[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN - 10590/83 [1988] ECHR 25 (6 December 1988) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1988/25.html Cite as: [1988] ECHR 25, (1989) 11 EHRR 360

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

In the case of Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo*,

_______________

* Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 24/1986/122/171-173.

The second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to

the Court and the first figure indicates its place on the list of cases

referred in that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the

case's order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the

Commission) referred to the Court since its creation.

_______________

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting in plenary session

pursuant to Rule 50 of the Rules of Court and composed of the

following judges:

Mr R. Ryssdal, President,

Mr J. Cremona,

Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mrs D. Bindschedler-Robert,

Mr G. Lagergren,

Mr F. Gölcüklü,

Mr F. Matscher,

Mr J. Pinheiro Farinha,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr B. Walsh,

Sir Vincent Evans,

Mr R. Macdonald,

Mr C. Russo,

Mr R. Bernhardt,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr J. De Meyer,

Mr N. Valticos,

Mr L. Torres Boursault, ad hoc judge,

and also of Mr M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr H. Petzold, Deputy

Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28-29 January, 21-22 June and

26-27 October 1988,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the

last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission

of Human Rights ("the Commission") and by the Spanish Government ("the

Government") on 12 December 1986 and 29 January 1987 respectively,

within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and

Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"). It

originated in three applications (nos. 10588/83 - 10590/83) against the

Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25)

by three nationals of that State, Mr Francesc-Xavier Barberà,

Mr Antonino Messegué and Mr Ferrán Jabardo, on 22 July 1983.

The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44,

art. 48) and to Spain's declaration recognising the compulsory

jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46); the Government's

application referred to Article 48 (art. 48). The object of the

request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether

the facts of the case disclosed a failure by the respondent State to

comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

2. In response to the enquiry made under Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of the

Rules of Court, the applicants stated that they wished to take part in

the proceedings before the Court and designated the lawyers who would

represent them (Rule 30).

3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio

Mr J.A. Carrillo Salcedo, the elected judge of Spanish nationality

(Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Ryssdal, the

President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b)). On 3 February 1987, in the

presence of the Registrar, the President drew by lot the names of the

other five members, namely Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr B. Walsh,

Mr R. Macdonald, Mr A. Donner and Mr N. Valticos (Article 43 in fine

of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).

By a letter of 8 January to the President, Mr Carrillo Salcedo had

withdrawn under Rule 24 para. 2 because he had been a member of the

Commission when it made its decision on the admissibility of the

application (11 October 1985). On 10 February, the Government

informed the Registrar of the appointment of Mr Leopoldo Torres

Boursault, abogado at the Supreme Court, as an ad hoc judge

(Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 23) (art. 43).

4. Mr Ryssdal assumed the office of President of the Chamber

(Rule 21 para. 5) and, through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the

Government, the Delegate of the Commission and the lawyers for the

applicants on the need for a written procedure (Rule 37 para. 1). In

accordance with the orders made in consequence, the Registrar received

memorials from the applicants and from the Government on 6 May and

10 June 1987 respectively. On 17 July, the Secretary to the

Commission informed him that the Delegate would submit his

observations at the hearing.

5. On 23 September, the Chamber decided to relinquish

jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court (Rule 50).

6. On the next day, having consulted - through the Registrar -

those who would be appearing before the Court, the President directed

that the oral proceedings should open on 1 December 1987 (Rule 38).

He had earlier given the Government's delegation leave to address the

Court in Spanish, but subsequently he decided not to grant an

application by counsel for the applicants for leave to speak in

Catalan (Rule 27 paras. 2 and 3).

On 4 and 16 November, the Commission filed a number of documents which

the President had instructed the Registrar to obtain from it.

7. The hearing took place in public on the appointed day in the

Human Rights Building, Strasbourg. The Court had held a preparatory

meeting immediately beforehand.

There appeared before the Court:

(a) for the Government

Mr José Luis Fuertes Suárez,

Legal Adviser, Ministry of Justice, Agent,

Mr Manuel Peris Gómez, Vice-Chairman of the

General Judicial Council,

Mr Cándido Conde-Pumpido Ferreiro, Deputy

Principal Crown Counsel at the

Supreme Court, Advisers;

(b) for the Commission

Mr J.A. Frowein, Delegate;

(c) for the applicants

Mr C. Etelin, avocat,

Mr A. Gil Matamala, abogado,

Mr I. Doñate Sanglas, abogado,

Mr S. Miguel Roé, abogado, Counsel,

Mr G. de Celis Bernat, abogado,

Mr I. Fortuny Ribas, abogado, Assistants.

The Court heard addresses and submissions by Mr Peris Gómez and

Mr Conde-Pumpido Ferreiro for the Government, by Mr Frowein for the

Commission and by Mr Etelin and Mr Gil Matamala for the applicants,

and also their replies to its questions.

AS TO THE FACTS

8. The three applicants are Spanish nationals born in 1951, 1947

and 1955, respectively. Mr Francesc-Xavier Barberà Chamarro and

Mr Antonino Messegué Mas are serving long sentences at Lérida Prison

no. 2 (Lleida-2) and Barcelona Prison respectively and have the

benefits of the open system. Mr Ferrán Jabardo García is at present

living in Gironella in Barcelona Province.

I. The circumstances of the case

A. Origin of the proceedings against the applicants

1. Killing of Mr Bultó

here here here here

At about 3 p.m. on 9 May 1977, Mr José María Bultó Marqués, a 77-year-old

Catalan businessman, was at his brother-in-law's house in Barcelona in the

company of his brother-in-law and his own sister, Mrs Pilar Bultó Marqués, when

two men entered the flat under the pretext of being gas-board employees. They

seized and held the maid, thus enabling other persons to enter.

The latter threatened Mr Bultó with guns and shut him in a room, where

they fixed an explosive device to his chest. They demanded a ransom

of five hundred million pesetas from him, to be handed over within

twenty-five days, and gave him instructions on how to pay it, saying

that on payment he would be told how to remove the device safely.

They then left the premises and departed in waiting cars.

10. Mr Bultó returned home in his car. Shortly before 5 p.m., the

device exploded, killing him instantly.

2. Criminal proceedings following the killing

11. On the same day, Barcelona investigating judge no. 13

commenced a preliminary investigation (diligencias previas

- no. 1373/77) into these events. On 11 May, he placed the relevant

documents in investigation file (sumario) no. 61/1977 but later

relinquished jurisdiction on the ground that the crime was a terrorist

act which came within the jurisdiction of the Audiencia Nacional in

Madrid (see paragraph 45 below). The case was accordingly sent to

central investigating judge no. 1 of that court (juez central de

instrucción), who opened file no. 46/1977.

12. The police investigation led to the arrest on 1 July 1977 of

four persons (not including any of the applicants) who were members of

the E.PO.CA. (Catalan Peoples' Army) and one of whom had been

recognised by witnesses. On 29 July, they were charged with murder,

with a terrorist act causing death and with possession of explosives.

On 10 November 1977, however, the Audiencia Nacional decided to apply

the amnesty law (no. 46 of 15 October 1977) to the accused owing to

the political nature of their motives. They were at once released.

13. On an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Supreme Court set

this decision aside on 28 February 1978 on the ground that by that

stage of the proceedings it had not been established that the crime

was politically motivated and not carried out for pecuniary gain.

This judgment meant that investigation file no. 46/1977 was reopened.

As the four accused did not appear, however, the judge ordered them to

be sought by the police, and in July 1978 he provisionally suspended

the proceedings.

3. Arrest of Mr Martínez Vendrell and proceedings against him

14. In the course of their investigations into the killing of

Mr Bultó, the police arrested Mr Jaime Martínez Vendrell, aged 63, and

four other persons on 4 March 1979. They were placed in police

custody and held incommunicado, in accordance with the anti-terrorist

legislation then in force (see paragraph 46 below).

Unassisted by a lawyer, Mr Martínez Vendrell was questioned at the

police station during his custody there and on 11 March 1979 made a

statement containing, in substance, the following:

Until 1974 he had been a leading member of a Catalan nationalist

organisation, the "Front Nacional de Catalunya", and from 1967 on had

taken part in the creation and training of armed groups, with the

object of fighting for the independence of the Catalan nation.

In 1968, he had met three young men including a certain "Thomas", whom

he identified as the applicant Messegué, and in late 1969 had begun

their theoretical and practical military training. In 1973, he had

established another group of young men, one of whom he identified as

the applicant Barberà.

Subsequently, several people, including "Thomas", had purchased

weapons in Germany; they had brought them into Spain via France and

hidden them in dumps known to them alone.

In 1976, three groups had been established, one of which was commanded

by "Thomas". The group members gave up all outside activities and

were paid by the organisation. A network of flats and radio

transmitters had been created later to allow contact between the

groups.

In February 1977, Mr Martínez Vendrell had been informed that an

explosive device had been produced, which could be attached to a

person's body and subsequently defused on payment of an agreed ransom.

The mechanical part of this device could have been designed by

"Thomas" (Messegué) and another activist, and the electronic part by

Mr Barberà and another person. "Thomas" and someone else had later shown

the device to Mr Martínez Vendrell.

In April 1977, they had revealed to him that the first victim chosen

was Mr José María Bultó.

Two days after the killing, he had met the commando leaders and had

learned that eleven people had taken part in the operation and that

Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué had attached the device to the victim's

chest.

15. When Mr Martínez Vendrell was brought before Barcelona

investigating judge no. 6, in the presence and with the assistance of

counsel, he amended his statement. In particular, he said that the

bomb "might have" been made by the persons stated, but that he did not

know the names of those who had carried out the attack on Mr Bultó.

16. These statements were sent to central investigating

judge no. 1 in Madrid, who reopened file no. 46/1977 on 15 March 1979.

On the next day he charged Mr Martínez Vendrell with murder and with

possession of arms and explosives, and ordered him to be held in

custody on remand.

