The applicant, Mr.Khan, was charged with offences related to drug trafficking. The most important evidence used against him in court was record of conversation of him and his friend in that friend’s apartment. Neither Mr.Khan nor his friend knew about the fact that police had tapped the friend’s apartment in relation to a separate investigation. After admission of that tape into the evidence Mr. Khan pleaded guilty.
The applicant alleged the violation of Article 6 of the Convention arising from the use of the unlawfully recorded conversation in his trial.
The Court stated that it must determine whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was obtained, were fair. It noted that the tapping violated the applicant’s right to private life since the interference was not carried out “in accordance with law”. Although the applicant pleaded guilty solely because the tape was admitted into evidence, he was able to challenge its admissibility in all stages of proceedings and there was also no question of its reliability. Therefore the need for corresponding evidence was much weaker. Thus as the proceedings as a whole were not unfair, the Court found no violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial.