McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Carana]

@ G-Unit

Just thinking... I'm not sure that 277/1 could be the speed-dial version of an acquittal.

If a case goes to trial and is dismissed within hours for lack of grounds, wouldn't that also be a res judicata?

[Carana]

It is complicated...but if what amaral was saying was true...then there would be a pending criminal investigation...and if it wasnt true....then its defamation

Read the whole thing.

I'm not sure whether there are grounds or not, in there. I was simply surprised that cases taken into consideration went beyond what I'd originally assumed.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The McCanns certainly wanted a review of the Portuguese evidence, but I have seen nothing to suggest that they wanted the Portuguese to do it.

Why did the PJ speak to the McCanns after speaking to Rowley et al?

in meeting with Gerry and Kate McCann, and the lawyers of the couple, the PJ asked for "absolute silence" about the investigation.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id466.htm

Why would the PJ tell them informally or formally that the PJ had discarded their involvement? The archiving dispatch had, allegedly, already done that by using 277/1.

Indeed they could have had that archive re opened anytime. Interestingly enough they also asked LP for info they had on them- this was refused. And they instructed PI's to find out what the police had found out by 'illegally investigating' ...

[Carana]

Indeed they could have had that archive re opened anytime. Interestingly enough they also asked LP for info they had on them- this was refused. And they instructed PI's to find out what the police had found out by 'illegally investigating' ...

Without a professional review to justify potential avenues?

[Miss Taken Identity]

Without a professional review to justify potential avenues?

We only have the word of the McCanns and their supporters telling us they didn't look for Madeleine,  almost but nearly and would have-tried to torture Kate and throw her in Jail, and never bothered to look at any other theory. So based on THAT.. I can't really say...

 The parents were of no real help to the investigation as the PJ have mentioned they didn't believe the abduction due to the story Kate gave. I agree with them on that point.

[slartibartfast]

277/1 doesn't require 'no evidence' it requires 'sufficient evidence'. In my opinion saying there's no evidence that the arguido committed a crime is not the same as saying there's sufficient evidence to show that the arguido committed no crime.

Agreed, 1 needs evidence of innocence. As the crime was unknown, logically there can be no evidence of innocence.

[Mr Gray]

Agreed, 1 needs evidence of innocence. As the crime was unknown, logically there can be no evidence of innocence.

then how can the McCanns be expected to prove their innocence...as was expected by the archiving report...if the crime is unknown

[Miss Taken Identity]

then how can the McCanns be expected to prove their innocence...as was expected by the archiving report...if the crime is unknown

They were suspicious of the McCanns and their behaviour. they may still hold those suspicions but as it is only a theory, they refused  to co operate fully. kate with her refusal to answer questions and the reconstitution...

[Mr Gray]

They were suspicious of the McCanns and their behaviour. they may still hold those suspicions but as it is only a theory, they refused  to co operate fully. kate with her refusal to answer questions and the reconstitution...

you have not addressed the question I raised

[G-Unit]

Ok.

But I'm still perplexed at their assertion that it couldn't have been opened under the 277/1 decision, when it certainly seems that it was. Did they check? Did the AG get it wrong?

If it was indeed reopened under 277/1 - "no evidence" / equivalent of a dismissal for lack of grounds, then why wouldn't that affect the superiority of Amaral's rights of theirs?

I'm aware that "presumption of innocence" is usually associated with rights to a fair trial, which was no longer the case when his book hit the shelves of booksellers nationwide, preceded by the usual marketing promo, as it had been archived just 3 days previously.

However, a few days ago, I noticed this from the ECHR library and posted a link to it, but I doubt anyone noticed it.

Section starting on p. 80 of the pdf (p. 78 of the doc).

Article 6 §2: presumption of innocence
https://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/Vitkauskas2012_EN.pdf

I don't know quite know whether this case would fit into this wider spectrum of cases considered or not. Even if it doesn't, it might have justified an application, IMO.

That looks like another mind-numbing read. I'll save it for later I think. Please note the prosecutor says 'no evidence' but 277/1 requires 'sufficient evidence'.

[Carana]

We only have the word of the McCanns and their supporters telling us they didn't look for Madeleine,  almost but nearly and would have-tried to torture Kate and throw her in Jail, and never bothered to look at any other theory. So based on THAT.. I can't really say...

