Judgment Vasile Pruteanu and Others v. Romania - absent witnesses in trafficking trial

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 014 (2025)   14.01.2025   Absent witnesses in Romanian massage-parlour trial did not breach   defence rights   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Vasile Pruteanu and Others v. Romania (application   no. 9308/18) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial/right to obtain attendance and   examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned proceedings brought against a couple and their son, who owned three massage   parlours in Romania, for pimping and human trafficking. They alleged that their convictions had not   been fair because key witnesses – women they had recruited in the Republic of Moldova – had never   been examined directly in the Romanian courts.   The Court found that there had been sufficient counterbalancing factors to compensate for the lack   of opportunity to directly examine certain witnesses at trial. In particular, there had been other   evidence corroborating the fact that the applicants had facilitated sexual acts in their massage   parlours, notably that they had transported their Moldovan victims to Romania under the pretence   of lawful employment and threatened them into prostitution. Moreover, the national courts’   decisions to accept absent-witness statements had been thorough, and based on an exhaustive   examination of the evidence and of all the arguments raised. Overall, the proceedings against the   couple and their son had been fair.   Principal facts   The applicants are three Romanian nationals: Vasile and Tatiana Pruteanu, born in 1960 and 1965,   and their son, Vasile Pruteanu, born in 1987. They live in Braşov and Săcele (Romania).   The applicants owned three massage parlours in Romania. In February 2013 they were tried on   charges of pimping and human trafficking. They were suspected of facilitating erotic massages and   sexual intercourse, involving in particular masseuses recruited in the Republic of Moldova.   Ultimately, in a decision of June 2016, the courts found that the applicants had recruited women in   the Republic of Moldova, promising them jobs, food, lodging and help with obtaining visas, and had   then made them work as masseuses in their parlours, putting them under pressure to have sexual   intercourse with clients. The applicant couple were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, while   their son was given a two-year suspended sentence.   The courts based their findings on witness statements given in court by two Moldovan masseuses   who had become civil parties to the proceedings, some 20 other – mainly Romanian – masseuses, as   well as 11 clients of the parlours. Other evidence included: advertisements in Moldovan and   Romanian newspapers; transcripts of the applicants’ telephone conversations; social media   discussions between clients of the massage parlours; reports written by undercover police officers;   and items seized from the massage parlours, notably condoms and sex toys.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Statements made by three other Moldovan masseuses (also civil-party witnesses) and a protected   witness referred to as “Maria”, who had all in the meantime left Romania, were also used in the   court proceedings against the applicants.   The applicants argued on appeal that those four witnesses had not been heard in person by the trial   court. One of the three absent civil-party witnesses was eventually interviewed, at the court of   appeal’s request, by a court in the Republic of Moldova, but the other two could not be interviewed   as their whereabouts were unknown. The appeal court repeatedly summoned “Maria”, however she   submitted statements saying that her health did not permit her to relive the trauma she had   suffered at the hands of the applicants.   The Court of Appeal stated in particular that it was satisfied that its decision to accept absent   witness statements had complied with the obligation to protect victims of sexual offences. It relied   on an EU directive and bore in mind the vulnerability of victims of human trafficking and the need to   avoid secondary victimisation. It found, moreover, that the evidence those witnesses had given was   consistent with the statements made by the other women who had worked for the applicants.   As concerned the two absent civil-party witnesses who could not be found, the appeal court pointed   out that their statements had been given to a Moldovan prosecutor, and presented the same   situation as recounted by “Maria” and in the remaining evidence.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial/right to obtain attendance and examination of   witnesses) of the European Convention, the applicants notably complained that the proceedings   leading to their convictions had not been fair as three key witnesses against them had never been   examined directly in court, and another witness had been examined by the Moldovan and not   Romanian courts.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 January 2018.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Lado Chanturia (Georgia), President,   Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),   Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),   Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany),   Ana Maria Guerra Martins (Portugal),   Anne Louise Bormann (Denmark),   Sebastian Răduleţu (Romania),   and also Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Firstly, the Court found that there had been good reasons for the four witnesses not attending the   court proceedings. All were former employees of the applicants’ massage parlours and in need of   protection as alleged victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Indeed, the reason for   “Maria” not attending the trial had been mental and physical health problems resulting from the   trauma of her experience in Romania.   Although the statements of those witnesses had contributed to the applicants’ conviction, they had   not been the sole or decisive evidence in the case. The courts had had a number of other pieces of   evidence allowing them to conclude that the applicants had facilitated sexual acts in their massage   parlours. Furthermore, the evidence showed that the applicants had transported their Moldovan   2 victims to Romania under the pretence of lawful employment, leaving some without identity papers,   and had then monitored them and threatened them into prostitution.   The Court also went on to note that there had been sufficient counterbalancing factors to allow for a   fair and proper assessment of the untested evidence.   Notably, the courts had approached the statements made by the absent witnesses with caution,   only relying on them when it had become clear that the witnesses’ presence in court could not be   ensured and after finding that their statements had been corroborated by other evidence. The   courts had also verified the reliability of the statements by the two witnesses who could not be   found, and had placed them in context in deciding whether to accept them. Moreover, the courts   had recognised the validity of the absent witness statements in the context of Romania’s   international obligations to protect the victims of sexual offences.   Furthermore, the courts had taken sufficient procedural measures to compensate for the lack of   opportunity to directly examine the witnesses at trial. The absent witness statements had been   available in the case file, which the applicants and their counsel had been able to challenge in court.   More generally, the applicants and their counsel had been present and had actively participated in   the court proceedings. The applicants had thus been able to present their defence, giving their own   version of the facts.   Lastly, the national courts’ reasoning behind the decisions to accept absent witness statements had   been thorough. Their decisions had been based on an exhaustive examination of the evidence and of   all the arguments raised.   Consequently, the Court found that, overall, the proceedings had been fair and the defence rights   had not been restricted to the extent that it would find a breach of the guarantees, notably equality   of arms, under Article 6 of the Convention. There had therefore been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1   and 3 (d).   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3