Individual Application

The Facts

The applicant, a bank official calling the complainant and informing him that the deductions and insurance fees related to the loan received by the latter would be refunded, was indicted for aggravated fraud for allegedly deriving profit from the complainant through his fraudulent acts. Both at the investigation and trial stage, the applicant requested the judicial authorities to obtain certain evidence to substantiate his allegation that he was not the perpetrator of the imputed act, but he was indeed a victim of fraud by F.S. At the end of the proceedings, the trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for the imputed offence. On appeal, his conviction was upheld and became final.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant maintained that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings had been breached on account of the dismissal of his request for the investigation of the facts that might mitigate or even set aside the criminal sentence imposed on him.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the trial court did not rely on the applicant’s defence submissions that he had shared the bank account details -into which the complainant had deposited money- with his friend F.S. The court found his defence submissions “contrary to the ordinary course of life and intended to evade the criminal liability” and eventually convicted him.

During the proceedings, the applicant claimed that the perpetrator of the said offence was F.S., who had also defrauded him. In support of his claim, the applicant submitted to the law enforcement officers the social media account allegedly held by F.S., as well as the latter’s photos. He also requested the authorities to obtain the camera footages having a potential to shed light on the exact circumstances of the applicant’s case. Moreover, the applicant provided, during the hearing, the trial court with a cell phone number allegedly belonging to F.S.

In consideration of the available evidence and requests, the incumbent chief public prosecutor’s office should have conducted sufficient inquiries into the identity and address of F.S. at the investigation stage. Besides, the trial court dismissed the applicant’s requests on abstract grounds, and thus the applicant was put in a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the prosecution. It is thus evident that the stance taken by the trial court was contrary to the requirements of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.

Consequently, the Court has found violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.