In a further decision on the same day he charged six others, including

Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué, with murder, criminal damage and uttering

forged documents, and issued a warrant for their arrest. As none of

the six could be found, the proceedings continued solely against the

co-defendants in custody.

17. During the investigation and again at the hearing, Mr Martínez

Vendrell retracted his statement to the investigating judge as far as

the identification of Barberà and Messegué was concerned.

On 17 June 1980, the first section of the Criminal Division of the

Audiencia Nacional sentenced him to one year and three months'

imprisonment for assisting armed gangs. It set aside the original

charges, however, noting among other things that he had expressed

disapproval when at the end of April 1977 he had been told of the

proposed operation against Mr Bultó; that the preparations had

occurred without his knowledge; and that he had only learned of the

victim's death through press reports. It also ordered his immediate

release because the period of the sentence had already been spent in

custody on remand.

18. Following an appeal on points of law by Mr Bultó's son, acting

both as a "private prosecutor" and as a party claiming civil damages,

the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Audiencia Nacional

on 10 April 1981. On the same day, it sentenced Mr Martínez Vendrell

to twelve years and one day's imprisonment for aiding and abetting a

murder and ordered him to pay five million pesetas in damages to the

victim's heirs. It held that the influence he exerted on those who

committed the crime was sufficiently great to amount to aiding and

abetting and went far beyond merely assisting armed gangs; admittedly,

he had made it clear that he was opposed to the crime, but he had done

nothing to prevent it.

A warrant was consequently issued - on 24 April 1981, according to the

applicants - for Mr Martínez Vendrell's arrest. Mr Martínez Vendrell

has not so far been found by the police and has therefore not yet

served his sentence.

B. Arrest of the applicants and criminal proceedings against them

19. The three applicants were arrested with other persons

on 14 October 1980 and charged with belonging to the terrorist

organisation E.PO.CA. Among items found at their homes were radio

transmitters and receivers, a variety of implements, electronic

equipment, publications of left-wing nationalist parties, files on

leading politicians and businessmen, and books on topography,

electronics and the chemistry of explosives.

Section 2 of Law no. 56 of 4 December 1978 on the suppression of

terrorism, as renewed by Royal Legislative Decree no. 19

of 23 November 1979, was applied to their case (see paragraph 46

below). This authorised the police to hold suspects in custody for

longer than the normal period of seventy-two hours, with leave from

the investigating judge. The applicants were moreover held

incommunicado and not allowed to have the assistance of a lawyer.

While in custody they signed a statement in which they admitted having

taken part in Mr Bultó's murder either as principals or as

accessories; their account differed from Mr Martínez Vendrell's,

however. Furthermore, the police discovered stocks of arms and

explosives at places indicated by Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué.

20. On 23 October 1980, the persons held in custody appeared

before Barcelona investigating judge no. 8, who questioned them

- without any defence lawyer being present in the case of Mr Barberà and

Mr Jabardo. They retracted their confessions to the police and two of

them - Jabardo and Messegué - complained of being subjected to

physical and psychological torture while in police custody.

By an order (auto) of the same day the judge directed that they should

be held in custody on remand, and they were transferred to Barcelona

Prison.

21. On 24 October 1980, the resulting documents were sent to

central investigating judge no. 1 for inclusion in file no. 46/1977.

On 12 January 1981, the latter judge charged the applicants and two

other persons with murder and assisting armed gangs. He then sent

letters rogatory to Barcelona for further inquiries to be made.

Barcelona investigating judge no. 10 served the charges on the

applicants and examined them on 22 January; they confirmed the

statements they had made to investigating judge no. 8 and again

alleged that their confessions had been obtained by means of torture.

They were not, however, confronted with the prosecution witnesses or

Mr Martínez Vendrell, who was then at liberty.

Mr Barberà instructed an advocate and an attorney in Barcelona

on 22 December 1980, but the central investigating judge in Madrid did

not record these appointments until 20 January 1981. Mr Messegué and

Mr Jabardo did not instruct lawyers until 21 February 1981; the

investigation had been completed on 16 February.

1. The proceedings before the Audiencia Nacional

22. The case was then committed for trial to the first section of

the Criminal Division of the Audiencia Nacional.

By an order of 13 March 1981, the court instructed the public

prosecutor and the private prosecutor to make their interim

submissions. They argued that the facts amounted to murder, possession

of arms and explosives and forging identity documents; as evidence

they offered the examination of the defendants, the hearing of

eye-witnesses and the production of the entire case-file; no mention

was made of Mr Martínez Vendrell.

The file was sent to the attorney acting for Mr Jabardo on 27 May and

to the ones acting for Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué on 1 June. Each of

the defendants conducted his defence separately with counsel of his

own choosing. All the defendants declared their innocence and offered

to produce similar evidence, including, in Barberà and Messegué's

case, the statement made by Mr Martínez Vendrell retracting the one he

had made to the police implicating Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué in the

murder.

Mr Messegué had been transferred to Madrid but he and his counsel

managed to get him returned to Barcelona in order to prepare his

defence.

23. By an order made on 27 October 1981, the court - on this

occasion composed of Mr de la Concha (the presiding judge),

Mr Barnuevo and Mr Infante - admitted the evidence offered and set the

case down for trial on 12 January 1982. It also ordered that the

accused should be brought to Madrid and appointed Mr Obregón Barreda

and Mr Martínez Valbuena of the third section as additional judges to

bring the number in the first section to five in view of the heavy

sentences being sought (Article 145 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure).

On 10 December 1981, defence counsel (all of whom were members of the

Barcelona Bar) applied for the trial to take place in Barcelona on

account of the needs of the defence and witnesses' travel

difficulties. Subsequently, a Catalan senator wrote to the court

requesting it to at least postpone the transfer to Madrid until after

Christmas. On 18 December 1981, the Audiencia Nacional, presided over

by Mr Pérez Lemaur, who was sitting with Mr Barnuevo and Mr Bermúdez

de la Fuente, refused the first application and confirmed that the

hearing would be held in Madrid on 12 January 1982.

24. On the day before the trial, counsel for the defendants met

the presiding judge of the first section of the Criminal Division

(Mr de la Concha), in order to prepare for the hearing and discuss the

possibility of an adjournment, as the applicants were still in prison

in Barcelona. The presiding judge assured them that the defendants'

transfer was imminent and that the trial could therefore go ahead.

The applicants stated that they left Barcelona on the evening

of 11 January and arrived in Madrid at four o'clock the following

morning, when the hearing was due to commence at 10.30; they said that

they were in very poor shape after travelling more than 600 kilometres

in a prison van. According to the Government, the journey took ten

hours at most.

That same morning of 12 January 1982, the presiding judge had to leave

Madrid suddenly as his brother-in-law had been taken ill. As senior

judge of the Division, Mr Pérez Lemaur took his place. In accordance

with the legislation in force, so the Government asserted, the parties

were not warned either of this substitution or of the replacement of

Mr Infante - who no longer belonged to the first section -

by Mr Bermúdez de la Fuente.

25. The trial was held on the appointed day in a high-security

courtroom; in particular, the defendants appeared in a glass cage and

were kept in handcuffs for most of the time. The record makes no

mention of any protest by them, except as regards certain exhibits

which were not produced in court.

The court agreed to admit in evidence a number of documents submitted

by the defence. When examined by the private prosecutor in regard to

matters in their statements to the police, the accused again denied

any participation in the murder and again complained of being

subjected to torture while they were in custody.

26. The public prosecutor offered for examination the three

witnesses who had been present at the time of the crime: the sister

and brother-in-law of Mr Bultó, and their housemaid. The sister and

the maid were very old and could not come to Madrid but the prosecutor

asked that their statements to the police on the day after the crime

should be taken into account. Mr Bultó's brother-in-law gave evidence

in court but did not recognise any of the applicants. The only

documentary evidence produced by the public prosecutor was a copy of

the file on the investigation.

27. For its part, the defence, with the court's leave, called ten

witnesses; some of them, who were arrested at the same time as the

defendants, alleged that they too had been subjected to brutality

while in police custody.

All the parties agreed to treat the documentary evidence as if it had

been produced (por reproducida - see paragraph 40 below).

28. The public prosecutor and the private prosecutor then

confirmed their interim submissions; counsel for the defendants, on

the other hand, amended theirs and submitted that the amnesty law

should be applied (see paragraph 12 above).

The hearing was adjourned until 4.30 p.m. and resumed with addresses

by the three parties. The presiding judge finally asked the

defendants if they had anything to add, and they answered in the

negative. The hearing ended in the evening.

29. On 15 January 1982, the first section of the Criminal Division

of the Audiencia Nacional sentenced Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué to

thirty years' imprisonment for murdering Mr Bultó; it also sentenced

Mr Barberà to six years and one day's imprisonment for unlawful

possession of arms and to three months' imprisonment and a fine of

thirty thousand pesetas for uttering forged documents, and Mr Messegué

to six years and one day's imprisonment for possessing explosives.

Mr Jabardo was sentenced to twelve years and one day's imprisonment

for aiding and abetting a murder.

The court held it to have been proved that Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué

had directly participated in fixing the device to the victim's body

and switching on the electric mechanism, after which they had given

Mr Bultó instructions for the payment of a ransom, which was the

condition on which he would be able to remove the device safely. The

device had subsequently exploded for reasons that had never been

properly established. Mr Jabardo had assisted the operation by

gathering information about public figures in Catalonia, including

Mr Bultó.

In the same judgment the court refused to apply the amnesty law

of 15 October 1977 to the applicants. Even if they had been acting

from a political motive, that motive was the independence (and not

merely the autonomy) of the Catalan nation and so did not fall within

the scope of the amnesty.

2. Proceedings in the Supreme Court

30. The applicants appealed on points of law, relying on

Articles 14 (right of all Spaniards to equality before the law),

17 (right to liberty and security of person) and 24 (right to

effective judicial protection) of the Constitution. They described the

circumstances of their arrest and custody and pointed out that when

they were questioned by the police they did not have the assistance of

lawyers and had not been informed of their rights; they had made

confessions only because use had been made of coercion, threats and

ill-treatment (see paragraphs 19-20 above).

