Background
Three Moldovan nationals—Alexandru Matei, Constantin Huștei, and Petru Nofit, all minors at the time of the alleged conduct—were charged with sexual assault of a minor under 14 years old. After a full first-instance hearing involving the victim, the accused applicants, expert testimony, and numerous witnesses, the trial court examined all available evidence and acquitted the applicants.
The prosecutor appealed, explicitly identifying multiple inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and key witnesses. The Chișinău Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal and convicted the applicants, but did so without re-hearing either the victim or the witnesses cited by the prosecutor. Instead, the appellate court merely read their statements from the case file. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld the conviction on appeal on points of law. The applicants then petitioned the European Court of Human Rights, arguing the appellate court’s failure to conduct a full hearing violated their right to a fair trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held unanimously that there was a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). The Court established that when an appellate court reverses a first-instance acquittal and imposes a conviction for the first time, it cannot properly determine guilt or innocence without a direct assessment of evidence. This principle applies particularly where, as here, the central question depends on the credibility of witnesses and the victim.
The Court found that the credibility of witnesses and the victim could not be adequately evaluated through mere review of statements recorded in the case file. Direct observation and questioning are essential for a fair appellate assessment. The Court also noted that the appellate court’s procedure conflicted with Moldova’s own Code of Criminal Procedure and with guidance from Moldova’s Supreme Court (Plenary Decision No. 22 of 12 December 2005), which explicitly prohibits an appellate court from ordering a first conviction without hearing the accused and without direct administration of evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts reversing acquittals and imposing convictions must conduct full evidentiary hearings with direct assessment of witness and victim testimony, not mere file review.
- Witness credibility—central to determining guilt in criminal cases—cannot be properly evaluated without direct examination and cross-examination.
- Procedural fairness at the appellate stage is essential to the right to a fair trial and cannot be satisfied by documentary review alone.
- States must apply their own procedural rules; failure to do so compounds the Convention violation.
Why It Matters
This judgment reinforces a critical protection in appellate criminal procedure: the right to be heard and to have the court directly assess evidence when facing conviction on appeal. For jurisdictions where appellate courts frequently review and reverse lower-court acquittals, this ruling clarifies that efficiency cannot override the fairness requirement to re-examine key evidence and witnesses. The decision underscores that credibility findings—inherently based on demeanor, tone, and responsiveness—must be made by judges who see and question the witnesses, not by judges reading transcripts.
The award of EUR 3,500 per applicant in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 2,500 jointly for costs reflects the Court’s assessment of the seriousness of the procedural violation. For practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder that appellate standards for criminal convictions—especially reversals of acquittals—are strict under the Convention, and member states cannot use summary procedures when overturning acquittals and imposing guilt for the first time.