01 Aug Criminal proceedings against a Kosovo citizen for murder in the context of blood feud were in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention

In the case of Shala v. Switzerland (application no. 63896/12) the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible, holding that Mr Shala’s complaints were manifestly unfounded. 

The case concerned criminal proceedings which resulted in Mr Shala’s conviction by the Swiss courts for murder in the context of a “blood feud”.

In May 1997 the head of the Shala family was executed in Kosovo by a member of the H. family. The following month, the brother of the presumed perpetrator of that murder was killed in Switzerland. In January 2001 the Laufenburg District Court (Switzerland) delivered judgments concerning six members of Mr Shala’s family, including his father, his uncle and his uncle’s son. In November 2010 Mr Shala was convicted of murder and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. The district court concluded that Mr Shala and his cousin had fired between 15 and 17 shots into the victim’s head while he was attempting to escape. An appeal by Mr Shala before the higher court was dismissed. Before the higher court, Mr Shala alleged for the first time that there had been a violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (VCCR). Mr Shala argued, in particular, that his father, his uncle and his uncle’s son had not been informed before the district court of their rights under the VCCR to consular assistance. 

Mr Shala raised several complaints under Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). He criticised the Swiss authorities, in particular, for having failed to inform three witnesses, Kosovar nationals, of their right to consular assistance under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention1 (VCCR), and alleged that the statements made by these witnesses could not be used in the criminal proceedings against him. 

The Court noted that the statements by Mr Shala’s uncle and his uncle’s son were not the only evidence against the applicant. Moreover, these witnesses had been excused from appearing before the higher court, and detailed and objective factual reasons for this had been given in the judgment. The Court also noted that Mr Shala’s father had been informed about his right to assistance by a lawyer and an interpreter from the outset of the proceedings brought against him, and that he had expressly waived these rights

The Court also held, that Mr Shala had not shown in a substantiated and tangible manner how the fact that the Swiss authorities had not informed the three witness of their right to consular assistance under Article 36 of the VCCR had had the slightest impact on the fairness of the proceedings against him. The use of statements from these three witnesses by the Swiss courts, which had moreover based their findings on a whole range of evidence, had thus not rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

References from the official website of the European Court on Human Rights

1  All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this text shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.