WPC  [ @ӌ|H_b؎[ D[ykcV:6 ٦j 1(Cx-wk]^nyEɏ"!PLrkش iD+LPg"oGЛ&òD9 jCzh+6o|RhK2|?fMx^Fx5!U>  0n 0Y 0_u 0i= 0 0( D+ AM' ' ' t t t t t x 0N 0 # UNM % M ( N ^ w 4  m \  `&Times New Roman' A. P. A. v. Spain, Communication No. 433/1989, (1994). "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <:Default ParaXXX64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ g!..      XFXXXXFXXXF  ($'dxd A<< c1#|x(O$(g$..      XXXXXXXXHP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX) Kk)+00U g!..      XFXXXXFXXXF  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  A.P.A.v.Spain | CommunicationNo.433/1990*** H 25March1994  d _CCPR_/C/50/D/433/1990**  0 ADMISSIBILITY    Submittedby:_A.P.A._Ԁ(namedeleted)(representedbycounsel) D  Allegedvictim:Theauthor ` Statepartyconcerned:Spain , Dateofcommunication:13December1990(initialsubmission)    TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenant Z onCivilandPoliticalRights, @ Meetingon25March1994,  \ Adoptsthefollowing: (    Decisiononadmissibility    L1.Theauthorofthecommunicationis_A.P.A._,aSpanishcitizenresidinginMadrid.He <#" claimstobethevictimofaviolationbySpainofarticle14,paragraphs1,2,3(a),(b),(c) "$r# and(e)oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Theauthorisrepresented %X $ bycounsel. %>!% Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor: ' #' 2.1Theauthorwasarrestedon7October1985andchargedwiththerobberyofseveral )$) groceryshops.HewastriedintheDistrictCourt(_Audiencia_ԀProvincial)ofSalamancaon l*%* 7June1986,foundguiltyaschargedandsentencedtofouryears,twomonthsandoneday R+&+ ofimprisonment. 8,',  -n(- 2.2TheauthorcontendsthattheproceedingsbeforetheDistrictCourtsufferedfromvarious  proceduraldefects.Throughoutthetrialhemaintainedhisinnocence,arguingthathehad  boughtthegroceriesfoundinhispossessionthedaybeforetheallegedoffence.The | prosecutiononlytenderedasevidencestatementsmadebytheauthorduringinterrogation. b Thecourtallegedlyignoredlargepartsoftheevidence,inparticularsomecircumstantial H evidence,withoutgivingreasons.Furthermore,theProsecutorallegedlyonlycross . ~ examinedtheauthorandthe_defence_Ԁwitnessesbutdidnotquestiontheprosecution  d witnesses.Author'scounselprotestedagainstthisandrequestedthatmoreplausibleevidence  J insupportofthechargebeproduced;suchevidencenevermaterialized.  0 2.3TheauthorappealedtotheSupremeCourtofSpainonproceduralgrounds.On2June    1989,theSupremeCourtconfirmedthejudgementoffirstinstance.Allegedlybecauseof   summerholidays,theauthorwasnotnotifiedoftheSupremeCourt'sdecisionuntil11 x  September1989,thatisconsiderablyaftertheexpirationofthedeadlineof20workingdays ^  allowedforthefilingofaconstitutionalmotionagainstthedecision(_recurso_Ԁde_amparo_). D  2.4On15January1990,_A.P.A._ԀappealedtotheConstitutionalTribunal,allegingabreach ` ofarticle24oftheConstitution,whichguaranteestherighttoafairtrial.On26February F 1990,theConstitutionalTribunaldeclaredthe_amparo_inadmissible,asstatutorydeadlines , forthefilingofthemotionhadexpired.  