They also claimed that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption

that they were innocent of Mr Bultó's murder, as the physical violence

to which they had been subjected rendered their confessions invalid.

Moreover, there was no connection between the facts found by the

Audiencia Nacional and the evidence adduced before it, and its

judgment did not explain how it had arrived at its decision.

The applicants also criticised the Audiencia Nacional for not having

determined all the issues raised in the defence submissions

(Article 851 para. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - see paragraph 43

below): it had ignored their allegations that their statements to the

police were invalid and had given no indication of the evidential

value it attached to those statements, having regard to the material

produced during the trial. Mr Messegué submitted, moreover, that he

was implicated solely by confessions extracted by force from

Mr Martínez Vendrell, who had later retracted them before the judge;

the Audiencia Nacional had again not expressed an opinion as to their

validity.

Furthermore, the Audiencia Nacional had made an error of fact in

assessing the evidence (Article 849 para. 2 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure - see paragraph 42 below), because there was no conclusive

evidence to refute their protestations of innocence before the judge.

Referring to Article 24 para. 2 of the Constitution (see paragraph 36

below), which enshrines the principle of the presumption of innocence,

and to the Supreme Court's case-law on the subject, the applicants

asserted that not only had the evidence been wrongly evaluated but no

such evidence in fact existed.

They further submitted that the Audiencia Nacional had not indicated

its reasons for holding that the facts had been established, as

required by Supreme Court precedents, even though the main defence

submission had been that there was no evidence. There could only be

one explanation for this, namely that the court had allowed itself to

be influenced by the defendants' alleged confessions to the police,

which had been obtained in clear breach of the fundamental rights

guaranteed in Articles 3 and 17 of the Constitution.

Mr Jabardo also criticised the Audiencia Nacional for not having

sought during the hearing to inquire further into the facts. He said

that the only prosecution witness who had given evidence in court had

not recognised the defendants and that important evidence was lacking,

such as identification and the confrontation of witnesses and accused

or a reconstruction of the events. Lastly, he pointed to a

discrepancy between the judgment of 17 June 1980 convicting

Mr Martínez Vendrell (see paragraph 17 above) and the judgment given

in the instant case on 15 January 1982 (see paragraph 29 above); in

his submission, this discrepancy showed that he, Mr Jabardo, could not

have taken part directly in the attack on Mr Bultó.

31. On 27 December 1982, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals

of Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué.

As to the validity of the confessions obtained by the police,

including Mr Martínez Vendrell's, it noted that the alleged defects

related solely to the findings of fact and accordingly did not give

rise to the procedural irregularity complained of, which related only

to points of law.

The court said the following about the presumption of innocence

(translated from the French translation provided by the Government):

"The evidence offered by the public prosecutor, the private prosecutor

and the defence includes, as written evidence, the complete file on

the investigation, containing: (a) the statement made to the judge by

Mr Jaime Martínez Vendrell, assisted by his lawyer (doc. no. 572 in

the file), in which he confirmed the following facts from his first

statement to the police: the defendants Barberà Chamarro and Messegué

Mas were members of an armed group designed to be the nucleus of a

revolutionary army to free the Catalan nation; they were very closely

associated with Mr Martínez Vendrell, particularly Mr Messegué; they

had been thoroughly trained in urban guerrilla tactics; they lived

'freed from all external obligations', being paid by the organisation

to devote all their energies to its work, in accommodation provided by

the organisation; they communicated with each other by means of

transmitters and used false identity documents and assumed names;

Mr Messegué was in charge of one of the direct-action groups which,

together with others, formed an organised unit or brigade; both men

had important positions in the organisation and had received training

such that they 'might have' constructed the explosive device

(Mr Barberà the electronic component and Mr Messegué the mechanical

component) used for the 'business operations and in particular the one

of which Mr Bultó Marqués was the victim - Mr Martínez Vendrell did

not know the identity of or the methods used by the persons forming

the groups which took part in that operation'; (b) finding of fact in

the Audiencia Nacional's judgment of 17 June 1980 in the same case

(doc. no. 138 in the file), confirmed unchanged in the Supreme Court's

judgment of 10 April 1981 convicting Mr Jaime Martínez Vendrell: 'At

an unspecified date at the beginning of that year (he is referring to

1977) three of the young men whom he saw most frequently and whom the

defendant (Mr Martínez Vendrell) knew to be heads of armed groups told

him they considered that the time had come to go into action and that

they were contemplating operations to finance the members of the

groups. They told him that they had adjustable explosive devices

which could be fixed to the skin of selected victims so that the

latter would be obliged to pay the money asked for in order to avoid

the risk of an explosion entailed by removing a device without the

instructions and equipment in the possession of those who had put it

in place. At the end of April, two of these group leaders told him

that they were thinking of a businessman, Mr José María Bultó Marqués,

on whom to use this device for the first time'; (c) the statement made to

the judge by Mr Francisco Javier Barberà Chamarro, assisted by his

lawyer (doc. no. 903): he admitted being a member of the Catalan

National Liberation Army, working together with Mr Martínez Vendrell,

being in possession of arms and knowing of the existence of stocks of

arms; (d) the statement made to the judge by Mr Antonino Messegué Mas,

assisted by his lawyer (doc. no. 906): he belonged to the armed

organisation, had been trained in urban guerrilla tactics by

Mr Martínez Vendrell and knew of the existence of a stock of

explosives; (e) the official report on a search of the flat at

no. 1 Pinos Street, Hospitalet de Llobregat (doc. no. 890), and from

the file on the investigation a statement by Mrs Dolores Tubau Molas

(doc. no. 904) to the effect that the defendant Barberà Chamarro lived

in the flat with other activists and that there were found there

(inter alia) a transmitter, electronic equipment, lathes, tools and

files containing press cuttings and information about a number of

prominent people, and books on topography, the chemistry of

explosives, and electronics; (f) the official report on a search of the

flat at no. 27 Parlamento Street, Barcelona (doc. no. 892), occupied

by Mr Antonino Messegué Mas and Mrs Concepción Durán Freixa (statement

in doc. no. 908) and where a transmitter and receiver, medicines, wigs

and stiff paper of the type used for national identity cards and for

driving licences were seized; (g) the official report on the discovery of

an arms dump and two radio transmitters at three places indicated by

the defendant Barberà (doc. no. 882); (h) the official report on the

discovery of an explosives dump indicated by Mr Messegué and the

destruction of the explosives on the spot (docs. nos. 833 and 899).

The mere existence of this evidence, irrespective of its implications

and the way in which it is assessed, is sufficient to rebut the

presumption of innocence relied on by the defendants Barberà Chamarro

and Messegué Mas, and we therefore reject grounds five and four

respectively of their appeals; the facts established in paragraph 1 of

the recital finding that they were directly and immediately involved

in the homicidal operation must consequently be confirmed in toto. The

description of the facts as murder under Article 406 para. 3 of the

Criminal Code with an aggravating circumstance under Article 10 para. 6,

which was allegedly incorrectly applied according to Barberà's sixth

ground of appeal and Messegué's fifth ground of appeal, was therefore

correct and their appeals under section 849(1) of the Procedure Act

must therefore be dismissed."

On the other hand, the Supreme Court quashed the Audiencia Nacional's

judgment in respect of Mr Jabardo, holding that the established facts

amounted not to the crime of aiding and abetting murder but to the

lesser offence of assisting armed gangs. It accordingly delivered

another judgment on the same day acquitting him on the first charge

but sentencing him to six years' imprisonment on the second charge.

Lastly, it confirmed that the applicants were not covered by the

amnesty law and it ordered an inquiry into their allegations of

ill-treatment.

This inquiry was begun in 1984 by investigating judge no. 13 in

Barcelona and led in 1985 to a discharge order being made by the

Audiencia Provincial.

3. Proceedings in the Constitutional Court

32. The three convicted men appealed to the Constitutional Court

alleging a violation of Articles 17 para. 3 (right of everyone arrested

to be informed of the reasons for his arrest and to be assisted by a

lawyer), 24 para. 2 (right to a fair trial and to be presumed innocent)

and 14 (right of all Spaniards to equality before the law) of the

Constitution (see paragraphs 30 above and 36 below).

As regards the factors taken into account by the Supreme Court, they

made the following submissions.

1. Mr Martínez Vendrell's statement could be regarded only as witness

evidence, yet it had not been offered as such nor had it been

confirmed at the hearing. If one accepted that it had been produced

by means of the phrase "por reproducida", the unacceptable consequence

followed that all the actions and confessions contained in the police

report would likewise have to be admitted as evidence, since they too

appeared in the file on the investigation. In any case, the material

statement did not provide any indication that the defendants had had

any involvement in the murder.

2. The Audiencia Nacional's judgment of 17 June 1980 merely stated,

in its second recital, that Mr Martínez Vendrell did not know the

actual course of the relevant events.

3. Mr Barberà's statement to the investigating judge should not have

been admitted in evidence, since he had made it without counsel's

assistance; furthermore, he merely denied that he had participated in

the crime.

4. Similarly, Mr Messegué had declared to the investigating judge

that he was innocent.

5. The items found at the homes of Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué and the

statements by their female companions had no connection with the

murder. The items, moreover, had never amounted to real evidence as

it did not appear from the file that they had been given to the judge

or assessed by the court - one of the defence counsel had indeed

protested at this during the trial; as to the documents, these had

never been appended to the police report nor placed elsewhere in the

file on the investigation, so the court could not take them into

account.

6. The discovery of arms and explosives at the places indicated

by Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué was relevant to the offences of unlawful

possession of weapons and explosives but not to the murder.

In sum, none of the factors listed by the Supreme Court could rebut

the presumption of innocence in respect of the main charge, the attack

on Mr Bultó.

For the rest, the applicants repeated in substance the submissions

they had made before the Supreme Court.