 The parents were of no real help to the investigation as the PJ have mentioned they didn't believe the abduction due to the story Kate gave. I agree with them on that point.

They might never have had the Smith efits (whatever they're worth in reality) without the PIs' engaged on behalf of the Madeleine Fund. And perhaps other information, some of which might have been useful.

[Mr Gray]

Ageyevy v. Russia
18 April 2013
In 2008 the applicants, a married couple, adopted two small children (a boy and a girl).
Following an incident in March 2009 in which the boy was badly burnt at home and had
to go to hospital for treatment, the authorities took the children into care as they
suspected abuse. The mother complained in particular that the Russian courts had failed
to protect her reputation in defamation proceedings she had instituted in respect of
media reports describing her alleged ill-treatment of her son.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention on account of the Russian courts’ failure to protect the mother’s
right to reputation in the defamation proceedings against the media company concerned,
as it was not convinced that the reasons advanced by the courts regarding the protection
of the freedom of expression of the media company had outweighed the mother’s rights
to have her reputation and right to the presumption of innocence safeguarded. It was in
particular not evident that the domestic courts in the defamation proceedings had
attached any importance to the right to the presumption of innocence. Nor had they
examined closely whether the journalists had acted in good faith and had provided
reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. Moreover,
even though nothing in the case-file suggested that the journalists had not been acting
in good faith, they had obviously failed to take the necessary steps to report the incident
in an objective and rigorous manner, trying instead either to exaggerate or oversimplify
the underlying reality.

some interesting points there



this is a CIVIL case of defamation where the ECHR criticise the domestic court for not upholding the presumption of innocence...how interesting........The mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence which the SC denied them

I have posted this before and it states taht the domestic court did not attach any importance to the presumption of innocence...during the defamation proceedings...that looks pretty clear to me

[Carana]

Agreed, 1 needs evidence of innocence. As the crime was unknown, logically there can be no evidence of innocence.

Evidence of innocence? How could there be, unless they all had an alibi that they were 3000km away at the time?

They needed sufficient evidence to conclude that they weren't involved in whatever crime was committed against their daughter. Assuming there was no likelihood that she walked and wandered and fell down some huge hole and no one checking them that day noticed. From what I've read and been told, that seems somewhat unlikely.

[Carana]

Ageyevy v. Russia
18 April 2013
In 2008 the applicants, a married couple, adopted two small children (a boy and a girl).
Following an incident in March 2009 in which the boy was badly burnt at home and had
to go to hospital for treatment, the authorities took the children into care as they
suspected abuse. The mother complained in particular that the Russian courts had failed
to protect her reputation in defamation proceedings she had instituted in respect of
media reports describing her alleged ill-treatment of her son.
The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private
life) of the Convention on account of the Russian courts’ failure to protect the mother’s
right to reputation in the defamation proceedings against the media company concerned,
as it was not convinced that the reasons advanced by the courts regarding the protection
of the freedom of expression of the media company had outweighed the mother’s rights
to have her reputation and right to the presumption of innocence safeguarded. It was in
particular not evident that the domestic courts in the defamation proceedings had
attached any importance to the right to the presumption of innocence. Nor had they
examined closely whether the journalists had acted in good faith and had provided
reliable and precise information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. Moreover,
even though nothing in the case-file suggested that the journalists had not been acting
in good faith, they had obviously failed to take the necessary steps to report the incident
in an objective and rigorous manner, trying instead either to exaggerate or oversimplify
the underlying reality.

some interesting points there



this is a CIVIL case of defamation where the ECHR criticise the domestic court for not upholding the presumption of innocence...how interesting........The mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence which the SC denied them

I have posted this before and it states taht the domestic court did not attach any importance to the presumption of innocence...during the defamation proceedings...that looks pretty clear to me

What's the broader context? Was there an ongoing criminal investigation at the time?

[G-Unit]

@ G-Unit

Just thinking... I'm not sure that 277/1 could be the speed-dial version of an acquittal.

If a case goes to trial and is dismissed within hours for lack of grounds, wouldn't that also be a res judicata?

In my opinion that's what Duarte was claiming;

Article 282 - Duration and effects of suspension

3 - If the arguido complies with the injunctions and rules of behaviour, the Public Ministry closes the processes that cannot be reopened.

Article 449 - Reasons and admissibility of the review

2 - For the purpose of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the dispatch terminating the process shall be equated with the sentence (made res judicata).
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htm