2.5Intheabovecontext,theauthornotesthatduringthemonthofAugust,theSpanish  judicialsystemisvirtually_paralysed_Ԁbecauseofsummerholidays.Forthisreason,article t 304oftheSpanishCivilCodestipulatesthatthemonthofAugustisnotcountedforthe Z purposeofdeterminingdeadlinesforthefilingofappeals.Article2ofanagreement @ (_Acuerdo_Ԁde_Pleno_)of15June1982,however,stipulatesthatforthepurposeofanumber &v ofproceduresbeforetheConstitutionalTribunal,including_amparo_proceedings,August  \ doescountforthedeterminationofsuchdeadlines. B Thecomplaint:  3.ItissubmittedthattheaboverevealsviolationsbySpainoftheauthor'srightsunder   article14,paragraphs1,2,and3(a),(b),(c)and(e)oftheCovenant. p!  TheStateparty'sinformationandobservationsandauthor'scommentsthereon: <#" 4.1Initssubmissionunderrule91oftherulesofprocedure,theStatepartysubmitsthatthe %X $ communicationisinadmissibleonthegroundofnonexhaustionofdomesticremedies.It %>!% referstotheauthor'sownpetitionfor_amparo_,whichstates"on24July1989,theSupreme &$"& Court'sdecisionwasnotifiedtotheprosecutor,whoimmediatelynotifiedtheauthor'slegal ' #' representative".Withthis,theStatepartysubmits,itsobligationsunderarticle438ofthe (#( OrganicLawonJudicialAdministration(Ley_Organica_Ԁdel_Poder_ԀJudicial)havebeen )$) compliedwith.Suchdelaysasoccurredthereafterinthesubmissionoftherequestfor l*%* _amparo_mustbeattributedtotheauthor(respectivelytohislegalrepresentative). R+&+ 4.2TheStatepartyaddsthatiftherequestfor_amparo_wasdismissedasoutoftime,this -n(- mustmean,forpurposesoftheOptionalProtocol,thatdomesticremedieshavenotbeen  exhausted.ReferenceismadeinthiscontexttotheestablishedjurisprudenceoftheEuropean  CommissionofHumanRights. | 4.3Apartfromtheargumentsinparagraphs4.1and4.2above,theStatepartypointsto H contradictionsintheauthor'sownversionofthechronologyofevents.Thus,inawritten . ~ submissiontotheConstitutionalTribunalof20September1989,preparedandsignedby  d _A.P.A._Ԁhimself,itisnotedthat"on24July1989,thispartywasinformedofthecontentof  J thejudgementoftheSecondChamberoftheSupremeCourt"("Quecon_fecha_Ԁ24deJulio  0 de1989,se_notific;_Ԁa_esta_Ԁpartela_sentencia_Ԁ_dictada_Ԁ_por_ԀlaSala_Segunda_ԀdelTribunal    _Supremo_Ԁ...").Besides,theStatepartynotesthatitisimplicitintheauthor'scomplaintabout    the"irrationality"fortheConstitutionalTribunaltositinAugustbecauseofthequasi   impossibilitytoobtainlegaladviceduringthatmonth,thathewasawareofthedecisionof x  theSupremeCourtbeforetheexpiryofthedeadlineforhisrecoursefor_amparo_. ^  4.4Withregardtotheallegedviolationsofarticle14,paragraphs1and2,theStateparty *z  affirmsthatthejudgementoftheSupremeCourtspeaksforitself,inthatitrevealsthatthere ` isnoprimafacieevidenceofaviolationoftherighttoafairtrialorofthepresumptionof F innocence("Lo_expuesto_Ԁ_prueba_Ԁ_una_Ԁ_vez_Ԁ_ms_Ԁla_ligereza_Ԁcon_que_Ԁla_representaci;n_Ԁdelos , _procesados_Ԁ_suelan_Ԁ_apelar_Ԁalfundamental_principio_Ԁde_presunci;n_Ԁde_inocencia_,sinbase  _alguna_,congrave_quebranto_Ԁdel_derecho_Ԁdelos_justiciables_Ԁa_una_Ԁ_pronta_Ԁ_administraci;n_Ԁde  _justicia_").  