The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 19 September 2006 delivered its first judgment against Serbia, in the Matijašević case. The ECtHR Second Chamber on 29 August 2006 concluded that Serbia had violated Article 6, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which states that: “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”.The applicant had pleaded not guilty to criminal charges for murder and fraud during his trial before the Novi Sad District Court. Matijašević had been remanded in custody on 5 May 2003 and his detention was subsequently extended on a number of occasions. The Court justified the extention of detention by claiming that the applicant was a multiple offender, that he had failed to improve his conduct after prior imprisonment and that he «subsequently committed the crimes in the charges and that the panel finds that, under the circumstances, there is well-founded apprehension that the accused may continue committing crimes if released». The applicant appealed the decision with the Supreme Court of Serbia claiming that the Novi Sad court had treated him as if he were a multiple offender and thus illegally ordered his detention. The Supreme Court of Serbia dismissed the appeal without considering the claimed violation of the presumption of innocence. The applicant’s lawyer, Vladimir Beljanski, addressed the ECtHR on 20 May 2004, claiming that the state of Serbia violated Article 6 of the ECHR and that the Court had prejudged the outcome of his pending criminal case and breached his fundamental right to be presumed innocent..
The Government argued before the ECtHR that an «error» and «imprecise formulation» were at issue, as the Court had meant to say that it was extending detention on grounded suspicions that Matijašević had committed the crimes he had been charged with. The Government also noted that the District Court reached a verdict in May 2005, finding the applicant guilty and convicting him to eight years’ imprisonment. The conviction was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, wherefore the state argues it cannot be considered guilty of breaching the presumption of innocence.
The ECtHR, however, concluded that the fundamental distinction must be drawn between the statement that a person is merely suspected of committing a crime and a clear court statement that the person is guilty in the absence of the final verdict. The Court also recalled that the right to be presumed innocent regards the whole criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the verdict. It found that the fact that the applicant was ultimately found guilty did not negate the applicant’s initial right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.
The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights recalls that Serbia (then Serbia and Montenegro) ratified the ECHR on 26 December 2003 and deposited the ratification instruments with the Council of Europe on 4 March 2004. Since that date, everyone who believes his or her right enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols has been violated by Serbia may file an application with the ECtHR in Strasbourg. Over 1,500 applications have to date been filed against Serbia; over 800 of them are under review. The rest were found inadmissible, mostly for procedural reasons, inter alia because the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic legal remedies.
This case is also important because the Court concluded the applicant need not have appealed to the Court of Serbia and Montenegro, as the Government claims, because an appeal to the Court of Serbia and Montenegro cannot be considered an available and effective legal remedy.
The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights calls on the Government of Serbia to adequately give effect to the ECtHR judgment within three months. This, inter alia, includes the translation of the judgment into Serbian to facilitate access to it by both the general public and state authorities of Serbia. The Centre would like to remind the Government of its obligation to fulfil its international obligations, which also include the protection and promotion of human rights, harmonisation of domestic legislation with international human rights standards, implementation of the decisions and translation of the relevant case law of the ECtHR and other human rights protection bodies, and provision of training in human rights for its staff.
