5.  The first applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Brussels. The second applicant was born in 1958 and is detained in Verviers Prison. 6.  On 12 January 1998 an attempted robbery was carried out on an armoured van owned by the B.Z. company on the motorway adjacent to the municipality of Waremme in Belgium. Two of the three occupants of the van were killed. Two vehicles abandoned by the perpetrators were found on the scene, and a Kalashnikov, two Fal-type magazines and ammunition were discovered inside the latter. 7.  A ballistic expert assessment carried out on 14 February 1998 revealed that the Fal-type weapon had been used in an attack on a mail van in Dison in 1996. 8.  The surviving occupant of the armoured van recounted the attack, pointing out that it had been carried out by five masked men wearing gloves. 9.  The Liège public prosecutor submitted those facts to an investigating judge, classifying them as assault and robbery accompanied by murder. 10.  An anonymous witness stated that the possible offenders included one L.C., who had been convicted of offences linked to organised crime and had been acting as an informer, as well as L.M., who subsequently became a co-defendant (see paragraph 13 below). On 30 March 1998 L.C. stated that he had been invited by the second applicant and C.K., who was also a co-defendant, to reconnoitre the area prior to the attack on the B.Z. armoured van. L.C.’s partner, E.E., subsequently confirmed that witness statement. The anonymous witness was murdered on 4 October 1999. 11.  According to a document prepared by the Liège Federal Police on 19 June 2002, an individual who had been detained at the time, R.C., had voiced a wish to “cooperate with the judicial authorities in exchange for certain advantages”. On 11 March 2002 R.C., who was known to the police in connection with numerous robbery offences, had been charged with complicity in armed robbery in a different banditry case, the “B. case”. On 20 June 2002, R.C. was questioned by the police concerning the attack on the B.Z. van and the Dison mail van. 12.  On 24 June 2002 the arrest warrant issued against R.C. in the B. case was quashed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, but he remained in detention to serve the remainder of a two-and-a-half year sentence. 13.  According to the aforementioned document (see paragraph 11 above), when R.C. had again been questioned by the police on 25 June 2002, he had mentioned, in connection with the attack on the B.Z. van, the names of the applicants and of L.M. and J.S., who subsequently became co-defendants. 14.  On 30 September 2002 a warrant was issued for the purposes of a police hearing of R.C., following which he was first questioned officially on 2 October 2002. On that occasion he confirmed his wish to make disclosures on high-profile individuals in the organised crime circles, including the applicants, and, in particular, on the attack on the armoured van in Waremme. 15.  On 25 October 2002, according to the aforementioned document prepared by the Liège Federal Police, the Witness Protection Board ordered provisional emergency protection measures in respect of R.C. 16.  On 28 October 2002 R.C. was heard by the investigating judge as a witness under oath. R.C.’s statements were reproduced in the indictments subsequently drawn up by the Federal Prosecutor. He admitted his involvement in preparing the attack on the van at the beginning of 1994, stating that the second applicant had been one of the instigators. He explained that in 1997 he had left the group of instigators following his conviction for other offences. Subsequently, while in prison in 2000, he had approached M.A., a member of the aforementioned group, which had in the end refrained from taking part in the attack on the van. M.A. had recounted the course of events and discussed the first applicant’s involvement in the attack on the van. 17. On 5 November 2002 R.C. was released on licence. 18.  On 31 October 2002 the first applicant had a face-to-face meeting with R.C. and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The second applicant was arrested on 4 November 2002. 19.  Appearing before the investigating judge, the applicants denied any involvement in the attack on the van in Waremme, claiming that L.C. and R.C., who were themselves involved in organised crime, had provided false information. The first applicant also described, as an alibi, exactly what he had been doing and when on the day of the attack on the van. 20.  The applicants were released on licence in the absence of sufficient evidence to prolong their pre-trial detention, under decisions taken by the Indictments Division of the Liège Court of Appeal, on 30 October 2003 in respect of the first applicant and on 27 November 2003 in respect of the second applicant. 21.  On 15 September 2004 L.M., one of the co-defendants, was murdered. 22.  On 15 November 2004 D.S. informed the Liège Federal Police Department that he feared for his life and that he was prepared to submit to questioning on L.M.’s murder in exchange for police protection. The police questioned him on 2 December 2004. On 6 December 2004 he officially informed the authorities of his intention to cooperate with the authorities and to give statements on the Waremme attack. 23.  According to the indictment subsequently drawn up by the Federal Prosecutor (see paragraph 34 below), R.C. and D.S. hardly knew each other even though they both belonged to the world of organised crime. 24.  On 9, 10 and 16 December 2004 D.S. officially gave evidence as a witness, and his statements were reproduced in the indictment. He provided the investigators with information which he had obtained from L.M., in particular stating the names of those involved in the attack, including the applicants, and mentioning that the attack had been prepared a long time in advance by a different team and that one of the weapons discovered in one of the vehicles abandoned at the scene of the crime had been purchased by L.M. from the first applicant and used in an attack on a van in 1996. 25.  