المساعد الشخصي الرقمي

مشاهدة النسخة كاملة : X. v. DENMARK - 2518/65 [1965] ECHR 3 (14 December 1965)



هيثم الفقى
07-15-2009, 12:32 AM
X. v. DENMARK - 2518/65 [1965] ECHR 3 (14 December 1965)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may besummarised as follows:The Applicant is a Danish citizen, born in 1931 and at present detainedin prison in Copenhagen. He is represented before the Commission byMr. C, a barrister practising in Copenhagen.The Applicant was charged before the High Court of Eastern Denmark(Østre Landsret) with rape committed on two occasions in 1963, and,according to the procedure applicable, a jury was set up to determinethe question of his guilt.During the proceedings before the Court on ... 1964, the Applicant'scounsel requested that an account of the Applicant's previousconvictions should not be given to the Court until the jury had reachedits decision as to his guilt in the present case. This request wasrejected by the Court which, in its decision on this point, referredto Article 877 of the Code of Procedure (retsplejeloven) whichexpressly provides that records of previous convictions may be used asevidence during proceedings before the High Court.Following this decision of the Court, the Public Prosecutor gave anaccount of the Applicant's numerous previous convictions; inparticular, on one occasion in 1956, he had already been convicted ofrape and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.On ... 1964, the jury found that the Applicant was guilty of theoffenses charged and on the same day the High Court, considering thatthe Applicant would not be susceptible to the effects of a penalsentence, decided to place him in a special detention centre (saerligforvaringsanstalt) as provided for in Article 70 of the Penal Code.The Applicant appealed against the decision of the High Court,requesting primarily that the case be returned to the High Court fora new examination and, alternatively, that he be sentenced to detentionfor a fixed period of time. He maintained in his appeal thatinformation about his criminal record ought not to have been givenbefore the jury had decided upon the question of his guilt and that,moreover, it could be assumed that he would not have been found guilty,if his previous convictions had not been known to the jury. He allegedthat the procedure followed did not meet the requirements for a fairtrial within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.On ... 1965, the Supreme Court (Højesteret) rejected his appeal. In itsdecision, the Supreme Court stated that information about previousconvictions had been given in accordance with Article 877 of the Codeof Procedure and that, moreover, the detention of the Applicant in aspecial detention centre as provided for in Article 70 of the PenalCode was justified.The Applicant now complains:(1) that the Public Prosecutor was allowed to inform the jury of hisprevious convictions, not only in general terms but in considerabledetail; and(2) that he has been sentenced to detention for an indefinite periodof time. He alleges violations of Articles 3, 4 paragraph (1), 6,paragraphs (1) and (2), of the Convention and requests a new trialbefore an unbiased jury and the annulment of his sentence of detentionfor an unlimited period.THE LAWWhereas, as regards the complaint that the jury was informed of theApplicant's previous convictions before determining the issue of hisguilt in respect of two charges of rape, the Commission considers thatthe Application gives rise to questions of the interpretation ofArticle 6, paragraphs (1) and (2) (Art. 6-1, 6-2), of the Convention;Whereas, when interpreting such fundamental concepts as "fair hearing"within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), and"presumption of innocence" within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph(2) (Art. 6-2), the Commission finds it necessary to take intoconsideration the practice in different countries which are members ofthe Council of Europe; whereas it is clear that in a number of thesecountries information as to previous convictions is regularly givenduring the trial before the court has reached a decision as to theguilt of an accused; whereas the Commission is not prepared to considersuch a procedure as violating any provision of Article 6 (Art. 6) ofthe Convention, not even in cases where a jury is to decide on theguilt of an accused;Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, as regards the Applicant's complaint that he was sentencedto detention for an indefinite time, it is to be considered whetherthe Applicant's detention is contrary to Article 5, paragraph (1) (a)(Art. 5-1-a), of the Convention which deals with the lawful detentionof a person after conviction by a competent court";Whereas detention in a special detention centre, as provided for inArticle 70 of the Penal Code, is a measure which, in the interestsof public safety, is applied to persons with certain mental defects;Whereas, at certain intervals, the detention may be re-examined bya court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, the director of theinstitution concerned or the supervising guardian;Whereas the Commission has previously been called upon to considerwhether other similar measures involving detention for an indefiniteperiod are contrary to Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a);Whereas, in these cases, the Commission has concluded that theConvention (see for instance, in regard to the German"Sicherungsverwahrung", the Commission's decision regarding ApplicationNo. 99/55 X. against the Federal Republic of Germany, Annuaire I, page160);Whereas, having regard to the nature of the measure complained of andto the Commission's previous jurisprudence in regard to similarmeasures, the Commission does not find any appearance of violation ofthe rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention and, in particular,in Article 5, paragraph (1) (a) (Art. 5-1-a); whereas it follows thatthis part of the Application is also manifestly ill-founded within themeaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.