33. On 20 April 1983, the Constitutional Court declared the appeal

(recurso de amparo) inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. As

regards the presumption of innocence it gave the following reasons for

its order (auto):

"As the assessment of the evidence lies within the exclusive

jurisdiction of the judges and courts, the Constitutional Court cannot

find a violation of this provision unless there has been a failure to

produce a minimum of evidence against the accused.

In the instant case, however, this minimum of evidence was produced,

namely in the statements made with the assistance of a lawyer to the

investigating judge, the official reports on the searches made and on

the real evidence discovered and in the facts as established in

another judgment. The Constitutional Court cannot therefore review

the criminal courts' assessment of the evidence."

34. In March 1984, the applicants were transferred from

Carabanchel Prison in Madrid to Lérida Prison (Lleida-2). In

September, the Audiencia Nacional granted Mr Jabardo parole. Since

January 1987, Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué have been held in an open

prison.

C. Further developments in the criminal proceedings relating to the

killing of Mr Bultó

35. The police rearrested two of the persons originally prosecuted

(see paragraph 12 above), Mr S and Mrs T, and the investigation was

resumed on 8 February 1985.

Mr S was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment as being responsible

for Mr Bultó's murder together with the applicants Barberà and

Messegué. He appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court, which

dismissed his appeal on 28 November 1986, holding that the evidence

produced was sufficient to rebut the presumption of innocence. His

subsequent appeal to the Constitutional Court was declared

inadmissible on 1 April 1987.

As for Mrs T, she was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for

assisting armed gangs.

II. The applicable Spanish legislation

A. Spanish Constitution

36. By Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution,

"1. Everyone has the right to effective protection by the judges and

courts in the exercise of his legitimate rights and interests, and in

no case may the right to a defence be curtailed.

2. Everyone, further, has the right to be heard by the tribunal

established by law, the right to a defence and to the assistance of a

lawyer, the right to be informed of any charges against him, the right

to a public trial without undue delay and attended by all safeguards,

the right to make use of evidence relevant to his defence, the right

not to make statements against himself and not to confess himself

guilty, and the right to be presumed innocent.

..."

37. In view of the Constitutional Court's case-law in this area,

the Supreme Court has extended the scope of proceedings in appeals on

points of law. It has held that the presumption of innocence can be

relied upon before it in respect of an infringement of the law

resulting from an error made by the trial court when assessing the

evidence (see paragraph 42 below), or on some other ground.

According to a judgment of 3 November 1982, the Supreme Court's review

of the evidence is directed only to the question whether or not

evidence was produced and taken and not to the criminal court's final,

unappealable assessment of that evidence.

38. Article 53 para. 2 of the Constitution provides for an appeal

(recurso de amparo) whereby the protection of the rights laid down in

Articles 14 to 30 may be secured.

B. Code of Criminal Procedure

1. The file on the judicial investigation

39. According to the preamble to the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the file on the judicial investigation is "the corner-stone of the

hearing and the judgment". It is not a substitute for the hearing but

a preparation for it.

Since the reform of 4 December 1978 (Law no. 53/1978), the adversarial

nature of criminal proceedings applies to the investigation stage;

this enables the accused, assisted by his advocate, to intervene in

respect of steps concerning him (Articles 118 and 302). In order to

exercise this right, the accused must appoint an advocate (abogado)

and an attorney (procurador).

The investigating judge has to build up his file under the direct

supervision of the appropriate public prosecutor's office

(Article 306). He includes the evidence put forward by the public

prosecutor and the other parties if he considers it relevant. He can

also order evidence to be produced of his own motion, but in that case

he adds to the file only such evidence as proves to be of value

(Article 315).

Once the investigation is concluded, the judge forwards the documents

to the relevant court (Article 622 para. 1), which takes the final

decision to close the investigation after it has heard the public

prosecutor and the private prosecutor (Article 627).

2. The hearing

40. Before the hearing, the public prosecutor and the private

prosecutor make their interim submissions - in writing and in numbered

paragraphs - on the punishable offences disclosed by the case-file, on

their classification in criminal law, on the circumstances that may

affect the accused's responsibility and on the penalty which he may

incur. The defence, in its turn, presents its view of the

classification in law of the facts disclosed by the case-file (which

is placed at its disposal) and must reply by indicating, likewise in

numbered paragraphs corresponding to the prosecution's submissions,

whether it accepts or rejects each of them; in the latter case, it

makes its own alternative submissions (Articles 650, 651 and 652).

The prosecution and the defence must, when making their interim

submissions, indicate the evidence they propose to adduce

(Articles 656 and 657), and this evidence is scrutinised by the

reporting judge and admitted or rejected by the court (Articles 658

and 659).

The hearing takes place in public, failing which it will be null and

void (Article 680). It cannot begin or be continued unless the

accused is present. For this purpose, the law allows the accused to

be transferred, if necessary, to the town in which the hearing is to

be held.

Evidence is taken in the order in which the parties have offered it.

The court may also take such evidence as it considers necessary for

the discovery of the truth (Article 729 para. 2). Furthermore, "at the

request of any of the parties, documents relating to evidence which,

for reasons beyond the parties' control, cannot be produced at the

hearing may be read out" (Article 730). Where all or part of the file

on the judicial investigation is adduced in evidence, there is an

established practice that it will be regarded as having been produced

(por reproducida) without having been read out if all those concerned

so agree.

Immediately after the evidence has been taken, the parties may make

written amendments to their interim submissions or else make them

final. The presiding judge calls the representatives of the public

prosecutor and of the private prosecutor (Article 732). In their

pleadings, these representatives must set out the facts they consider

proved at the hearing, their classification in criminal law, the part

played in them by the accused and the civil liability flowing from

them (Article 734). The presiding judge then immediately calls the

defence; its pleadings must be consistent with its final written

submissions (Articles 736 and 737). Lastly, the presiding judge gives

the accused the opportunity of addressing the court in case he wishes

to add anything in his defence (Article 739). After that, the

presiding judge declares the hearing closed.

3. The judgment

41. The judges deliberate immediately after the hearing, or at the

latest on the following day (Article 149), and a reporting judge

(magistrado ponente) is designated for the purposes, inter alia, of

informing the court, examining the evidence and preparing a draft

judgment (Articles 146-147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The

final decision is written and signed within three days (Article 203).

In drawing it up, the court has to assess in all conscience the

evidence adduced during the hearing, the submissions of the

prosecution and the defence, and the statements of the defendants

(Article 741).

4. Appeal on points of law

42. An ordinary appeal does not lie against judgments of the

Audiencia Nacional; only the special remedy of an appeal on points of

law or procedure is available.

By Article 849, the law is deemed to have been violated

(1) where, having regard to the facts declared proved in the judgment

appealed against, there has been an infringement of a substantive

provision of criminal law or any other legal rule of the same kind

which has to be complied with when the criminal law is being applied;

or

(2) where an error of fact has been made in assessing the evidence

and this appears clearly from authentic documents not contradicted by

other evidence.

It has been held by the Supreme Court that in the second of these two

eventualities the principle of the presumption of innocence can be

prayed in aid (see paragraph 37 above).

43. Non-compliance with procedural requirements includes cases in

which:

(a) the judgment appealed against does not clearly state the facts

deemed to have been established or discloses a manifest discrepancy

between them or else mentions as proved facts "concepts" which, by

their legal nature, prejudge the decision to be taken

(Article 851 para. 1);

(b) the judgment does not dispose of all the issues raised by the

prosecution and the defence (Article 851 para. 3); and

(c) one of the judges who participated in the judgment was challenged

but without success, although the challenge was made within time, in

the proper manner and for a legally valid reason (Article 851 para. 6).

5. Membership of the court and right of challenge

44. The Audiencia Nacional and the Supreme Court both comprise

several divisions with specific jurisdictions (civil, criminal,

administrative), each of which is in turn divided into three-judge

sections if the number of judges allows. Members of each division are

always available to replace fellow members, and the president of a

division can be replaced by the presiding judge of a section or by the

senior judge.

Section 648 of the Judicature Act 1870 (Ley orgánica del Poder

Judicial) provides that where the judges designated to complete a

section do not come from the Criminal Division, the parties must be

informed of their identity at least twenty-four hours before the

public hearing begins.

By the same section of the Act, no challenge may normally be made

after the hearing has begun. Under Article 56 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, however, a challenge may be made at any stage of the

proceedings but in no circumstances after the beginning of the oral

stage unless on the ground of subsequent events. A judge may be

challenged on the following legal grounds among others: that he is

related by blood or marriage to one of the parties; that one of the

parties has either lodged a complaint or brought a prosecution against

him or once did so in the past; that the judge has himself lodged a

complaint or brought a private prosecution against the person making

the challenge, or once did so in the past; that he is involved in

litigation with the person making the challenge; that he is or has

been the guardian or ward of one of the parties or has had custody of

him; that he has taken part in the proceedings as advocate, legal

adviser, member of the public prosecutor's office, expert, witness or

investigating judge; that he has a direct or indirect interest in the

proceedings; that he is a close friend or else obviously hostile

(Article 54).

C. Legislation on terrorism

45. The Audiencia Nacional was given jurisdiction in terrorist

cases on 4 January 1977 (Royal Legislative Decree no. 3/77). The

court, which was created by legislative decree on the same date

(no. 1/77), sits at Madrid and its criminal jurisdiction also extends

to organised crime, business crime and offences whose effects reach

beyond the territory of a single province. The judicial investigation

of such offences is carried out by specialist judges (jueces centrales

de instrucción).

46. At the time the applicants and Mr Martínez Vendrell were

arrested, Law no. 56 of 4 December 1978 provided for a range of

measures not permitted by the ordinary law in respect of terrorist

acts committed by armed groups. This Law, which was originally

intended to be in force for a year, was renewed by Royal Legislative

Decree no. 19 of 23 November 1979.

Section 2 of the Law makes provision for holding people in police

custody for up to ten days (instead of seventy-two hours).