On 20 December 2004 D.S. was granted provisional emergency protection. In a statement of 28 October 2005 he mentioned the assistance which he had received by way of protection measures. The special protection was lifted on 22 December 2005. 26.  After D.S.’s initial statements, the investigators travelled to France following an international letter of request in order to present M.A. with the statements made by D.S. M.A admitted that he had met the latter and that they had discussed the information which he had given R.C. in confidence (see paragraph 16 above), and also that he had reconnoitred with R.C. prior to the van attack. 27.  On 8 March 2005 H.P., the wife of the late L.M., was also questioned, in the framework of police protection measures, in particular concerning the B.Z. van attack. She cited the name of the second applicant but said that she did not know whether the first applicant had taken part in the van attack. 28.  In 2006 the applicants had several face-to-face meetings with the witnesses D.S. and H.P., who maintained their statements. 29.  In the meantime, on the basis of the statements by D.S. and H.P., the applicants were arrested once again, on 18 May and 8 June 2005 respectively. Appearing before the investigating judge, they contested the new evidence against them, arguing that D.S. was an untrustworthy character who had negotiated his witness statement in order to secure criminal impunity. The second applicant also contested H.P.’s statements. Subsequently, the first applicant admitted that the alibi which he had put forward after his first arrest (see paragraph 19 above) had been “made up”. 30.  On 28 September 2006 the Indictments Division of the Liège Court of Appeal ordered the first applicant’s release. 31.  On 19 December 2006 the investigation was closed by the investigating judge. On 6 March 2007 the Federal Prosecutor applied for twelve persons, including the applicants, to be committed for trial. On 26 June 2007 the Liège Court of First Instance, sitting in private, committed those twelve defendants for trial before the Indictments Division of the Liège Court of Appeal in order to decide on possible committal for trial before the Assize Court. On 3 December 2007 the Indictments Division committed the twelve defendants for trial before the Liège Assize Court. 32.  Four persons, including the first applicant, lodged appeals on points of law against the judgment of the Indictments Division. Those appeals on points of law were dismissed by the Court of Cassation by judgment of 19 March 2008. 33.  In February 2008 D.S. died of natural causes. 34.  On 2 July 2008 the Federal Prosecutor deposited the 130-page indictment. 35.  On 3 September 2008 the Liège Assize Court commenced proceedings against eleven of the defendants, including the applicants, for offences connected with the attack on the B.Z. van, as well as other offences linked to organised crime. 36.  During a hearing before the Assize Court, V., a prosecution witness, stated that R.C. had been awarded a bounty. The President of the Assize Court invited R.C. to explain himself. The latter stated, with his face in plain view, that he had been paid 50,000 euros (EUR). He explained that he had received half of that sum in 2006 and the other half just before his appearance before the Assize Court in 2008. 37.  On 3 March 2009 the Liège Assize Court acquitted two of the defendants and convicted the other nine, including the applicants. The first applicant was convicted of offences linked to the attack on the van, in his capacity as leader of a criminal organisation. The aggravating circumstances of murder and of bearing or using a firearm were not made out against him. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment and twenty years’ placement at the Government’s disposal. The second applicant was convicted of offences of robbery committed in Luxembourg and of the offences committed in Waremme and Dison. The aggravating circumstance of murder was made out against him in the attempted robbery in Waremme. He was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The applicants’ conviction was also based on the charges of possession of firearms and leadership of a criminal conspiracy and a criminal organisation. 38.  On 30 September 2009, since the Liège Assize Court had given no reasons for its sentences, and with reference to the Chamber’s judgment in the case of Taxquet v. Belgium (no. 926/05, 13 January 2009), the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment inasmuch as it adjudicated on the proceedings brought against four appellants, including the applicants, and referred the case to the Brussels-Capital Assize Court. 39.  On 1 February 2010 the Federal Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment. That bill set out R.C.’s and D.S.’s witness statements verbatim (see paragraphs 16, 22 and 24 above). 40.  On 2 April 2010 the retrial commenced before the Brussels-Capital Assize Court. 41.  During the proceedings the applicants filed conclusions contesting, pursuant to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the lawfulness of the prosecution inasmuch as it had been based on the statements of R.C. and D.S., the latter having since died.
... 44.  By interlocutory judgment of 2 July 2010, the Assize Court declared ill-founded the applicants’ request that their prosecution be declared inadmissible, and ordered the immediate continuation of proceedings.... 49.  On 28 September 2010 the jury found the applicants guilty, in particular, of the attack on the B.Z. van in their capacity as leaders of a criminal organisation. The main reasons for the jury’s decision were subsequently summarised as follows in a statement of reasons issued by the Assize Court that same day:
“The [first applicant’s guilt] regarding his involvement in the attempted robbery in Waremme on 12 January 1998 transpires from the concurring statements of [R.C. and D.S.], which come from different sources. Those indirect testimonies are corroborated by the objective fact that a Kalashnikov was found in the Chrysler vehicle on the scene of the crime. When an ‘appeal for witnesses’ programme was broadcast, [D.S.] recognised that weapon as one of those belonging to [L.M.], who had purchased it from [the applicant].
