The applicant was convicted of raping a 17-year-old girl, and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he was not able to examine the main witness, (i.e. the victim), in the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6(1) and 6(3)(d) (right to a fair trial and to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).

The Court considered that Mr Demski’s conviction had been to a decisive extent based on the depositions of the victim, who was residing abroad – that, though were whereabouts were known, the authorities had failed to make every reasonable effort to obtain her attendance at the trial. Although taking into consideration that special features of criminal proceedings concerning rape might require balancing the needs of the defence against those of witnesses or victims called upon to testify, the Court felt that arrangements could have been made to allow the victim to give evidence in a manner which would have protected her from the ordeal of an adversarial procedure and also respecting the rights of the defence. This decision is in accordance with a House of Lords case: R v A (Sexual Offence: Complainant’s Sexual History.

The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) taken together with Article 6(3)(d) of the ECHR, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.