Furthermore, the judicial authority which has ordered detention can

also order that the person concerned be held incommunicado for the

length of time needed to complete the judicial investigation, without

prejudice to the rights of the defence (same section). There are also

special provisions on searches and the monitoring of correspondence,

including communications by telegraph and telephone (section 3).

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

47. In their applications of 22 July 1983 to the Commission

(nos. 10588/83-10590/83) Mr Barberà, Mr Messegué and Mr Jabardo

complained that they had not had a fair trial before an independent

and impartial tribunal; they alleged in particular that they were

convicted on no evidence except their confessions, which had been

extracted by torture, and they relied on Article 6 paras. 1 and 2

(art. 6-1, art. 6-2) of the Convention.

They also alleged that while in police custody they had been subjected

to treatment incompatible with Article 3 (art. 3); in this connection

they complained also of violations of Articles 5 para. 1, 8 para. 1 and 9

para. 1 (art. 5-1, art. 8-1, art. 9-1). Lastly, they claimed to be victims of

discrimination contrary to Article 14 taken together with

Article 9 para. 1 (art. 14+9-1), because when applying the amnesty law

of 15 October 1977 (see paragraph 12 above), the relevant courts were

allegedly more favourable to Basque nationalists than to Catalan

nationalists.

48. After ordering the joinder of the applications on

14 March 1984, the Commission held them to be admissible

on 11 October 1985 with regard to the complaints based on

Article 6 paras. 1 and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2) but declared them

inadmissible for the rest.

In its report of 16 October 1986 (made under Article 31) (art. 31),

it expressed the opinion that there had been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (unanimously) and that there was no need for

a separate examination of the complaints of the applicants Barberà and

Messegué under Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) (by twelve votes to none,

with one abstention). The full text of the Commission's opinion is

reproduced as an annex to this judgment.

FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

49. In their memorial of 6 May 1987, the applicants asked the

Court "to declare that Spain [had] violated Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)

of the Convention inasmuch as [their] right to a fair trial was

infringed in the instant case". In the event of the Court not so

holding, they also asked it to "rule on a violation of Article 6 para. 2

(art. 6-2) on the ground that they [had been] convicted without any

evidence".

50. The Government, in their memorial of 4 June 1987, requested

the Court "to examine the proceedings leading to the applicants'

conviction in their entirety or each of the steps in the proceedings

separately; to rule on the objections that domestic remedies [had] not

been exhausted; and to declare that the provisions of Article 6 paras. 1

and 2 (art. 6-1, art. 6-2) of the European Convention on Human

Rights [had] not been violated in the instant case and that

consequently the facts which [had given] rise to the proceedings [did]

not disclose any violation by Spain of its obligations under the

Convention".

AS TO THE LAW

51. The applicants claimed that they were the victims of breaches

of Article 6 (art. 6), which provides:

"1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him,

everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an

independent and impartial tribunal ...

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed

innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights:

(a) ...

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his

defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his

own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal

assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so

require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain

the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the

same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) ...".

The Government submitted that there had not been any such violations:

they also pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of

some of the complaints.

The Commission, on the other hand, to a large extent accepted the

applicants' arguments.

52. From the record it appears that the issues raised in this case

can be grouped as follows:

(a) the impartiality of the Audiencia Nacional, which tried the

applicants;

(b) the fairness of their trial; and

(c) adherence to the presumption of innocence.

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)

A. The impartiality of the Audiencia Nacional

53. Mr Barberà, Mr Messegué and Mr Jabardo regarded the change in

the membership of the bench without notice, the political persuasion

of the substitute presiding judge, Mr Pérez Lemaur, and his attitude

during the hearing as all being factors which made the Audiencia

Nacional's impartiality open to doubt.

They had originally also contended that the Audiencia Nacional was a

special court, but they did not repeat this argument before the Court.

The Commission considered that the Audiencia Nacional was an ordinary

court (see paragraph 94 of its report). The Court shares this

opinion.

1. The change of membership of the bench without notice

54. The Court notes that in an order dated 27 October 1981 the

appropriate section of the Audiencia Nacional had directed that the

oral proceedings should commence on 12 January 1982 and had appointed

the judges who would sit as additional members (see paragraph 23

above). The presiding judge of the section, Mr de la Concha, had a

preparatory meeting with counsel for the defendants on the day before

the trial, but the following morning had to leave Madrid for family

reasons. Another judge, Mr Pérez Lemaur, took his place. Counsel

were not warned of this, but they did not make any objection on this

point at the hearing (see paragraphs 24-25 above).

(a) Preliminary objection

55. The Government contended that domestic remedies had not been

exhausted in respect of this issue.

Before the Commission they pointed out merely that the membership had

been changed in accordance with current legislation and practice and

that the defence had not made any protest; they did not indicate on

what legal basis such a protest could have been made, given the

lawfulness of the change concerned. In its decision on admissibility

the Commission noted that the Government did not mention any specific

remedy.

Before the Court, on the other hand, the Government stated that the

applicants could have had their protest against the failure to notify

the identity of the judges as required by section 648 of the

Judicature Act 1870 (see paragraph 44 above) entered in the record of

the hearing and could then have applied to the Supreme Court to quash

the subsequent proceedings for non-compliance with a mandatory legal

rule and, if necessary, could, lastly, have complained to the

Constitutional Court that the defence rights guaranteed in Article 24

of the Constitution had been infringed.

56. It is not apparent from the material before the Court that the

Government had previously referred to the said section 648 before the

Commission, other than to state that it was inapplicable in the

instant case. It was incumbent on them, however, to indicate

sufficiently clearly the remedies to which they were alluding and to

prove that they existed; in this area, it is not for the Convention

bodies to cure of their own motion any shortcomings or lack of

precision in respondent States' arguments (see, as the most recent

authority, the Bozano judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111,

p. 19, para. 46). There is therefore an estoppel in respect of the

preliminary objection.

Furthermore, the Government raised this objection for the first time

at the hearing on 1 December 1987. Rule 47 of the Rules of Court,

however, required them to file it before the expiry of the time-limit

laid down for the filing of their memorial, with the result that it

must also be rejected as being out of time (see the Olsson judgment of

24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 28, para. 56).

(b) The merits of the complaint

57. In the Court's view, the circumstances surrounding the

impugned change in the membership of the Audiencia Nacional do not

appear to be such as to make its impartiality open to doubt. On the

other hand, the change does have to be considered as regards its

possible consequences for the fairness of the trial and notably of the

hearing of 12 January 1982 (see paragraphs 71-72 below).

2. The admissibility of the complaints concerning the substitute

presiding judge

58. With regard to the complaints concerning Mr Pérez Lemaur, the

Government pointed out firstly that counsel for the applicants did not

seek to challenge the substitute presiding judge, so as to make it

possible, if their challenge was rejected, to lodge an appeal on

points of law based on failure to comply with formal requirements

(Article 851 para. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - see paragraph 43

above); and, secondly, that they did not complain, either, to the

Constitutional Court that the Audiencia Nacional was biased

(Article 24 para. 1 of the Constitution).

There is no estoppel here nor is the submission out of time, because

the Government had raised this objection in substance before the

Commission at the stage of the examination of admissibility (see,

inter alia, the Bozano judgment previously cited, Series A no. 111,

p. 19, para. 44) and reiterated the objection in their memorial to the

Court (Rule 47 para. 1 of the Rules of Court).

59. The Court notes first of all that the substitute presiding

judge had already taken part in the proceedings on 18 December 1981,

when the application to have the trial held in Barcelona was dismissed

(see paragraph 23 above). Counsel for the defence could therefore

have challenged him at that juncture.

Obviously, they did not at that time have any reason to think that

Mr Pérez Lemaur would subsequently be called upon to try their

clients. They had no more reason to envisage such an eventuality after

they had had a meeting with the titular presiding judge of the

section, Mr de la Concha, on the day before the hearing

(see paragraph 24 above). It nonetheless remains a fact that when

they noticed Mr de la Concha's absence the following morning, they did

not manifest any disquiet regarding the new membership.

Admittedly, it is possible under Spanish law to challenge a judge only

on certain grounds, which are laid down by law and relate, among other

things, to the judge's personality or his connections with the

parties; furthermore, once the trial has begun, a judge can be

challenged only in respect of subsequent events (see paragraph 44

above). But since counsel for the defence did not know in advance the

name or personality of the substitute presiding judge, they could not,

a priori, adduce any legal ground for a challenge. They claimed,

however, that once the sitting had begun, they noticed that Mr Pérez

Lemaur had Francoist insignia on his tie and cuff-links; he allegedly

also showed hostility towards the defendants and some of the

witnesses. They did not specify what form the hostility took. If

such behaviour did in fact occur, it should at the very least have

elicited from the applicants a protest on grounds of obvious hostility

(see paragraph 44 above); yet no such protest was made during the

trial.

On this issue, therefore, they did not exhaust the domestic remedies.

B. The right to a fair trial

60. In the applicants' submission, the change in the membership of

the trial court was not an isolated incident but was closely bound up

with and was to be taken into account in regard to the way the trial

at first instance was conducted, in particular the circumstances of

the defendants' transfer to Madrid, the security measures taken during

the hearing, the "surprising" rapidity of the trial and the passive

attitude of the public prosecutor. These, they claimed, were all

factors which justified the conclusion that the court was already

convinced of the applicants' guilt and regarded the hearing of

12 January 1982 as a pure formality. At the time, however, the court

- they submitted - could only have reached such a view on the basis of

confessions extracted by the police, because the investigating judge

had not made any attempt to clarify the facts. The applicants also

criticised the way in which the evidence was presented to the court,

alleging that the principles of adversarial proceedings and of

equality of arms had not been observed. They complained, among other

things, that they had not been able to have the witness

Mr Martínez Vendrell examined.

Mr Barberà and Mr Jabardo said additionally that they had not been

assisted by a lawyer during their first appearance before the

investigating judge.