5.1Inhiscomments,theauthorreaffirmsthattheStatepartydidnotcomplywiththe Z requirementsofarticle160oftheLawgoverningtheinstitutionofcriminalproceedings @ (Leyde_Enjuiciamiento_ԀCriminal),whichstipulatesthatfinaljudgementsmustbenotified &v tothepartiesonthedaytheyarereleased/signed,orattheverylatestthedaythereafter;it  \ issubmittedthattheSupremeCourtdidnotcomplywiththerequirement.4O  5    1G(   _6'(  77=(/_ԀIntheauthor's B opinion,article160mustbeunderstoodtoincludearightofpersonalnotificationofthe ( accused;ittranspiresfromhissubmissionthathedoesnotconsiderthattheinactionorthe  neglectofhiscounselexoneratesthejudicialauthoritiesfromtheirobligationsvisvis  himself.   5.2Theauthorfurthercontendsthattherequirementofnonexhaustionofdomesticremedies V"! inarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolmustbeinterpretedflexibly.Itis <#" submittedthatthepossibilityoffilingarequestfor_amparo_duringthesummervacation "$r# periodshouldnotleadtotheconclusionthatrequestsforamparowhichcouldhavebeen %X $ filedduringthemonthofAugustbutwereinfactfiledoutsidethatperiodmustbedismissed %>!% asbelated.Theauthoralsosubmitsthatthetextoftheagreementof15June1982cannot &$"& supersedeotherformallegislationsettingstatutorydeadlinesforthefilingofappeals. ' #' 5.3Astothepresumedchronologicalinconsistenciesinhisownsubmissions(para.4.3 )$) above),theauthorcontendsthatthedateof"24July1989"clearlyreferstothenotification l*%* oftheSupremeCourtjudgementtohiscounsel,nottohimself. R+&+ 5.4Finally,withrespecttotheinsufficiencyoftheevidenceagainsthim,theauthorrefers -n(- toareportpreparedathisrequestbytwospecialistsincriminalprocedureattheUniversity  ofGranada;thisreportconcludesthatthepickupvan(_furgoneta_)whichaccordingtothe  prosecutionwasusedtotransport_thegoods_Ԁseizedintherobberiesattributedtotheauthor | couldnotpossiblyhavetransportedallthegoods.This,intheauthor'sopinion,underscores b thattherewasnorealevidenceagainsthim,andthathedidnotreceiveafairtrial. H IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee:  d 6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights  0 Committeemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornot    itisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.    6.2TheCommitteehasnotedtheparties'argumentsrelatingtothequestionofexhaustion x  respectivelynonexhaustionofdomesticremedies.ItnotesthatwhilethemonthofAugust ^  doesnotcountforthedeterminationofdeadlinesinthefilingofmostcriminalappeals,it D  doescountunderregulationsgoverning_amparo_proceedingsbeforetheConstitutional *z  Tribunal.Whileitistruethatlocalremedieswithinthemeaningofarticle5,paragraph2(b), ` oftheOptionalProtocolmustonlybeexhaustedtotheextentthattheyarebothavailableand F effective,itisanestablishedprinciplethatanaccusedmustexerciseduediligenceinthe , pursuitofavailableremedies.Inthiscontext,theprinciplethatignoranceofthelawexcuses  noone_ignorantia_Ԁ_iuris_Ԁ_neminem_Ԁ_excusat_alsoappliestoarticle5,paragraph2(b),ofthe  OptionalProtocol.  6.3Intheinstantcase,thedecisionoftheSupremeCourtof2June1989wasdulynotified Z totheauthor'scounsel.Theauthorclaimsthatcounseldidnotinformhimofthisnotification @ untilaftertheexpirationoftheamparoproceedingsdeadline.Nothinginthefilebeforethe &v Committeeindicatesthatauthor'scounselwasnotprivatelyretained.Inthecircumstances,  \ counsel'sinactionorneglectincommunicatingtheSupremeCourt'sjudgementtohisclient B cannotbeattributedtotheStatepartybutmustbeattributedtotheauthor;theCommittee ( doesnotconsiderthat,underarticle14oftheCovenant,itwasincumbentupontheSupreme  Court'sregistryorupontheProsecutor'sofficetodirectlynotifytheauthorpersonallyofthe  decisionof2June1989inthecircumstancesofthecase.Itmust,accordingly,beconcluded   thatlocalremedieswerenotpursuedwiththerequisitediligenceand,therefore,thatthe p!  requirementsofarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptionalProtocolhavenotbeenmet. V"! 