PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 25088/07) against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Montenegrin national, Mr Srdan Pesukic (“the applicant”), on 12 June 2007.

The applicant was represented by Mr T. Reich, a lawyer practising in Zurich. The Swiss Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Schürmann, of the Federal Office of Justice.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that his criminal conviction was based to a decisive extent on testimony given by an anonymous witness.

On 26 November 2009 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

Having been informed on 4 December 2009 of their right to submit written observations, the Government of Montenegro did not express an intention to take part in the proceedings.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1974. He is currently detained in a cantonal prison in Regensdorf in Switzerland.

On 15 October 2001, shortly after midnight, N.B. was killed by a gunshot in the back of his neck in front of the post-office in Zurich‑Schwamendingen. The applicant was suspected of having carried out the shooting.

On 8 July and 21 August 2002, the prosecution authority of the canton of Zurich interrogated X as a witness. X declared that he had been at the crime scene and that he had been able to see, from a distance of twenty metres, that the applicant had shot the victim in the back of his neck. During the interrogations, the witness, the investigating judge, a police officer and a translator were sitting in a separate room, while the applicant, the former co‑accused Z. L., their respective defence counsel and two police guards were sitting in another room. The interrogation was transmitted via a sound link, and the witness’ voice was distorted in order to protect the witness’ anonymity. Following the interrogation, the defence counsel were given the opportunity to put additional questions via the sound link.

At the beginning of each interrogation the applicant’s counsel declared that the modalities of the witness interrogations did not allow for an adequate exercise of the rights of the defence.

On 29 January 2004, X was interrogated before the Jury Court of the canton of Zurich (Geschworenengericht). While the judges, the jury and an interpreter were sitting directly together with the witness in the hearing room, the applicant, his counsel, the interpreter, the civil parties, the public prosecutor and the journalists were placed in one of the court’s deliberation rooms. The interrogation was transmitted via a sound link and the witness’ voice was distorted in order to prevent his being identified.

The applicant and his counsel were allowed to put additional questions to X. The latter, however, refused to answer a number of questions which the defence counsel considered to be important, notably the following: “Why had X arranged a meeting with N.B.? How did X react after the crime? Did X approach the body? Did he wait for the police? Did he consume drugs? Was he afraid of someone close to the applicant? Had he been concretely threatened by someone? Did X have an argument with the applicant or with Z.L.? Where did X go after the crime? Was he on foot or did he have a vehicle? Did he have a criminal record? Was he residing legally in Switzerland? Did he wear spectacles?”

On 6 February 2004, the jury court convicted the applicant of manslaughter (vorsätzliche Tötung) and of several counts of drug-trafficking and sentenced him to fourteen years and nine months’ detention. The court considered that the testimony given by X was credible and pertinent. It further considered that the conditions to allow the witness’ anonymity were met. It noted that X had submitted in a credible and convincing way that his life was in danger in case he testified, as persons close to the applicant and to Z. L. were ready to take revenge and did not even hesitate to kill somebody. According to X’s submissions, he was the only person who had observed the crime and who dared to testify. It thus appeared comprehensible that X feared reprisals. It was further obvious that the applicant had a motive to take revenge on the witness who had contributed to his conviction and to prevent him from making further testimonies.

The fears expressed by X were in line with the overall picture conveyed by the other witnesses, who showed fear which was sometimes even bordering to panic when it came to making any concrete incriminating statements. The court considered that there were concrete indications that the applicant lived in an extremely violent environment in which recourse to violence and even to arms was frequent even for seemingly minor reasons. Moreover, there were specific indications that persons who had been ready to testify before the jury court had been exposed to death threats.

The court further considered that the measures taken were both necessary and sufficient to prevent identification of the witness X. The court had taken a number of measures to compensate the restrictions imposed on the rights of the defence. Firstly, the witness had not been examined by the regional prosecutor (Bezirksanwalt), but by the president of the court. Secondly, the identity of X had been confirmed by the police-officer in charge of the investigation and had been known to the regional prosecutor and to the president of the court.