61. Spain's declaration recognising the right of individual

petition (Article 25 of the Convention) (art. 25) took effect

on 1 July 1981. The terms of that declaration prevent the Court from

examining the phase prior to 1 July 1981 in itself but not from

looking at the proceedings as a whole in order to assess their

fairness (see, in particular and mutatis mutandis, the Milasi judgment

of 25 June 1987, Series A no. 119, p. 37, para. 31).

1. The Government's preliminary objection

62. The Government raised an objection to the various complaints

at issue, contending on several grounds that domestic remedies had not

been exhausted.

63. They argued firstly that if, on account of the night-time

journey to Madrid, the applicants' physical and mental condition

impaired their ability to conduct their defence, they ought to have

applied for an adjournment of the hearing under Article 746 para. 5 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. During the hearing before the Court, the

Government further contended that the applicants could also have

relied on Articles 745 and 393 of that Code.

The Government did not mention any of these three provisions before

the Commission, although the latter had sent them a summary of the

facts which included the allegation concerning the circumstances and

consequences of the applicants' transfer from Barcelona to Madrid.

There is therefore estoppel.

Inasmuch as Articles 745 and 393 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are

concerned, the plea also fails by reason of Rule 47 of the Rules of

Court, since the Government raised it only during the oral

proceedings.

Besides, Article 746 para. 5 could hardly provide a remedy for the

complaint: while it does authorise an adjournment if defendants are

ill, it does not appear to apply to fatigue caused by a long journey

only a few hours before the opening of the trial. According to one of

the counsel present at the meeting with the presiding judge,

Mr de la Concha, on 11 January 1982, the defence in fact proposed an

adjournment as the applicants were then still in Barcelona (see

paragraph 24 above).

64. As regards the applicants' complaint relating to the brevity

of their trial, the Government objected that in their appeals on

points of law to the Supreme Court the applicants failed to rely on

paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of Article 850 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The Court notes, however, that these provisions deal with

eventualities which did not occur in the instant case - refusal of

procedural orders needed to establish the facts and refusal to hear a

witness's reply to relevant questions or to allow such questions to be

put.

Moreover, the Government submitted before the Commission, and again

before the Court, that counsel for the accused should have formally

objected to the allegedly humiliating treatment of their clients and

to any other alleged irregularity during the trial. They did not,

however, state what legal basis there was for such an objection;

accordingly, they have failed to indicate sufficiently clearly the

existing remedies which the applicants failed to exhaust (see, inter

alia, the Bozano judgment previously cited, Series A no. 111, p. 19,

para. 46, and paragraph 56 above).

65. As regards the complaints relating to the taking of evidence,

the Court agrees with the Commission (decision of 11 October 1985 on

admissibility) that the applicants validly raised them in substance in

the national courts; they relied in particular on Article 24 of the

Spanish Constitution, which essentially corresponds to Article 6

(art. 6) of the Convention (see paragraphs 30, 32 and 36 above).

66. Each ground of the preliminary objection must therefore be

rejected.

2. The merits of the complaints at issue

67. The applicants claimed to be victims of a clear violation of

paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken in conjunction with paragraphs 2

and 3 (d) (art. 6-1, art. 6-2, art. 6-3-d).

The Court recalls that the guarantees in paragraphs 2 and 3 (d)

(art. 6-2, art. 6-3-d) are specific aspects of the right to a fair

trial set forth in paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) (see, inter alia, the

Unterpertinger judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 14,

para. 29); it will therefore have regard to them when examining the facts

under paragraph 1 (art. 6-1).

68. As a general rule, it is for the national courts, and in

particular the court of first instance, to assess the evidence before

them as well as the relevance of the evidence which the accused seeks

to adduce (see the same judgment, p. 15, para. 33, second paragraph in

fine). The Court must, however, determine - and in this it agrees

with the Commission - whether the proceedings considered as a whole,

including the way in which prosecution and defence evidence was taken,

were fair as required by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). For this purpose

it will consider in turn the various grounds of complaint before it

(see paragraph 60 above).

(a) Transfer of the accused to Madrid

69. On 11 January 1982, that is to say the day before the opening

of the hearing before the Audiencia Nacional, the applicants were

still in Barcelona Prison. They did not leave for Madrid until the

evening of 11 January. They arrived early in the morning of the

following day after a journey of more than 600 kilometres in a prison

van, although the hearing was due to start at 10.30 a.m. (see

paragraph 24 above).

The fact, relied on by the Government, that the applicants had asked

to be in Barcelona with their families and friends for Christmas (see

paragraph 23 above) cannot justify such a late transfer, because the

Christmas festivities end on 6 January in Spain.

70. Mr Barberà, Mr Messegué and Mr Jabardo thus had to face a

trial that was vitally important for them, in view of the seriousness

of the charges against them and the sentences that might be passed, in

a state which must have been one of lowered physical and mental

resistance.

Despite the assistance of their lawyers, who had the opportunity to

make submissions, this circumstance, regrettable in itself,

undoubtedly weakened their position at a vital moment when they needed

all their resources to defend themselves and, in particular, to face

up to questioning at the very start of the trial and to consult

effectively with their counsel.

(b) Replacement of the presiding judge and another judge

71. On the very day of the hearing, Mr de la Concha, the presiding

judge of the first section of the Criminal Division of the Audiencia

Nacional, had to leave because his brother-in-law had been taken ill;

and one of the other judges mentioned in the order of 27 October 1981

(see paragraph 23 above), Mr Infante, was also unable to sit as he was

no longer a member of the relevant section of the court. They were

replaced by Mr Pérez Lemaur, the presiding judge of the third section,

and by Mr Bermúdez de la Fuente, a member of the first section

(see paragraph 24 above).

72. Neither the applicants nor their lawyers were given notice of

these changes, particularly the change of presiding judge (see

paragraph 24 above). Mr Pérez Lemaur, together with Mr Barnuevo and

Mr Bermúdez de la Fuente, had admittedly taken a purely procedural

decision on 18 December 1981 (see paragraph 23 above), but the defence

lawyers could not infer from that that he would also be sitting on the

trial court, bearing in mind in particular the preparatory meeting

which they had had with Mr de la Concha on the previous day (see

paragraphs 24 and 59 above). They were therefore taken by surprise.

They could legitimately fear that the new presiding judge was

unfamiliar with an unquestionably complex case, in which the

investigation file - which was of crucial importance for the final

result - ran to 1,600 pages. This is so even though Mr Barnuevo,

the reporting judge (see paragraphs 23 and 41 above), remained in his

post throughout the entire proceedings: Mr Pérez Lemaur had not taken

part in the preparatory meeting on 11 January 1982; the case in fact

proceeded without a full hearing of the evidence; the deliberations

were due to take place immediately after the hearing, or at the latest

on the following day (see paragraph 41 above); and the Audiencia

Nacional had to give its decision - and did in fact do so - within

three days (see paragraphs 25, 29 and 41 above).

(c) Conduct of the trial of 12 January 1982 and taking of evidence

73. The hearing, with the five accused present, began on the

morning of 12 January 1982 and ended the same evening. The Commission

was surprised at its brevity in view of the complexity of the case,

the considerable time that had elapsed since the occurrence of the

facts and the protestations of innocence made by the defendants to the

judges concerned.

The applicants emphasised the public prosecutor's passive attitude.

The Government contended that the length of a hearing depended on the

nature and circumstances of the case, and on the attitude of the

parties; in the instant case, the length was determined by the time

needed to take evidence and to hear argument. There were two reasons

why this whole procedure took only one day: the hearing was the last

stage of proceedings after two earlier stages of investigation and

interim submissions; and then, by adopting the "por reproducida"

procedure, the prosecution and the defence agreed to admit the file on

the investigation in evidence without requiring the 1,600 pages to be

read out in court.

74. The Court concludes from these submissions that there was in

the instant case a direct link between the length of the trial and the

more important problem of taking evidence during the trial. It will

accordingly look at them together.

75. It should be noted firstly that although under Spanish

legislation it is to a certain extent left to the initiative of the

parties to offer and present evidence, this does not absolve the court

of first instance from its duty of ensuring that the requirements of

Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention are complied with (see, inter

alia and mutatis mutandis, the Goddi judgment of 9 April 1984,

Series A no. 76, p. 12, para. 31). Indeed, Articles 315 and 729 para. 2 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure authorise both the investigating judge

and the trial court to obtain of their own motion evidence which they

consider will assist in establishing the truth (see paragraphs 39-40

above).

76. In criminal cases, the whole matter of the taking and

presentation of evidence must be looked at in the light of

paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 6 (art. 6-2, art. 6-3) of the Convention

(see paragraph 67 above).

77. Paragraph 2 (art. 6-2) embodies the principle of the

presumption of innocence. It requires, inter alia, that when carrying

out their duties, the members of a court should not start with the

preconceived idea that the accused has committed the offence charged;

the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should

benefit the accused. It also follows that it is for the prosecution

to inform the accused of the case that will be made against him, so

that he may prepare and present his defence accordingly, and to adduce

evidence sufficient to convict him.

According to the Government, this is the purpose of the intermediate

stage of the proceedings when parties make their interim submissions

and indicate the evidence which they propose to tender (see

paragraph 40 above). In its interim submissions in the instant case,

the public prosecutor gave his version of the facts and defined them

in legal terms. He also listed the evidence he sought to have

admitted, including the 1,600 page investigation file, the bulk of

which did not concern the defendants; however, he did not specify in

detail the particular evidence on which he based his account of the

facts in relation to the defendants (see paragraph 22 above), and this

made the defence's task more difficult.

78. Paragraph 1 of Article 6 taken together with paragraph 3

(art. 6-1, art. 6-3), also requires the Contracting States to take

positive steps, in particular to inform the accused promptly of the

nature and cause of the accusation against him, to allow him adequate

time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, to secure him

the right to defend himself in person or with legal assistance, and to

enable him to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to

obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under

the same conditions as witnesses against him. The latter right not

only entails equal treatment of the prosecution and the defence in

this matter (see, mutatis mutandis, the Bönisch judgment of

6 May 1985, Series A no. 92, p. 15, para. 32), but also means that the

hearing of witnesses must in general be adversarial.

