Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), he complained about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, notably because his trial had been held without the prosecutor and because he had not been given the opportunity to confront in open court the witnesses whose incriminating depositions had been read out at trial and had been used as a basis to convict him.
With respect to the prosecutor’s absence during the trial the ECtHR reiterated that courts should be impartial. It then drew on the distinction between subjective impartiality and objective impartiality finding that “the applicant’s doubts as to the impartiality of the trial court may be said to have been objectively justified” leading the Court to find a violation of 6 § 1.
The Court also found a violation of 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) because the applicant did not have an opportunity to challenge witnesses in open court. In reaching this conclusion the Court reiterated the State’s obligation to “make a reasonable effort to secure the witnesses presence” and “that the conviction must not rest solely, or in a decisive manner, on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial”. With regard to the circumstances of the case it found that the justifications the national Court brought for not bringing in the victims were not such as to amount to “insuperable obstacles”.