Thirdly, the police officer and the regional prosecutor gave testimony about X’s reputation and credibility. It had thus been known that X had no criminal record and that there was no indication that he had any contact with the drug trafficking scene. There was further no indication that X had been in any way involved in the crime. It was further known that X spoke the Serbo-Croatian language. Conversely, the regional prosecutor refused to divulge any detailed information on X’s private and professional background, his education, his family situation and his residence status. The jury court considered, however, that this information was of minor importance for the assessment of credibility and that the information available gave the court a sound basis for assessing the general credibility of the witness.

The court further noted that X had been interrogated in front of the complete court and that all persons participating in the decision-making process could gain a personal impression of the witness and of his reaction to the questions put to him. Furthermore, the court had taken into account that, under the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, a conviction could not be exclusively based on testimony given by an anonymous witness. The principle of a public hearing had been safeguarded by allowing the press directly to follow the interrogation from the separate room in which the defence was seated. The court considered that the core rights of the defence had been safeguarded and that the measures taken had been proportionate.

Referring to the Court’s case-law, the jury court considered that a criminal conviction must not be exclusively based on testimony given by an anonymous witness. Accordingly, the court considered that it could not rely on the anonymous witness’ testimony insofar as this constituted the only evidence available. The jury court resumed its examination by laying out general principles for the assessment of the credibility of evidence by witnesses. It considered that the applicant’s own submissions, according to which he could not have been present at the crime scene as he first entered Swiss territory in January 2002 – and thus after the victim had been killed – were contradictory and thus lacked credibility. Conversely, the court considered the testimony given by the anonymous witness, who submitted that he had seen the applicant shooting the victim, to be credible.

The jury court further considered that there had been other evidence linking the applicant to the crime. There was, in particular, witness and circumstantial evidence allowing the conclusion that the applicant had been residing in the Zurich region since August 2001, that he had known the victim and that he had engaged in drug trafficking with him. As regarded the shooting of the victim, the court considered that the statements made by the witness Z. L., who had declared in a credible and convincing way to the police that the applicant had explained to him some days after the incident that he had killed N.B. before the latter could kill him, weighed heavily against the applicant, notwithstanding the fact that Z. L. did not repeat these allegations during the court proceedings, but stated that he could not remember what had happened. The testimony given by Z. L. during the police investigation was supported by the convincing submissions made by the anonymous witness, and by testimony given by a witness who had presumably met the applicant immediately after the crime. Relying on all available evidence, the jury court concluded that there was no doubt that N. B. had been shot by the applicant. With regard to the concrete factual circumstances, the jury court considered that the prosecution based its submissions mainly on testimony given by the anonymous witness. It followed that, for formal reasons, these circumstances could not be taken into account and that it had to be assumed in the applicant’s favour that the concrete circumstances had not been proven. It followed that there was no sufficient factual basis which would allow the conclusion that the applicant acted with a particular degree of scrupulousness (besonders skrupellos) which would lead to the crime being characterised as murder.

The applicant lodged a nullity appeal (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) with the Court of Cassation (Kassationsgericht) of the canton of Zurich.

By decision of 19 December 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the lower court. That court noted that the anonymous witness had been heard in camera and that the applicant’s counsel did not have the possibility directly to question the witness. Neither the applicant nor his counsel had ever seen the witness, whose personal details remained secret. The court further noted that the witness refused to answer a number of questions which the defence considered important (see paragraph 11, above). The court did not call into question that the legal conditions for granting anonymity were fulfilled in the instant case and confirmed the first instance court’s finding that it had been necessary to protect X against possible reprisals.

