The European Court of Human Rights rejects the complaint in the case “Ivanovs v. Latvia”

The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has announced its decision on 3 October 2024 in the case Ivanovs against Latviarejecting the applicant’s complaint as much as possible European Conventions for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Contract) Violation of rights guaranteed in Article 6, Section 1 (right to a fair trial).. March 7, 2014 in his complaint to the Court, the applicant claimed that his right to a fair trial had been violated in the criminal trial for the murder of his wife. That is, the applicant claimed that his right to remain silent and not testify against himself was violated, as the national courts took into account the criminal cases. evidence obtained by the investigating authorities as a result of operational activities and which were later found to be inadmissible.

First, the Court restored the general principles established in its law. The court confirmed that Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, but at the same time it does not determine any rules regarding the admissibility of evidence, as these matters are regulated by national law. Therefore, it is not the duty of the Court to assess whether certain evidence, if obtained illegally, is considered admissible, as well as whether a person is guilty. Rather, the Court must decide whether the process as a whole, including the manner in which the evidence was obtained, was fair. In this regard, the Court includes whether the person’s right to defense was respected and whether the person had the opportunity to dispute the truth of the evidence and object to its use in the criminal proceedings. In addition, the Court also emphasizes the quality of the evidence, as well as whether the particular evidence was decisive for the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The Court also reminded that the right not to testify against themselves does not protect people from making statements that incriminate themselves, but from obtaining evidence under compulsion or by stressing the person. It is this mandatory element that plays a decisive role.

Turning to the factual situation of the case, the Court noted that the Riga Regional Court’s judgment was actually based on the records of the applicant’s conversations with employees, which, with the exception of the first conversation, were obtained as a result of secret executive actions. . The Court also noted that although the Court of Appeal excluded the recording of the first conversation between the applicant and the operator from the evidence list as inadmissible and stated that that other actions were not justified, the appeal court also recognized that what the applicant said in the operational tests indicated his guilt. Taking into account the above, the Court recognized that prima facie the applicant’s claim that the national courts used in their judgments the evidence obtained by the investigative authorities as a result of an activity is prima facie justified confidential and recognized as inadmissible evidence. At the same time, the Court emphasized that, regardless of whether these witnesses confirmed the national courts’ conclusion that the applicant was guilty, they played only a secondary role in the assessment of the Riga Regional Court and Chamber High Court Criminal. . The court drew attention to the fact that the national courts’ decision about the applicant’s guilt was based on several other pieces of evidence, namely the detailed statements and testimonies of many witnesses, and the applicant, who had a defense lawyer in the cases criminal, he had the right during the trial to challenge the truth and practice. In addition, the Court took into account that the applicant’s first conversation with the operator, which the applicant knew in advance, took place on the applicant’s own initiative and, even if further discussions ‘ take place in the context of a secret operation, it was not. an indication that pressure was placed on the applicant to obtain this registration.

Taking into account the above, the Court concluded that, in the particular case, the evidence obtained as a result of secret action activities did not affect the fairness of the process as a whole, and this case revealed no obvious flaws in the procedure. the national courts to ensure the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention. For this reason, the Court rejected the applicant’s complaint of a possible violation of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention as being manifestly unfounded.

The court’s decision is final and cannot be appealed. The full text of the Court’s decision announced on October 3, 2024 in English is available at the Court in an online database. To find the decision, the Court’s jurisprudence database in the Advanced Research section (Advanced Research), you must enter the application number (20786/14) and the date of the decision (03/10/2024).

The truth of the matter “Ivanovs vs Latvia”

On 7 January 2008, the applicant’s wife was murdered, and criminal proceedings were initiated in connection therewith. On March 5, 2008, in connection with the suspicion of organizing the murder of his wife, the applicant was detained, but he was later arrested.

On April 7, 2008, while in custody, the applicant, alone, met with an operator of the State Police GN. The operator secretly recorded this conversation, after which he informed higher officials about it. Later, the prosecutor dropped a number of action trials, when GN executive met with the applicant on 15 April, 8 May and 14 May 2008. The applicant and GN discussed how GN could drop the criminal cases down if the candidate paid him a bribe. The applicant also spoke to GN about the murder of his wife.

On May 14, 2008, the applicant’s counsel, and on May 26, 2008, the applicant reported To the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption for the fact that a GN operator requested a bribe of $1,000,000 from the applicant. On June 5, 2008, the inspectorate decided not to initiate criminal proceedings for attempted bribery against an active GN, but initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for making a false report with information about the commission of a crime in order to initiate criminal proceedings to start against a certain person. On 10 February 2009, the Riga District Prosecutor’s Office merged this criminal case with the criminal case for murdering the applicant’s wife.

On 30 December 2009, the Riga District Court issued a verdict that the applicant encouraged and supported the murder of his wife. In its decision, the court relied on detailed statements and testimonies of many witnesses. The court also referred to the applicant’s conversation with an operational GN during the operational test, stating that several of the applicant’s statements reflected his complicity in murder. at the same time The Riga Regional Court found the applicant not guilty of the charge brought against him for knowingly making a false statement about committing a crime so that legal proceedings could be initiated against a specific person.

On 14 December 2012, the Criminal Trial Chamber of the High Court upheld the conviction. The Criminal Trial Chamber of the High Court relied on the detailed statements and testimony of several witnesses. Also, the appeal court noted that what the applicant said in the operational tests indicated his guilt. At the same time, the Criminal Trial Chamber of the Supreme Court excluded the GN recording of the conversation between the applicant and the operative on May 7, 2008 from the list of evidence as inadmissible, and said that operational activities were not others are justified.

On September 27, 2013, the Senate upheld the part of the appeal court’s judgment regarding the applicant’s guilty verdict. Regarding the use of evidence, the Senate noted that the court of appeal recognized GN record of the applicant’s conversation with staff as inappropriate evidence, and in his judgment he referred only to the information contained in the recording of the conversation, and he did not use the recording as evidence of the applicant’s guilt.