In addition, the object and purpose of Article 6 (art. 6), and

the wording of some of the sub-paragraphs in paragraph 3 (art. 6-3),

show that a person charged with a criminal offence "is entitled to

take part in the hearing and to have his case heard" in his presence

by a "tribunal" (see the Colozza judgment of 12 February 1985,

Series A no. 89, p. 14, para. 27, and p. 16, para. 32). The Court infers,

as the Commission did, that all the evidence must in principle be

produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a

view to adversarial argument. It will ascertain whether this was done

in the instant case.

(i) Questioning of the accused

79. The hearing of 12 January 1982 began with the questioning of

the applicants. In reply to questions from the public prosecutor, the

private prosecutor and the defence lawyers, they denied any part in

the murder of Mr Bultó. In doing so, they challenged all the evidence

to the contrary, including their own confessions to the police, which

they said were obtained by means of torture (see paragraph 25 above).

(ii) Examination of witnesses

80. Only one of the three eye-witnesses summoned to appear by the

prosecution, Mr Bultó's brother-in-law, actually gave evidence at the

trial, and he did not recognise the applicants. The public prosecutor

asked, however, that account should be taken of the statements made to

the police by the other two (see paragraph 26 above); as these

statements did not incriminate the accused, the defence raised no

objection.

The ten witnesses called by the defence were meant to establish that

the defendants had been ill-treated, so that the confessions obtained

by the police would be declared inadmissible, and to testify to the

good civic behaviour of Mr Barberà, Mr Messegué and Mr Jabardo

(see paragraph 27 above).

The evidence of the various witnesses was heard in circumstances that

complied with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 taken in conjunction

with paragraph 3 (d) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d), because the witnesses were

examined at a public hearing under an adversarial procedure (see

paragraph 78 above).

(iii) Documentary evidence

81. In their interim submissions the prosecution (public and

private) and the defence had requested that, respectively, all or some

of the documents in the investigation file should be read out at the

trial. Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué sought also to have read out

Mr Martínez Vendrell's statements withdrawing or modifying parts of

his previous statement to the police implicating them in the murder

(see paragraphs 15 and 17 above).

During the hearing, however, the parties agreed to dispense with

having the file read out. The use of the "por reproducida" procedure

had the consequence that much of the evidence was admitted without

being exposed to public scrutiny.

82. The Government stated that there was nothing to prevent

counsel for the applicants from requesting that certain documents from

the investigation file or indeed the whole file should be read out at

the trial (see paragraph 40 above). As they had not done this, they

had waived their right to do so.

According to the Court's established case-law, waiver of the exercise

of a right guaranteed by the Convention - in so far as it is

permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner (see, inter

alia, the Colozza judgment previously cited, Series A no. 89, p. 14,

para. 28). While the use of the "por reproducida" procedure showed that

the defence accepted that the contents of the file need not be read

out in public, it cannot be inferred from this that it agreed not to

challenge the said contents even where the prosecution relied on them

and, in particular, on the statements of certain witnesses; the

grounds subsequently relied on by the defence before the Supreme Court

and the Constitutional Court confirm this (see paragraphs 30 and

32 above).

83. By means of the "por reproducida" procedure, all the documents

in the investigation file were included in the proceedings at the

trial. The Court must, however, have regard to those evidential

elements which were relevant to the proceedings against the applicants

in order to determine whether they had been procured in such a way as

to guarantee a fair trial.

84. In Spain the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings

extends, as the Government pointed out, to the investigation stage:

the Code of Criminal Procedure enables an accused, with the assistance

of his advocate, to intervene in respect of steps affecting him, as

regards both his own and the prosecution's evidence or measures taken

by the investigating judge (see paragraph 39 above).

The Court notes, however, that in this case the investigation had

commenced well before the applicants' arrest on 14 October 1980. They

obviously could not have played any part in it before then.

On 22 December 1980, in Barcelona, Mr Barberà appointed an advocate

and an attorney in order to take part in the proceedings, but the

appropriate judge in Madrid did not record this until 20 January 1981,

after the applicants had been charged and less than a month before the

completion of the investigation on 16 February 1981; as for

Mr Messegué and Mr Jabardo, they instructed defence lawyers five days

after the latter date (see paragraphs 21-22 above). Other than when

their evidence was taken in Barcelona on 22 January 1981 (see

paragraph 21 above), the applicants did not intervene at any stage of

the investigation. In addition, the short time left prevented them in

practice from submitting evidence on the basis of a proper

understanding of the case before the investigation was completed.

The public prosecutor did not submit any evidence at the time either.

Furthermore, the accused and their lawyers were in Barcelona, the city

where the killing had taken place and where the witnesses lived,

whereas the investigating judge performed his duties in Madrid. This

caused real practical problems both for the witnesses and for the

judge. In particular, almost all the procedural steps had to be

carried out by letters rogatory in Barcelona (see paragraphs 11, 15,

20 and 21 above).

Thus the deficiencies at the trial stage were not compensated by

procedural safeguards during the investigation stage.

85. The evidence in the file included firstly (in chronological

order) the statements made by Mr Martínez Vendrell, who was the first

person to incriminate the applicants (see paragraph 14 above) and was

referred to as the principal indirect witness by the Delegate of the

Commission. It may seem regrettable that it was not possible to

ensure his presence at the trial on 12 January 1982, when the defence

could have examined him on an adversarial basis. The respondent State

cannot, however, be held responsible for that failure, as, when

Mr Martínez Vendrell was searched for by the police after the Supreme

Court had upheld his conviction on 10 April 1981 (the relevant warrant

was issued on 24 April 1981), he could not be found (see paragraph 18

above).

Accordingly, the Audiencia Nacional had before it only the written

text of Mr Martínez Vendrell's statements. The first statement

implicated the applicants directly in the murder of Mr Bultó (see

paragraph 14 above), but, as the Government themselves accepted, was

not admissible evidence under Spanish law because it had been obtained

by the police during his ten days in custody and without even a

minimum of constitutional safeguards. Nevertheless, it appeared in the

file. It was in fact the basis for the second statement, which was

entered in the file by an investigating judge in Barcelona in the

presence of an advocate and in which Mr Martínez Vendrell withdrew

part of his previous confession (see paragraph 15 above). Mr Barberà

and Mr Messegué were charged only on 16 March 1979, after the

investigating judge in Madrid had been sent the statements (see

paragraph 16 above). Before that, they had no standing to intervene

in the proceedings against Mr Martínez Vendrell and therefore could

not examine him or have him examined; the same applied subsequently

during the latter's trial, since they could not then be found (see

paragraph 17 above).

86. The evidence of Mr Martínez Vendrell, who had been set free on

17 June 1980, would have been of crucial importance, as was noted by

the Supreme Court in its judgment of 27 December 1982 (see

paragraph 31 above). The Court observes that the central

investigating judge did not even attempt to hear Mr Martínez

Vendrell's evidence after the arrest of the applicants on

14 October 1980, not only to confirm his identification of them but

also to compare his successive statements with theirs and arrange a

confrontation with the applicants. Admittedly, the latter could also

have requested an opportunity to examine him; but this does not

exonerate the judge, having regard in particular to the specific

circumstances referred to in paragraph 84 above. In the end, the

applicants never had an opportunity to examine a person whose evidence

- which was vital, as is clear from the Supreme Court's judgment

of 27 December 1982 (see paragraph 31 above) - had been taken in their

absence and was deemed to have been read out at the trial (see,

mutatis mutandis, the Unterpertinger judgment previously cited,

Series A no. 110, p. 15, para. 31): by the time the file was forwarded to

the defence on 27 May 1981 for it to propose its evidence,

Mr Martínez Vendrell had absconded (see paragraphs 18 and 22 above).

87. The statements made by the accused themselves constituted

another important item of evidence.

When they made their confessions to the police, they had already been

charged (see paragraph 16 above) but did not have the assistance of a

lawyer, although they do not appear to have waived their right to one.

Accordingly, these confessions, which were moreover obtained during a

long period of custody in which they were held incommunicado (see

paragraph 19 above), give rise to reservations on the part of the

Court. They were nevertheless appended to the police report and were

pivotal in the questioning of the defendants by the investigating

judges in Barcelona and by the private prosecutor at the hearing

on 12 January 1982. The defence, however, tried to challenge them by

claiming that the police had extracted them by torture.

When Mr Barberà and Mr Jabardo made their first statements to the

investigating judge in Barcelona, they likewise did not have any legal

assistance - whether of their own choosing or assigned by the court

(Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention) (art. 6-3-c) - and the file

does not show that they had agreed to do without it. The appointment

of counsel was not recorded until 20 January 1981 for Mr Barberà,

after he had been charged for the second time, and not until

21 February for Mr Messegué and Mr Jabardo, after the investigation

had been completed (see paragraphs 16 and 21 above).

The Court also notes that the central investigating judge in Madrid

never heard evidence from the defendants in person - even after the

temporary transfer of one of them to the capital - despite the obvious

contradictions in their successive statements (see paragraphs 21-22

above); he proceeded by way of letters rogatory.

88. The weapons, other items and documents found at the

applicants' homes, and subsequently at the places indicated by

Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué, were not produced in court at the trial,

although they were relied upon by the prosecution as evidence. That

being so, the defence was unable to challenge their identification or

relevance in a fully effective manner; after entering an objection on

this point before the Audiencia Nacional, counsel for the defence

appealed to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court (see

paragraphs 25, 30 and 32 above).

