|
BEFORE: |
CHAIRPERSON: Ms.
Christine Chanet (France)
VICE-CHAIRPERSONS: Mr.
Maurice Glele Ahanhanzo (Benin), Ms. Elisabeth Palm (Sweden), Mr. Hipolito Solari
Yrigoyen (Argentina)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Ivan
Shearer (Australia)
MEMBERS: Mr. Abdelfattah Amor (Tunisia), Mr. Mr. Nisuke Ando
(Japan), Mr. Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati (India), Alfredo
Castillero Hoyos (Panama), Mr. Edwin Johnson Lopez (Ecuador), Mr.
Walter Kalin (Switzerland), Mr. Ahmed Tawfik Khalil (Egypt), Mr.
Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius), Mr. Michael O’Flaherty (Ireland), Mr.
Rafael Rivas Posada (Colombia), Sir Nigel Rodley (United Kingdom),
Ms. Ruth Wedgwood (United States), Mr. Roman Wieruszewski (Poland) |
|
|
PermaLink: |
http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/2005.03.29_Parra_Corral_v_Spain.htm |
|
|
Citation: |
Parra Corral v. Spain, Comm. 1356/2005, U.N. Doc. A/60/40, Vol. II,
at 466 (HRC 2005) |
Alt. Style
of Cause: |
Parra Corral v. Spain |
Publications: |
Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. GAOR, 60th Sess., Supp.
No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/60/40, Annex VI, sect. FF, at 466 (Oct. 3, 2005) |
Represented By: |
Encarnación Caballero Oliver |
|
|
|
1. The author of the communication dated 12
December 2004 is Antonio Parra Corral, a Spanish citizen born in 1945. He
claims to be a victim of violations by Spain to article 14, paragraph 5, and
article 26 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for
Spain on 25 April 1985. The author is represented by counsel (Mrs.
Encarnación Caballero Oliver).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2.1 On 9 December 2001 the Second Chamber of the Provincial Court of Almería
(Audiencia Provincial de Almería) sentenced the author to seven and a half
years of imprisonment for destruction of property, attempt to commit
homicide and manufacturing of illegal explosives, and to one year
imprisonment for continuous threats. [FN1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] According to the judgment, the author and a co-accused threatened a
commercial partner who refused to transport livestock for them. They put a
package with explosives in front of the victim's home and provoked an
explosion, which caused severe damage to the premises. The evidence against
the author consisted in testimonies about the threats and experts'
affidavits on the type of explosives used by the accused and the extent of
the damage caused to the victim's premises.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 The author filed an appeal in the Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo)
alleging violations of procedural guarantees and substantive rights. On 12
September 2002, the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. The
author then appealed (amparo) to the Constitutional Court (Tribunal
Constitucional), which dismissed his appeal on 20 October 2004.
THE COMPLAINT
3.1 The author's complaint concerns primarily the right to an effective
appeal against conviction and sentence. He argues that the Spanish Criminal
Procedure Act (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal) violates articles 14,
paragraph 5, and 26 of the Covenant because those charged with the most
serious crimes have their cases heard by a single judge (Juzgado de
Instrucción) who conducts all the pertinent investigations and, once he
considers the case ready for trial, refers it to the Provincial Court (Audiencia
Provincial), where a panel of three judges conducts the trial and decides
the case. Their decision is subject to judicial review proceedings only on
very limited legal grounds. There is no possibility of a re-evaluation of
evidence by the Supreme Court, as all factual determinations by the lower
court are considered final. By contrast, those convicted of less serious
offences for which sentences of less than six years' imprisonment may be
imposed have their cases investigated by a single judge (Juzgado de
Instrucción) who, once the case is ready for trial, refers it to a single
judge ad quo (Juzgado de lo Penal), whose decision may be appealed before
the Provincial Court (Audiencia Provincial), thus ensuring an effective
review not only of the application of the law, but also of the facts.
3.2 The author claims that, as the Supreme Court does not re-evaluate
evidence, the Spanish system does not guarantee the right to have his
conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher court according to law (article
14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant) According to the author, the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal on formal and procedural grounds, without having
re-examined the weighing of the evidence by the lower court. In its
judgment, the Constitutional Court stated that it was not in its remit to
review the weighing of the evidence done by the trial court, or to review
the conclusions of the Supreme Court.
CONSIDERATION OF ADMISSIBILITY
4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human
Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant
4.2 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the
requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, which allows the State party
to remedy an alleged violation before the same issue is raised before the
Committee, oblige authors to raise the substance of the issues submitted to
the Committee before domestic courts. Noting that the author has failed to
raise in substance before domestic courts the alleged violation of the
principle of non-discrimination (article 14, paragraph 5, in conjunction
with article 26 of the Covenant), the Committee decides that this part of
the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of
the Optional Protocol.
4.3 The Committee notes that the remaining allegation concerning article 14,
paragraph 5 - the alleged failure of Spanish courts to re- examine the
weighing of evidence-, is contradicted by the text of the judgments of the
Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in the author's case. Both courts
thoroughly addressed the author's allegation that circumstantial evidence
was insufficient to convict him, and disagreed with his account, developing
extensive arguments to conclude that the evidence, though circumstantial,
was sufficient to warrant the author's conviction. In the present case, the
Committee concludes the author has failed properly to substantiate his claim
under article 14, paragraph 5, and decides that this part of the
communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional
Protocol.
5. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible pursuant to articles 2 and 5,
paragraph 2 of the Optional Protocol;
(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for
information, to the State party.
_________________________
Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original
version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of
the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly. |
|