El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos determino la Violación del derecho de Erwin Sperisen a un juicio justo debido a la falta de imparcialidad del presidente de la sala del tribunal de apelación que lo condenó a 15 años de prisión
El ex Director General de la Policía Nacional Civil (PNC) de Guatemala. Está actualmente encarcelado en Krauchthal (Suiza)
La extinta CICIG, precedió por una campaña de difamación sistemática contra Sperisen y Guatemala. Dall´Anese en Suiza se presto a mentir y con sociedad, del Procurador General de Ginebra, Yves Bertossa, hijo, por cierto, nada menos que de unos de los fundadores de la ONG TRIAL, la que es financiada por George Soros. Esto Demuestra que la justicia de Suiza es una de las más corruptas del mundo. Que responde a intereses Socialistas Globales
Los jueces del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos TEDH, con sede en Estrasburgo (Francia), consideraron, en una sentencia publicada este martes, que una de las observaciones de la magistrada justifican “objetivamente” los temores de Sperisen sobre una posible falta de imparcialidad.
Basándose en el artículo 6.1 (derecho a un tribunal imparcial), el demandante alegó parcialidad del presidente de la Cámara de Apelaciones de Ginebra, debido a ciertos términos que había utilizado en la orden de 18 de julio de 2017 y en sus observaciones de 3 de octubre de 2017. Basándose en el artículo 3 de prohibición de trato degradante
Por ello, consideran que hubo una violación del artículo 6.1 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que garantiza el derecho a un tribunal imparcial, y ordena a Suiza que pague al demandante la suma de 15.000 euros en concepto de gastos.
Other Articles
In view of its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considered that it was
not necessary to examine separately the admissibility or merits of the other complaints under
Article 6.
With regard to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court noted, as had the
Government, that the applicant had not raised the complaint concerning his conditions of detention
before the CPAR. This complaint was therefore inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies.
With regard to the alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court reiterated that the
period of detention to be taken into consideration under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention started
when a person was arrested or remanded in custody and ended when he or she was released and/or
the charge was determined. In the present case, this period had ended on 27 April 2018, the date on
which the CPAR had convicted the applicant after re-examining his criminal case on appeal. The
applicant had lodged his application with the Court on 27 May 2020, well outside the six-month
time-limit, and his complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention was therefore inadmissible as
being lodged out of time.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 constituted sufficient just
satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and that Switzerland
was to pay him 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses.