With regard to the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention, the court considered that the maintenance of the anonymity of the witness X and the fact that X had been shielded from sight and that his voice had been distorted seriously interfered with the defence’s right to confront the witness. The fact that the prosecution and the presiding judge were aware of the witness’ identity could not be regarded as a counterbalancing factor as such. Given the fact that all judges were accountable for the judgment, and that it was the role of the defence to examine the findings of the prosecution from the defendant’s point of view, it appeared problematic that the presiding judge had knowledge that was superior to that of the other members of the court, including the jury, and that the latter had more knowledge than the defence. Adequate compensation could only be conceivable if at least the defence had the right directly to take part in the interrogation of the witness and was given the opportunity to assess the witness’ credibility; however, this possibility was not granted in the instant case.

Relying on the Court’s case-law (the court referred to the cases of Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑II and Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑III), the court considered that the criminal court could not rely on the testimony given by the anonymous witness for two separate reasons: Firstly, according to the case-law of the Court, it was decisive whether the applicant’s defence counsel had been present during the interrogation of the anonymous witness or had at least been in a position to follow the interrogation via an audio‑visual link and to put questions. As this had not been the case, the modalities of the witness’ interrogation did not comply with the standards set up by the Court and were thus contrary to Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention.

Secondly, the court examined whether the testimony given by the anonymous witness had to be regarded as being “decisive” for the applicant’s conviction within the meaning of the “sole or decisive” rule developed by the Court. It noted that the anonymous witness was the only direct witness of the crime at issue, as the remaining witnesses only gave evidence by hearsay. It was thus obvious that the anonymous witness’ testimony had more than only minor relevance for the assessment of the evidence. Even though the evidence given by other – indirect – witnesses carried a certain weight, the anonymous witness had to be regarded as the decisive evidence (“massgebliches Beweismittel”), and was decisive to an extent which, under the Court’s case-law, excluded the possibility of having recourse to this evidence in order to establish the applicant’s guilt.

On 3 February 2006 the senior public prosecutor (Oberstaatsanwalt) of the canton of Zurich lodged a nullity appeal against the decision of the Court of Cassation.

By judgment of 2 November 2006 the Federal Tribunal (Kassationshof) quashed the decision of 19 December 2005 and remitted the case to the Court of Cassation. That court considered that the lower court’s judgment did not comply with the principle of free appreciation of the evidence under Article 249 of the Federal Law on Criminal Procedure (Grundsatz der freien Beweiswürdigung, see relevant domestic law, below).

The Federal Tribunal confirmed that it had been necessary to protect the witness by shielding his appearance both from the applicant and from the applicant’s counsel. It considered that the counsel was not under any legal obligation to transmit information on the witness’ identity to the applicant. Even if such a duty existed, the risk that the defence counsel did not respect this obligation or inadvertently divulged information to his client was unacceptably high. The tribunal further considered that it was compatible with Article 6 of the Convention to consider the testimony given by an anonymous witness insofar as it could complete – like a mosaic stone – the picture gained through other evidence, which was in itself not sufficient to support an establishment of guilt, but established a strong suspicion, and thus contributed to a full establishment of guilt.

The tribunal further reviewed the other evidence examined by the jury court and concluded that this evidence, taken separately, would have been sufficient “to establish a strong suspicion of a criminal offence, or even to establish his guilt”. The tribunal reiterated that the jury court had considered that the testimony given by the witness X had been credible and that it was, furthermore, in line with the scientific conclusion that the victim had been killed by gunshot in the back of his neck on 15 October 2001.

The tribunal concluded that the anonymous testimony only served as one piece of a mosaic which enforced the conclusion drawn from the remaining evidence. It followed that the criminal courts were not prevented from taking this evidence into account.

