SARIĆ v. Serbia
On November 18, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) rendered, and on December 9 of the same year, announced the verdict in the caseSaric against Serbia, number 38151/16.
It's a verdictbroughtthree-member Board.
The case refers to alleged irregularities in the procedure of identifying the applicant as a defendant in criminal proceedings, on the basis of which the applicant was convicted. The court took the position that the irregularities found during the procedure of identification and hearing of witnesses were not adequately considered by the domestic courts in the explanation. For the same reasons, the court found that the criminal proceedings did not meet the requirements of a fair trial and that Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention was violated. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
On January 12, 2009, the Basic Public Prosecutor's Office in Subotica filed a request to conduct an investigation against the applicant for the criminal offense of robbery under Article 206, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.
The applicant was heard as a defendant before the investigating judge of the Basic Court in Subotica on October 27, 2009, from 10:38 a.m. to 10:50 a.m., while the injured party, L.V.Š. heard as a witness immediately after him, at 11:00 a.m. and she could see him before giving her statement in front of the courtroom, handcuffed and accompanied by police officers.
It follows from the record of the hearing of the witness - the injured party from October 27, 2009, that she stated: "... and considering that I have now seen the defendant in front of the courtroom and that he was questioned before me, I can state that it is that young man...".
On February 24, 2010, the Basic Public Prosecutor's Office in Subotica filed an indictment against the applicant. During the entire procedure, the applicant denied the commission of the criminal offense he was charged with.
On August 19, 2013, the Basic Court in Subotica, after the main hearing and the evidentiary proceedings, issued the verdict K. 2106/2010, in which the applicant was found guilty of committing the crime of robbery from Article 206, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, and was sentenced to two years and six months in prison. This judgment was confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad Kž1. 3500/13 of May 6, 2014.
The Supreme Court of Cassation ruled on June 18, 2014Kzz. 588/2014, rejected as unfounded the request for protection of the legality of the applicant's counsel filed against the aforementioned final judgments of the Basic Court in Subotica and the Court of Appeal in Novi Sad.
By decision Už-4892/14 of November 12, 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal filed by the applicant against the first and second instance verdicts, as well as against the verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on June 16, 2016.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), because the witness - the injured party, immediately before her hearing, saw the applicant handcuffed sitting in front of the courtroom of the investigating judge accompanied by police officers, and then, during the identification procedure itself, she recognized him as the perpetrator of the crime of robbery.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court noted that the key evidence supporting the conviction of the applicant was the statement of the injured party and her recognition of the applicant as the perpetrator, after she had already seen him in court as a defendant. The domestic courts argued that the verdict was based on other credible evidence in the case file.
Also, the Court stated that the videos and photographs, referred to by the first-instance court, did not identify the applicant as the perpetrator of the crime, but only showed the place where the crime was committed without providing any information that could determine the perpetrator's identity. The court assessed that even the adversarial nature of the proceedings could not eliminate the mentioned shortcomings.
Finally, the Court assessed that the domestic courts did not adequately consider the mentioned irregularities in the witness hearing and identification procedure in their explanations, and that they limited themselves to repeating that the injured party's statement represented credible evidence that they accepted, even though her statement was not supported by other evidence.
The Court therefore concluded that the domestic courts failed to take into account one of the basic principles of criminal procedural law (in dubio pro reo) -that the prosecution is obliged to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that in case of any doubts about the reliability of the evidence, the facts should be evaluated in favor of the defendant.
Consequently, the Court established a violation of rights to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The Court assessed that the finding of a violation of the Convention,sȃmo in itself, a sufficiently just satisfactionin view either what kind intangible damage which the applicant suffered, while obliging the Republic of Serbia to pay the amount of EUR 5,800.00 to the applicant as compensation for the costs of the procedure.