7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: "$r# (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissibleunderarticle5,paragraph2(b),oftheOptional %>!% Protocol; &$"& (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtheauthorofthe (#( communication. )$) [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion. R+&+ SubsequentlytobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee's 8,', annualreporttotheGeneralAssembly.] -n(- Ї____________  */Allpersonshandlingthisdocumentarerequestedtorespectandobserveitsconfidential | nature. b **/MadepublicbydecisionoftheHumanRightsCommittee. . ~ ***/Thetextofanindividualopinion,submittedbyMr.Francesco_Aguilar_Ԁisappended  J tothepresentdocument.  0 1/Atthesametime,theauthor'smotherconcedesthattheprocuratorinformedherson's    lawyerintimeofthedecisionoftheSupremeCourt,whereasthelawyerdidnotinform   _A.P.A._Ԁforsometimethereafter. x     Appendix  *z  BCommunicationNo.433/1990 , _A.P.A._ԀagainstSpain  ConcurringOpinionofMr._Aguilar_Ԁ_Urbina_  1.WhileweagreewiththeobservationsoftheHumanRightsCommitteeonthe t communicationinquestion,webelievethatthereisanothersignificantaspectthatshould Z beborneinmindwhenconsideringadmissibility. @ 2.1Itisclearthattheauthorfiledtheamparomotionafterthedeadlineexpired.Theauthor  \ himselfadmittedinhispetitionof20December1989thatontheprevious24Julyhehad B beennotifiedofthejudgementoftheSecondChamberoftheSupremeCourt.Thetermof ( 20workingdayswithinwhichtheauthorhadtofilethemotionshouldbecalculatedasof  thatdate.TheauthoradmitsthathedidnotdosobecausetheSpanishjudicialsystemis  virtuallyparalysedduringthemonthofAugust;byusingtheword"virtually",theauthor's   statementintimatesthatduringtheholidayperiod,notalljudicialofficesareparalysed. p!  2.2Theauthorconcedes,moreover,thattherewasnegligenceoromissiononthepartofhis <#" counsel,butholdsthatthatconductcannotbeimputedtohimself.However,itcannotbe "$r# maintainedthatthesupposednegligenceoftheauthor'slawyercanbeascribedtotheState %X $ partyandnottotheauthorhimself,whoshouldhavemadethenecessaryarrangementsto %>!% taketherequisitestepswithinthetimeperiodsestablishedbylaw. &$"& 3.Itmaybeconcluded,fromthefactsdescribedbytheauthorandtheStateparty,thatthe (#( amparomotionsubmittedtotheConstitutionalTribunalwasrejectedbecauseofnegligence )$) attributabletotheauthor.WethereforeagreewiththeCommitteethatlocalremedieshave l*%* notbeenexhausted.Nevertheless,sincethenonexhaustioncanbeattributedtonegligent R+&+ conductonthepartoftheauthor,inourviewtherighttosubmitcommunicationstothe 8,', HumanRightsCommitteeundertheOptionalProtocolhasalsobeenabused.We -n(- _consequentlybelievethatthecommunicationsubmittedbyMr.AntonioPealverAchaques  isinadmissibleunderthetermsofarticle3oftheOptionalProtocol.  (Signed) b [Original:Spanish]