Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia
11 October 2004
Facts
The premises and offices of the applicants were searched by the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau and some documents and personal items not related to the objectives indicated in the search warrant were consequently seized. The applicants requested to return the documents but the Bureau refused. The applicants complained about the refusal to the prosecutor’s office, but were unable to appeal the negative decision of the Prosecutor General in the court.
Complaint
The applicants complained that their rights to fair trial were violated as they were not able to appeal the decision of the Prosecutor General in court.
Court’s ruling
The Court emphasized that the right to access to courts is not absolute and the proper functioning of the courts would be at risk if all the decisions of the investigators would be under the control of the court. Similarly it cannot be considered a duty of courts to resolve the issues connected with the evidence before the actual trial has begun. The Court considered that the legislation provided an effective mechanism of complaints of the activities of the investigators in pre-trial stage – a person who considered that his or her rights had been violated could complain to the supervising prosecutor and consequently to a higher prosecutor. Therefore it found no violation of the right to fair trial.