(d) Conclusion

89. Having regard to the belated transfer of the applicants from

Barcelona to Madrid, the unexpected change in the court's membership

immediately before the hearing opened, the brevity of the trial and,

above all, the fact that very important pieces of evidence were not

adequately adduced and discussed at the trial in the applicants'

presence and under the watchful eye of the public, the Court concludes

that the proceedings in question, taken as a whole, did not satisfy

the requirements of a fair and public hearing. Consequently, there

was a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

II. ARTICLE 6 PARA. 2 (art. 6-2) OF THE CONVENTION

90. Mr Barberà and Mr Messegué also claimed to be victims of a

failure to apply the presumption of innocence, stating that they were

convicted solely on the basis of their confessions to the police and

that the Audiencia Nacional showed signs of bias against them.

Relying on the terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court and the

Constitutional Court, the Government stated that the Audiencia

Nacional had in fact had other evidence before it.

91. The presumption of innocence will be violated if, without the

accused's having previously been proved guilty according to law, a

judicial decision concerning him reflects an opinion that he is

guilty. In this case, it does not appear from the evidence that

during the proceedings, and in particular the trial, the Audiencia

Nacional or the presiding judge had taken decisions or attitudes

reflecting such an opinion. The Court therefore does not find a

violation of Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) of the Convention.

III. THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)

92. The applicants made various claims under Article 50

(art. 50), which provides as follows:

"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal

authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is

completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising

from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said

Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the

consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court

shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured

party."

At the hearing, the Government pointed out that if the Court were to

find a violation, the applicants could bring an action for damages in

Spain. They added that the judgment of the Court would constitute

adequate compensation for the alleged non-pecuniary damage and that

the costs and expenses claimed by the applicants had not been

adequately proved.

93. In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the

question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) is not yet ready for

decision. It is therefore necessary to reserve the matter, taking due

account of the possibility of an agreement between the respondent

State and the applicants (Rule 53 paras. 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court).

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT

1. Rejects unanimously, on the ground of estoppel and because it was

raised out of time, the Government's objection that domestic remedies

had not been exhausted in respect of the complaint concerning the

change of membership of the Audiencia Nacional without notice;

2. Holds unanimously that the applicants have not exhausted domestic

remedies in respect of their complaints concerning the substitute

presiding judge of the Audiencia Nacional;

3. Rejects unanimously, on the ground of estoppel and, in part,

because it was raised out of time and was unfounded, the Government's

objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted in that the

applicants did not apply to the Audiencia Nacional for an adjournment

of the trial;

4. Rejects by seventeen votes to one, as unfounded, the remainder of

the Government's objection that domestic remedies had not been

exhausted;

5. Holds by ten votes to eight that there has been a breach of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);

6. Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 6 para. 2

(art. 6-2);

7. Holds unanimously that the question of the application of

Article 50 (art. 50) is not yet ready for decision;

accordingly,

(a) reserves the whole of the said question;

(b) invites the Government and the applicants to submit, within the

next three months, their further observations on the matter and, in

particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they may reach;

(c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of

the Court the power to fix the same if need be.

Done in English and in French, and delivered at a public hearing in

the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 6 December 1988.

Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL

President

Signed: Marc-André EISSEN

Registrar

In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and

Rule 52 para. 2 of the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are

annexed to this judgment:

(a) joint dissenting opinion of Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson,

Mrs Bindschedler-Robert, Mr Gölcüklü, Mr Matscher, Mr Walsh, Mr Russo,

Mr Valticos and Mr Torres Boursault;

(b) joint concurring opinion of Mr Lagergren, Mr Pettiti and

Mr Macdonald.

Initialled: R.R.

Initialled: M.-A.E.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, THÓR

VILHJALMSSON, GÖLCÜKLÜ, MATSCHER, WALSH, RUSSO, VALTICOS AND

TORRES BOURSAULT

(Translation)

We cannot share the opinion of the majority of the Court, who have

held in the instant case that there was a violation of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention on the ground that "the proceedings in

question, taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a fair

and public hearing".

We shall examine below the three main points which prompted that

conclusion, and in respect of each of them we shall set out the

arguments which lead us to the contrary result.

We think it important, however, to preface this detailed examination

with a few general considerations.

We are fully aware that in several respects - as regards some of the

principles on which the rules of Spanish criminal procedure as such

are based, and more particularly as regards the way the rules were

applied in the instant case - the impugned proceedings may give rise

to misgivings.

However, the existing system of criminal procedure does allow a trial

to be conducted with the procedural safeguards required by Article 6

(art. 6). It is of course up to the defence - the accused themselves

and their counsel - to actually make use of the opportunities afforded

by the system.

In the instant case, however, it is apparent from the file that this

did not happen. Neither in the final stages of the investigation nor

when the interim submissions were made nor at the trial do the accused

seem to have exhausted these resources.

That being so, we consider that it is not for the Court to retry the

case, like a court of appeal, and substitute its own assessment of the

evidence for the one underlying the decision in issue. Its only task

is to review whether the procedural requirements of Article 6 (art. 6)

of the Convention were complied with.

The majority of the court have highlighted a number of weaknesses in

the proceedings which, taken together, resulted in the trial's not

satisfying the requirements of Article 6 (art. 6); this implies

that in the majority's view, none of these weaknesses on its own is

such as to justify a finding of a violation. We should like to

express our disagreement with this reasoning. Resorting to the

argument of a combination of factors is not, of course, anything new,

and in other circumstances it may be fully justified and even natural.

It is plain, for instance, that the overall length of given

proceedings is the combined length of each phase of the proceedings,

even if none of these phases taken in isolation is open to criticism.

The combination method has to be based on specific premisses in each

case in which it is applicable, and it does not seem appropriate

simply to transfer it to cases of an entirely different nature.

The majority singled out the following complaints:

(a) The belated transfer of the defendants to Madrid

This allegedly weakened the defendants' position at a crucial moment

when they would have needed all their resources to defend themselves,

and in particular to face their examination at the very beginning of

the trial and to consult effectively with their counsel.

In our view, although the belated transfer was regrettable, it does

not appear to have appreciably hindered the defence or to have flawed

the proceedings to the point of depriving the defendants of adequate

means of defence. Furthermore, the defendants had the assistance of

their lawyers, who had an opportunity to intervene orally and make

their submissions without any restriction. In any case, as is

apparent from the file, the defendants had done no more than deny

their responsibility. Nor did the defence apply for an adjournment of

the trial.

(b) The change in the membership of the bench immediately before

the beginning of the trial

The majority has held that in these circumstances the defendants could

legitimately have feared that the new presiding judge would be

unfamiliar with what was a complex case.

This argument overlooks the important role of the reporting judge, who

is responsible for keeping the court informed and preparing the draft

judgment, and who, after all, had been at his post throughout the

proceedings. Besides, the new presiding judge belonged to the same

division (the Criminal Division) of the court and had already dealt

with the case. It must again be emphasised that the defence did not

raise any objection.

(c) The brevity of the trial

The majority argued from the brevity of the trial and, above all, from

the fact that very important evidence was not produced or adequately

discussed at the hearing, in the presence of the defendants and under

the watchful eye of the public.

In this connection we note that while the trial took only a day, there

were two reasons for this: the hearing was the last stage of

proceedings after two earlier stages of investigation and interim

submissions; and then, by adopting the "por reproducida" procedure,

the prosecution and the defence agreed to admit the investigation file

in evidence without requiring the 1,600 pages to be read out in court.

The majority of the Court seemed to question the use of the "por

reproducida" procedure in view of the requirements of Article 6 para. 1

(art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Yet by means of this procedure all the documents in the investigation

file - some of which did not concern the defendants - were included in

the proceedings at the trial and nothing prevented the defendants from

analysing and impugning them during the hearing. But they did not do

so, and thus waived the opportunity of having any weaknesses or

omissions in the investigation remedied.

Admittedly, the use of the "por reproducida" procedure had the

consequence that much of the evidence was admitted without being

exposed to public scrutiny. In this connection, and without in any

way underestimating the importance, as a procedural safeguard, of

requiring proceedings to be public, we do not consider that this makes

it necessary for all the documents in a trial to be communicated to

the public. In the instant case the public had free access to the

courtroom and they were able to follow the entire trial, including the

parties' submissions, the evidence offered and admitted at the hearing

and, lastly, counsel's addresses to the court, which put before them

analysis and criticism of the documents in the file; in particular

they had an opportunity to hear the defence consent to the use of the

"por reproducida" procedure and they were able to grasp the fact that

it had thereby deliberately waived having most of the file read out at

the hearing.

In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the proceedings in

question also complied with the requirements of a public hearing

within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).

In conclusion, we consider that there was no violation of

Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention.

JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES LAGERGREN, PETTITI AND MACDONALD

Whilst we agree with the findings of the Court in the present case, we

would like to add the following observations regarding the reasoning

of the judgment of 15 January 1982 of the Audiencia Nacional.

Having deliberated on the basis of the evidence adduced, the Audiencia

Nacional gave its decision three days after the hearing. After briefly

setting out the facts, the parties' submissions and the relevant law,

the judgment imposed heavy sentences on the applicants. It contained

no analysis of the evidence that had been taken or of its connection

with the facts deemed to have been established (see paragraph 107 of

the Commission's report).

The Government submitted that short reasoning was now common practice

in systems based on the judge's personal belief, such as Spain's;

moreover, in its judgment of 27 December 1982 the Supreme Court

listed evidence in the investigation file on which the Audiencia

Nacional could have founded its decision.

In the absence of any clarification in the judgment of

15 January 1982, it may be regarded as having been based on all the

evidence and submissions of the parties, whether debated during the

trial or merely entered in the investigation file. In a system where

the possibility of appealing on a point of law against the

establishment of the facts by the trial court is very limited

(Articles 849 and 851 para. 1 of the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure;

see paragraphs 42 and 43 of the Court's judgment), it seems

reasonable, in order to enable the defence to set forth its arguments

effectively in such an appeal, that the trial court should have given

an adequate indication of the evidence on which it had relied to

convict the applicants (see paragraph 53 in fine of, and our joint

concurring opinion annexed to, the Court's H v. Belgium judgment

of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127, pp. 35-36 and 43).