ECtHR, XX v. Belgium, No. 649/08, 2012
- 2012
- Belgium
Topics
Membership in a terrorist organisationLegal bases
European Convention on Human Rights Belgium: Law of 30 November 1998 Organising the Intelligence and Security ServicesCourts
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)Laws
Torture, degrading and inhuman and treatmentFacts
The applicant, a Moroccan national, was arrested and convicted for participating in the activities of a terrorist group (the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group). Before the Brussels Criminal Court, evidence was transmitted by the Moroccan authorities and added to the case file. The evidence included statements by a relative of the applicant, describing the latter’s involvement and activities in the terrorist group. The applicant complained before the ECtHR, under Article 6, that his right to a fair trial was violated because some of the statements used in evidence against him had allegedly been obtained, in Morocco, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant also complained that his right to respect for private and family life was violated, under Article 8 of the Convention, because the State Security Service had placed him under constant surveillance, and the methods used constituted a serious invasion of his private and family life.
Legal grounds
Article 6 of the ECHR; Article 8 of the ECHR; Belgian Law of 30 November 1998.
Findings
The admission, in criminal proceedings, of statements obtained in violation of Article 3 automatically rendered the proceedings as whole unfair and violated Article 6. The Court observed that in order for the accused to be able to request the exclusion of a statement from the case file it sufficed for him to demonstrate that there was a “real risk” that it has been obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. However, in rejecting the applicant’s request to exclude the statements, the Brussels Court of Appeal simply noted that he had provided no “concrete proof” capable of shedding “reasonable doubt” on the evidence. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 6. Regarding whether the rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention had been violated or not, the Court held that the techniques employed (repeated questioning, having the applicant followed in the street, surveillance of his home) was measured and proportionate. In particular, the Court noted that these techniques are less intrusive than others, such as telephone tapping and searches. In addition, the national Belgian Law of 30 November 1998 specifies with sufficient clarity the conditions in which such measures could be taken and it made clear for citizens that the State Security Service could have recourse to measure such as those challenged by the applicant. The Court concluded that the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 was manifestly ill-founded.