Conviction on appeal without rehearing witnesses: Matei and Others v. the Republic of Moldova

Introduction

On 16 July 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee, delivered its judgment in Matei and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (Application no. 49015/16, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0716JUD004901516). The case was brought by three Moldovan nationals who had been minors at the time of the alleged offence and who were ultimately convicted on appeal of the sexual assault of a child under the age of 14, despite having been acquitted at first instance.

The central question before the Court was whether the appellate proceedings in Moldova satisfied the fair-trial guarantees enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, the applicants argued that the Chișinău Court of Appeal had violated their right to a fair trial by convicting them without hearing anew the victim and the principal witnesses whose credibility had been directly contested by the prosecutor in his appeal.

The judgment adds to a line of Moldovan cases in which the Court has examined the compatibility of appellate conviction procedures with Convention standards, and it reaffirms principles that have been articulated in earlier decisions referenced within the judgment itself.

Background and procedural history

The applicants, who were minors at the time of the alleged act, faced charges of sexual assault of a minor under the age of 14. The first-instance court conducted a thorough evidentiary process: it heard the victim, the applicants themselves, an expert, and numerous witnesses, and it examined all available evidence before acquitting the applicants.

The prosecutor appealed against the acquittal, expressly identifying multiple inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and of several witnesses, which he considered decisive for establishing the applicants' guilt. The Chișinău Court of Appeal accepted the prosecutor's appeal, reversed the acquittal, and found the applicants guilty as charged. In doing so, however, the appellate court did not hear anew the victim or the witnesses whose testimony the prosecutor had specifically challenged. Instead, it confined itself to reading out their statements as recorded in the case file.

The applicants challenged this approach before the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that the Code of Criminal Procedure required the appellate court to conduct a fully-fledged hearing, including the direct examination of all main witnesses, before reversing an acquittal. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the appellate court's judgment, prompting the applicants to bring their complaint to Strasbourg.

The Court's legal assessment under Article 6 § 1

The Court first confirmed that the complaint was admissible, finding it not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and not inadmissible on any other grounds.

In setting out the applicable legal framework, the Court referred to the general principles it had previously summarised in Dan v. Moldova (no. 8999/07, 5 July 2011), Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 72164/14, 16 June 2020), and Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2) (no. 57575/14, 10 November 2020). The core principle, as restated in the judgment, is that where an appellate court is called upon to examine a case as to both the facts and the law and to make a full assessment of the question of guilt or innocence, it cannot, as a matter of fair trial, properly determine those issues without a direct assessment of the evidence.

Applying those principles to the facts, the Court found that the issues the Court of Appeal had to resolve when convicting and sentencing the applicants — and thereby overturning the first-instance acquittal — could not properly have been examined without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the witnesses and the victim. The Court emphasised that the question of whether the applicants had committed the alleged sexual assault depended essentially on the credibility of the witnesses and the victim, and that credibility could not be fully assessed by a mere reading of their statements as recorded in the file.

The Court further observed that the manner in which the Chișinău Court of Appeal conducted the proceedings appeared to be at odds with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with the guidelines set out in the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice's explanatory judgment no. 22 of 12 December 2005. According to those domestic instruments, as noted in the judgment, an appeal court cannot order a conviction for the first time after an acquittal without hearing the accused and without the direct administration of evidence. The Court found that the appellate proceedings therefore fell short of the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and it declared that there had been a violation of that provision.

Other complaints raised by the applicants

In addition to their Article 6 § 1 complaint, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 6 §§ 2 and 3 (d) of the Convention. They argued that, although the prosecutor had expressly pointed out multiple inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and several witnesses in his appeal — inconsistencies he considered decisive for the conviction — the appellate court had refused to rehear the victim without providing any reasoning for that refusal.

The judgment records these additional complaints but does not set out a separate substantive assessment of them beyond what is described in the subject-matter section of the document. The primary finding of the Court, as detailed above, rests on the Article 6 § 1 fair-trial violation.

Significance of the judgment

This judgment is consistent with the Court's established approach to appellate proceedings in which a conviction replaces an acquittal. The Court has consistently held that where the determination of guilt depends on an assessment of witness credibility, the appellate court must afford the accused the procedural safeguard of a direct, live examination of those witnesses rather than relying solely on written records.

The case is also notable because the Court explicitly acknowledged that the domestic legal framework — both the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice's explanatory judgment no. 22 of 12 December 2005 — already contained requirements that aligned with Convention standards. The violation arose not from a deficiency in the written law but from the manner in which the appellate court applied, or failed to apply, those domestic rules in practice.

For practitioners and institutions engaged with the Moldovan legal system or with comparable appellate structures in other Council of Europe member states, the judgment underscores that the obligation to rehear witnesses before reversing an acquittal is not a mere procedural formality. It is a substantive requirement of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and its omission will, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a violation of that right.

The judgment was final as of its delivery on 16 July 2026, though the Court noted it may be subject to editorial revision.

Conclusion

In Matei and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Chișinău Court of Appeal violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by convicting the applicants and reversing their first-instance acquittal without directly rehearing the victim and the main witnesses. The Court grounded its finding in the principle that, where guilt or innocence depends essentially on witness credibility, a fair trial requires a direct assessment of that evidence rather than a reading of written statements from the case file.

The judgment reinforces a well-established line of authority concerning Moldova and serves as a reminder to appellate courts across the Council of Europe that procedural shortcuts in the reversal of acquittals carry significant human rights consequences. Institutions and legal professionals working in this area should be attentive to the procedural requirements that flow from Article 6 § 1 whenever an appellate court is asked to make a fresh determination of guilt.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources consulted

• CASE OF MATEI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe