W., A.H., D. and A.L. v Finland - 14151/02 [2011] ECHR 2115 (2 December 2011)

W., A.H., D. and A.L. v Finland - 14151/02 [2011] ECHR 2115 (2 December 2011)

Conviction based solely on videotaped statements without opportunity for the accused to question child witnesses constitutes a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, requiring payment of just satisfaction and adoption of measures to prevent recurrence.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ECHR 2115
Parties
Applicant: W.; Applicant: A. H.; Applicant: D.; Applicant: A. L.; Respondent: Finland
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 December 2011
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Judgment / Execution of Judgment and Closure of Examination
Outcome
Committee of Ministers closed the examination of the cases, finding Finland had complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Legal Topics
Fair Trial, Sexual Abuse of Children, Right to Examine Witnesses
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Fair Trial Sexual Abuse of Children Right to Examine Witnesses

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.

Applicant

A. H.

Applicant

D.

Applicant

A. L.

Applicant

Finland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Judgment / Execution of Judgment and Closure of Examination

  1. 1 Whether criminal proceedings were unfair due to conviction based solely on videotaped statements without opportunity to question child witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

Conviction based solely on videotaped statements without opportunity for the accused to question child witnesses constitutes a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, requiring payment of just satisfaction and adoption of measures to prevent recurrence.

Court Disposition

Committee of Ministers closed the examination of the cases, finding Finland had complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

Orders

  • Payment of just satisfaction to applicants
  • Opportunity for applicants to request reopening of proceedings