The case of Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras v. Spain. Views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated July 14, 2024. Message No. 3305/2019.
In 2019, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Spain.
The author claimed an alleged violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights due to the fact that after the acquittal was handed down by the court of first instance, a higher court issued a guilty verdict, which, in turn, the applicant was unable to appeal due to lack of procedural opportunity. The Committee found a violation of the said provision of the Covenant.
The legal position of the Human Rights Committee: article 14, paragraph 5, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the right of every person convicted of a crime to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher court in accordance with the law. The Committee recalls that this right is violated if the conviction of a person previously acquitted in the first instance cannot be reviewed by a higher court. In other words, the right to review a conviction and sentence cannot be infringed by the fact that a person acquitted in the first instance is convicted on appeal by a court of second instance, even if that court is the highest court (paragraph 5.3 of the Considerations).
The wording of paragraph 5 of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights differs from the wording of paragraph 2 of article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and does not provide for exceptions (paragraph 5.4 of the Considerations).
Even in cases where a conviction rendered in the context of an appeal against an acquittal is based solely on technical grounds, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations, the convicted person has the right to review the conviction and sentence in accordance with the provision set out in paragraph 5 of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paragraph 5.5 of the Considerations).
Assessment by the Human Rights Committee of the factual circumstances of the case: it was established that the court of the province of La Coruna sentenced the author to nine months in prison for insubordination, but acquitted him on charges of criminal negligence resulting in environmental damage. The Human Rights Committee drew attention to the fact that the Supreme Court overturned the author's acquittal for an environmental crime and sentenced him to two years in prison for this crime, as well as overturned his conviction for insubordination, considering that the punishment for him was absorbed by the punishment for an environmental crime.... Regardless of whether the Supreme Court reached new conclusions on the facts or simply assessed legal issues, the Human Rights Committee noted that the author was first convicted in the second instance of a crime in which he was acquitted in the first instance, receiving a more severe sentence, and that he had no opportunity to obtain a review of his conviction. and sentence, as required by the Covenant (paragraph 5.5 of the Considerations).
Conclusions of the Human Rights Committee: The facts presented indicated a violation of paragraph 5 of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.