...
Among the sources of R.C.’s information to the effect that [the applicant] had taken part in the Waremme attack were [the second applicant and J.S.], both of whom admitted that they had had talks with [R.C.], although they disputed the content of those talks.
...
The [second applicant’s guilt] regarding his involvement in the attempted robbery in Waremme on 12 January 1998 transpires from the concurring statements of [R.C., D.S. and H.P.], and from the information provided by C.S. as confirmed by witness E.E. Those statements and information are confirmed by objective facts ... (ballistic links relating to the use of the same Fal firearm and ammunition found in a bag handed over to J.P.M. by [the second applicant]).” 50.  By judgment of 30 September 2010 the Assize Court determined the sentence. ... The court sentenced the first applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment and the second to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 51.  Relying on a series of violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned three judgments of the Brussels Assize Court. The Court of Cassation dismissed that appeal on points of law by judgment of 30 March 2011. 52.  In contesting the interlocutory judgment of 2 July 2010, the applicants argued that R.C.’s witness statement could only be taken into consideration if it came from a citizen desirous of promoting justice, but not from a person who was testifying for reasons of personal interest. The Court of Cassation dismissed that plea on the following grounds:
“... it falls to the trial court to gauge the impact on the evidential value of a witness statement of its purported venal motivation. ... The reasons impelling a witness to testify may give rise to doubts concerning his or her credibility, but that is not necessarily inconsistent with the holding of a fair trial.
Article 6, cited above, does not prohibit ... the judge from using in evidence a statement by a witness under police protection pursuant to Articles 102 to 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even where such witness is an informer who has decided, after having provided information under informer status, to testify officially in court.” 53.  The applicants submitted that R.C.’s use of the status of informer and then that of witness, given that confidentiality had been observed in respect of his contacts as informer with the police, had amounted to a violation of the principle of adversarial proceedings, because his statement had been used in evidence against them, especially since that witness had received a bounty in the context of his informer status. The Court of Cassation dismissed those arguments as follows:
“An official statement by a person having previously provided information under informer status does not infringe the general principle of law relating to compliance with the rights of the defence, given that it has the effect of making the witness statements subject to inter partes debate and that the confidentiality requirement set out in Article 47decies, § 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not cover evidence referred to the trial court.
...
The right to a fair trial requires the communication neither of information supplied by an informer nor of data on the contacts which that informer has had with the police.
The subsequent questioning of such informer as a witness has the effect of making his statements subject to inter partes debate. The judgment notes that, according to the police officers having received the statements contained in the case-file, the latter do not diverge from the information previously supplied confidentially.
The appellant’s submission to the effect that the confidentiality of the informer’s involvement has the effect of removing the evidence which the latter provided against him from the inter partes debate is therefore unjustified.” 54.   The Court of Cassation gave the following reply to the applicants’ criticism of the fact that the procedure for granting a threatened witness assistance and protection is not subject to court supervision and, owing to its confidentiality, prevents the defendant from establishing that the financial assistance provided is tantamount to the covert purchase of witness statements:
“Article 6 of the Convention requires the prosecuting authorities to communicate to the defence all the relevant evidence in their possession for or against the defendant.
The right to disclosure concerns neither the measures taken in order to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals, on pain of exposing the latter to the danger which those measures are supposed to prevent, nor the management of a police officer’s contacts with an informer, on pain of jeopardising the implementation of that specific investigative method.
The limits on the disclosure of those confidential data are adequately offset by the oral adversarial proceedings conducted before the jury, since the case-file presented to the latter comprises no elements other than those communicated to the defence and the latter has had an opportunity before the trial court to criticise the statements received against the defendant, as regards both their content and their origin.
The judgment lawfully decides that the lack of supervision by an independent and impartial court of the procedure for granting protection to threatened witnesses has no impact on the fairness of the proceedings.” 55.  The first applicant complained that the statement of reasoning of 28 September 2010 had been based on two indirect witness statements whose authors had been paid to testify against the applicants. The Court of Cassation declared that plea inadmissible as being based on a factual premise. For the remainder it considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not relate to a jury’s assessment of the evidential value of the evidence presented to it. The court also dismissed the second applicant’s argument concerning the insufficiency and irrelevance of the evidence used by the jury to corroborate the statements given by the protected witnesses. 56.  Finally, the first applicant complained that the judgment of 30 September 2010 determining the sentence had not taken account of the abnormal length of the proceedings against the applicants when the sentence was passed. The Court of Cassation had dismissed the argument on the grounds that the Assize Court, on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case, had legitimately ruled that the proceedings had not been excessively lengthy.
...