On 12 February 2007 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s nullity appeal. On 19 April 2007 the Federal Tribunal rejected the applicant’s appeal.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e1
001-114965_a1_em1
CODE
DIRECT
25088/07
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e2
001-114965_a1_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Swiss Confederation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e3
001-114965_a1_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Montenegrin
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e4
001-114965_a1_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Srdan Pesukic
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e5
001-114965_a1_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
12 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e6
001-114965_a1_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr T. Reich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e7
001-114965_a1_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Zurich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e8
001-114965_a1_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Swiss Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e9
001-114965_a1_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Schürmann
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e10
001-114965_a1_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Office of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e11
001-114965_a1_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
26 November 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e12
001-114965_a1_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
4 December 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e13
001-114965_a1_em13
ORG
NO_MASK
Government of Montenegro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e14
001-114965_a1_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
1974
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e15
001-114965_a1_em15
LOC
QUASI
Regensdorf
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e16
001-114965_a1_em16
LOC
NO_MASK
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e17
001-114965_a1_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e18
001-114965_a1_em18
DATETIME
NO_MASK
midnight
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e19
001-114965_a1_em19
PERSON
NO_MASK
N.B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e20
001-114965_a1_em20
LOC
QUASI
Zurich‑Schwamendingen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e21
001-114965_a1_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
8 July
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e22
001-114965_a1_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
21 August 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e7
001-114965_a1_em23
LOC
NO_MASK
Zurich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em24
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em25
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e24
001-114965_a1_em26
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
twenty metres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e25
001-114965_a1_em27
PERSON
NO_MASK
Z. L.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e26
001-114965_a1_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
29 January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em29
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e27
001-114965_a1_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
Jury Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e7
001-114965_a1_em31
LOC
NO_MASK
Zurich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e28
001-114965_a1_em32
LOC
NO_MASK
Geschworenengericht
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em33
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em34
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e29
001-114965_a1_em35
PERSON
NO_MASK
N.B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em36
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em37
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em38
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-114965_a1_e30
001-114965_a1_em39
PERSON
NO_MASK
Z.L.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em40
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e16
001-114965_a1_em41
LOC
NO_MASK
Switzerland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e31
001-114965_a1_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e32
001-114965_a1_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
fourteen years and nine months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em44
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em45
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e25
001-114965_a1_em46
PERSON
NO_MASK
Z. L.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em47
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em48
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em49
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em50
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em51
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em52
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em53
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em54
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em55
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e33
001-114965_a1_em56
DEM
QUASI
Serbo-Croatian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em57
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em58
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e34
001-114965_a1_em59
DEM
NO_MASK
Swiss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e35
001-114965_a1_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e7
001-114965_a1_em61
LOC
NO_MASK
Zurich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e36
001-114965_a1_em62
DATETIME
QUASI
August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e25
001-114965_a1_em63
PERSON
NO_MASK
Z. L.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e29
001-114965_a1_em64
PERSON
NO_MASK
N.B
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e25
001-114965_a1_em65
PERSON
NO_MASK
Z. L.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e25
001-114965_a1_em66
PERSON
NO_MASK
Z. L.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e37
001-114965_a1_em67
PERSON
NO_MASK
N. B.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e38
001-114965_a1_em68
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation (Kassationsgericht)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e7
001-114965_a1_em69
LOC
NO_MASK
Zurich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e39
001-114965_a1_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e38
001-114965_a1_em71
ORG
NO_MASK
001-114965_a1_em68
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em72
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em73
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em74
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e40
001-114965_a1_em75
MISC
NO_MASK
Doorson v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996‑II
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e41
001-114965_a1_em76
MISC
NO_MASK
Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, 23 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑III
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e42
001-114965_a1_em77
DATETIME
QUASI
3 February 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e7
001-114965_a1_em78
LOC
NO_MASK
Zurich
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e38
001-114965_a1_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e43
001-114965_a1_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
2 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e44
001-114965_a1_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Tribunal (Kassationshof)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e39
001-114965_a1_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
19 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e38
001-114965_a1_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-114965_a1_e44
001-114965_a1_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
001-114965_a1_em81
Federal Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e23
001-114965_a1_em85
PERSON
NO_MASK
X
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e17
001-114965_a1_em86
DATETIME
QUASI
15 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e45
001-114965_a1_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
12 February 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e38
001-114965_a1_em88
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Cassation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e46
001-114965_a1_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
19 April 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-114965_a1_e44
001-114965_a1_em90
ORG
NO_MASK
Federal Tribunal
Srdan Pesukic
CHE
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Srdan Pesukic