1288 th meeting (June 2017) (DH) Communication from the applicant (09/05/2017) in the case of CAKA v. Albania (Application No.

Transcription

1 SECRETARIAT GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRETARIAT DU COMITE DES MINISTRES Contact: Clare Ovey Tel: DH-DD(2017)552 Date: 15/05/2017 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1288 th meeting (June 2017) (DH) Communication from the applicant (09/05/2017) in the case of CAKA v. Albania (Application No /02) Information made available under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements. * * * * * * * * * * * Les documents distribués à la demande d un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1288 e réunion (juin 2017) (DH) Communication du requérant (09/05/2017) dans l affaire CAKA c. Albanie (Requête n 44023/02) [anglais uniquement] Informations mises à disposition en vertu de la Règle 9.1 des Règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l exécution des arrêts et des termes des règlements amiables.

2 TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE TO THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS STRASBOURG FRANCE GENERAL SECRETARIAT, Caka K. Shqiperis No /02 SECRETARIAT OF COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS DGI - 9 MAI 2017 SERVICE DE L'EXECUTION DES ARRETS DE LA CEDH Dear Mr. President, After the Action Report of the Albanian State regarding the Execution of the Decision of the European Court of Human Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, on the Surveillance of the implementation of the Decision Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 issued by this honored court of human Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as ECHR, upon the decision on 3 th December 2009.) I want to inform you the Albanian State has not taken the necessary Individual measures for the Implementation of the Decision of the ECHR Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02. Judged upon the decision of 3 th December The Albanian State has not corrected/ regulated the violation ascertained from ECHR on the case Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02, issued by this honored court upon the decision of 3 th December During the rejudgment of the case there were repeated the same violations of the Convention as ascertained by the ECHR upon its decision on the case Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02. judged upon the decision of 3 th December The Albanian State has not rejudged me within a reasonable period of time, the rejudgement lasted beyond every reasonable terms of 8 years. I am referring in the following the volations of the Albanian State, high contracting party, regarding the non-implementation of the penal decision of the ECHR on the case Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 judged upon the decision of 3 th December

3 The Albanian state has not applied this decision, has not regulated/ corrected the violation ascertained by the ECHR in the case Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 upon the decision of g th December I the applicant, based on the recommendations given by this honored court of Human Fundamental Rights and Freedoms on the case Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 on 8'h December 2009 addressed to the High Instance Court of the Republic of Albania upon the request to review the penal decision ruled against the complainer Lulzim Caka, This Court took under review our request and upon its decision no on 28'h April 2015 it decided to review its decision by annulling it and returning the case for rejudgment at the Court of Appeal Vlore, with relevant duties. This decision of the High Instance Court was in open violation of the intemal procedural law an in violation of the article 5,6 and article 13 of the Convention: The High Instance Court reviewed its decision three years after the submission of our request beyond every reasonable term, and upon this unreasonable delay the High Instance Court violated the complainer's right for judgment within a reasonable term. The High Instance Court did not correct the violations ascertained by the ECHR but returned the case to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal Vlore. The High Instance Court did not give an effective and final solution. It was the obligation of the High Instance Court to correct itself the violations ascertained by the ECHR. It was the obligation of the High Instance Court in the quality of Supreme Court to correct the violations and to give within a reasonable term a solution for me but this solution was never given by this competent court but the latter sent it to be judged by the Court of Appeal Vlore. At the termination of this review the Court of Appeal Vlore decided to let in effect the decision no. 175 on 11 th May 2000 of the First Instance Court Fier. We submitted a recourse against this decision at the high Instance Court which upon its decision no on 28'h April 2015 ruled at the Counciling Chamber decided to refuse the recourse. Against this decision we submitted a Request at the Constitutional Court which upon the decision no. 18 announced on 6th March 2017 deicded the refusal of this request. Also after the returning for review at the Court of Appeal Vlore we asked the revoking or replacement of the security measure with another security measure and this court refused our request arbitrarily. In this review the Court of Appeal Vlore repeated the judicial investigation with the purpose to apply the duties appointed by the High Instance Court and ECHR. From this repetition of the judicial investigation none of the duties appointed by the High Instance Court was applied and none of the violations ascertained by the ECHR was corrected. 2

