Greek national, was a professor and former rector of Panteion University. In 1998, an investigation into the university’s financial management led to criminal charges against him and others for being accessory to forgery, misrepresentation, fraud, and misappropriation of public funds. He was found guilty in 2007 and sentenced to 14 years in prison. In 2012, the conviction was upheld on appeal and he began serving his sentence. He was later released for health reasons. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld his conviction in 2015. The author argued that, throughout his trial and appeals, court minutes were incomplete, misrepresented key witness statements, and were inaccessible for extended periods (29 months after the first-instance trial and 21 months after the second-instance appeal). He submitted petitions to correct the court records. Some of which were partially accepted, but key parts of his defence remained omitted. He further claimed that the courts failed to consider a 2011 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which found that public officials had violated his presumption of innocence. His subsequent complaint before the ECtHR was declared inadmissible in 2016.

In the present communication, the author alleged violations of article 14 (1) and (3) (b) of the Covenant, arguing that the lack of timely access to accurate court records deprived him of fair trial and of the ability to prepare an adequate defence.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication admissible under article  5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, rejecting the State party’s argument that the author had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It noted that while the author’s petition to correct the minutes of the secondinstance proceedings remained pending, the final decision of the Supreme Court on 21 December 2015 effectively exhausted all his available remedies. The Committee also dismissed the State party’s claim that the submission constituted an abuse of the right of submission due to delay, finding that the communication was filed within two years of the publication of the Supreme Court’s decision on 6 April 2016, which did not amount to an unreasonable delay.

However, the Committee ruled the communication partially inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol to the extent that it concerned the accuracy and completeness of the trial minutes. It held that determining whether specific statements or evidence were omitted from the record required factual reassessment of domestic judicial decisions, which falls outside the Committee’s competence unless manifest arbitrariness or denial of justice is established. Nevertheless, the Committee found the author’s claims regarding the lack of timely access to trial records in connection with his right to a fair trial and defence sufficiently substantiated, declaring this part of the communication admissible.

Merits

The Committee found a violation of article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, concluding that the significant delays in accessing trial records and the omission of key defence arguments restricted the author’s ability to prepare his appeal and cassation effectively. It emphasised that the right to a fair trial includes timely access to records necessary for preparation of defence, which was not ensured in this case. Given the finding of violation, the Committee did not separately consider the claim under article 14 (1).

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) provide the author with adequate compensation for the violation of his fair trial rights;
• (b) prevent similar violations and implement measures to ensure a more timely and accurate system for recording criminal trial proceedings and guarantee timely access to trial minutes in future cases.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 19 January 2025