European Court of Human Rights declares inadmissible an application concerning assessment of evidence in criminal proceedings

On 3 April 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its decision in a case brought against Finland on the basis of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the decision, the ECtHR, unanimously, declared the application inadmissible.

The case concerned the assessment of evidence in proceedings where the applicant, among other offences, had been convicted of two instances of assault jointly with two other persons. In his application to the ECtHR, the applicant alleged that the domestic courts had failed to take into account evidence in his favour and that the reasonings of the courts had been insufficient in this respect. The applicant also contended that his right to examine and have examined witnesses had been violated during the proceedings.

The ECtHR held unanimously that the application did not meet the criteria of admissibility.

Regarding the applicant’s allegation that he had not been given an opportunity to examine and have examined witnesses, the ECtHR found that he had not exhausted all domestic remedies. In respect of witness R, heard by the Court of Appeal, the ECtHR considered the application as manifestly ill-founded.

As to the applicant’s claims concerning the domestic courts’ assessment of evidence and especially the sufficiency of their reasonings, the ECtHR stated that it will not, in principle, intervene in the assessment of evidence and the interpretation of domestic law, unless the decisions of the domestic courts appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable and provided that the proceedings as a whole were fair. The ECtHR pointed out that both the District Court and the Court of Appeal had assessed the reliability of the identification and any factors possibly having an effect on that reliability. The domestic courts’ reasoning explaining on what they had based the applicant’s conviction was sufficient. On these grounds, the ECtHR concluded that the application was manifestly ill-founded in this respect.

The decision is available on the ECtHR websiteLinkki toiselle sivustolle.