4 This repetition of the judicial investigation was fictive, did not realize any effective right warrantied by the Convention, from the repetition of the Judicial Investigation none of the duties appointed by the ECHR concretely point 3,4,5 and 6 of the decision Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 upon the decision on 8th December 2009 were accomplished. The court of Appeal Vlore at the review did not apply the point 3 of the decion of ECHR, Witness M was not brought in trial with the reasoning that there is not information regarding his location, although he was an effective of the order forces at the t:ime this event happened, now it results that there is no information regarding him, therefore the Court of Appeal Vlore revoked the decision to call this witness. The Albanian state did not perform the sufficient enquiries to find and call this witness but it remained with the reasoning that there are not information regarding his location. It does not result that hsi witness was announced as missing or dead, it does not result that his relatives were asked to provide his location. Aslo it does not result that this witness is hiding due to prosecution from the Albanian State. The state has ail the means to find the location of the witness and to bring him in trial. In pure violation of the point three of the dispositive of the decion of ECHR the Court of Appeal Vlore in review accepted to read the previous declaration, without giving m the possibility to ask any questions to this witness. Witness D, me and my defender was not given the possibility to ask this witness. Regarding point 4, Witness O,Q and S were not brought to trial and their presence was not provided in the review. Regarding point 5. The judging body did not consider the test:imonies of the four witnesses in my favor before the Court of Tudicial District Berat. - At the termination of the trial the Court of Appeal Vlore did not apply any of the duties given by the High Instance Court in application of the decision of the Court of Strasbourg. Several months later the court did not manage to bring in trial the two witnesses M and D with the reasoning that they were abroad concretely one in Greece and the other in Turkey..... The Court did not manage to provide toe the defense these witnesses, with the purpose to be submitted to the questions of the defense and to achieve the balance of means in trial pursuant the recommendations of the ECHR in its decision. The violation ascertained by the ECHR was not corrected by the intemal court and this due to the fact that the state did not brign these witnesses before the court. These witnesses were not brought in trial with the reasoning that they were outside the Republic of Albania. Their location was clear for the Albanian State, respectively the witness M was in the Republic of Greece and witness D in the Republic of Turkey. Anyway none of these witnesses refused to testify but they were not notified from the state authorities despite the fact that the 3

5 Albanin State has diplomatie relations with these two countries, it has bilateral agreements for mutual assistance in penal matters, it has extradition agreement with both of them. Also the Republic of Albanian and these two countries are part of Europole, as a consequence the Albanian State had objective possibilities to notify and bring these two witnesses in trial The Albanian State had the necessary legal framework to interrogate these witnesses. Pursuant the internal law of the Penal Procedure Code, the witness who is not voluntarily presented is accompanied by force. Also pursuant the internai law these witnesses could be asked through video conference, a manner which is recognized by the internai law of the Penal Procedure Code, but this was not performed as well, having the concequence of non-presentation of the witnesses in trial. Based on the above it is proved that the Albanian State had ail the possibilities to notify and bring in trial these witnesses but it did not as it had pre-judged the judicial process. In this trial the state had the legal obligation to develop a regular legal process, to bring in trial and to hear the witnesses called by the prosecution and the witnesses called by the defense. This obligation derives by the article 6 of the Convention and this Obligaiton was decided and clerly repeated by the dispositive of the decision Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 upon the decision on 3 th December 209. It results that this obligation was not accomplished by the Albanian State as a consequence the Decision of the ECHR was not executed pursuant its dispositive. The state could bring in trial neither the witnesses required by the accusation nor the witnesses required by the defense. Their testimonies were very important for this trial. We the defense noticed a prolongation of this trial due to inability or lack of will of the state to bring in trial the witnesses and under these conditions we resigned from the interrogation of these witnesses. This request was due to two reasons: 1. We did not have the burden of evidence to prove our innocence, this burden belongs to the accusation pursuant the internai law. 2. We noticed a prolongation of the trial and lack of will of the state to bring in judgment the witnesses. The Albanian State after ruling the decision of ECHR on 8'h December 2009 held in judgment the case in internai courts for other 8 more years violating every reasonable fair and efficient judgment. Upon this action the Albanian state violated the article S related to 13 of the European Convention on Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms. In the conditions when it is proved that the decision Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 upon the decision on 8'h December 2009 was never executed by the Albaian State, we require through this 4

6 letter from the Committee of Ministers to continue the surveillance of the implementation of the decision Caka K. Shqipëris Nr /02 upon the decision on 8th December Lulzim Caka represented by 5