Trial in absentia

Trial in absentia is a criminal proceeding in a court of law in which the person who is subject to it is not physically present at those proceedings. In absentia is Latin for "in the absence". Its meaning varies by jurisdiction and legal system.

In common law legal systems, the phrase is more than a spatial description. In these systems it suggests a recognition of a violation to a defendant's right to be present in court proceedings in a criminal trial. Conviction in a trial in which a defendant is not present to answer the charges is held to be a violation of natural justice. Specifically, it violates the second principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem (hear the other party).

In some civil law legal systems, such as that of Italy, absentia is a recognized and accepted defensive strategy. Such trials may require the presence of the defendant's lawyer, depending on the country.


Signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights

Member states of the Council of Europe that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights are bound to adhere to Article 6 of The Convention, which protects the right to a fair trial.

Trials in absentia are banned in some member states of the EU and permitted in others, posing significant problems for the fluidity of mutual recognition of these judicial judgments. The executing member states possesses some degree of discretion and is not obliged to execute a European Arrest Warrant if the country that is making the request has already tried that person in absentia.

Conditions under which trials in absentia must be recognised include: if the person can be said to have been aware of the trial; if a counsellor took their place at the trial; if they do not request an appeal in due time; and if they are to be offered an appeal. [1]

The Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant provides for the legal guarantees relevant to trials in absentia. While the Framework Decision explicitly refers to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, its purpose is not to harmonise national laws on trials in absentia but to provide terms for the non-recognition of an EAW (European Arrest Warrant) and other cooperative tools. The Framework Decision provides detailed conditions and requirements on which a trial in absentia can be considered compatible with Article 6, the right to a fair trial.[2]

According to Pieter Cleppe of the think-tank Open Europe, in parts of Europe, in absentia trials essentially give defendants the ability to appeal twice — asking for a retrial at which they would be present and then potentially appealing the second verdict.

There are some guarantees in the legal system that make sure that it's fair, that the rights of the defense are not being violated, while still making sure that justice is being done. In absentia judgments are common[...] you can criticize that, but it's quite common.
Pieter Cleppe, Open Europe[3]

The Council of Europe has made commentary on judgments that are made in absentia. The Committee of Ministers, in Resolution (75) 11, of 21 May 1975, stated that an individual must first be effectively served with a summons prior to being tried. In this sense, the ministers are emphasizing that it is not the presence of the accused at the hearing that is of importance, rather the focus should be on whether or not the individual was informed of the trial in time.

In a 1985 judgement in the case Colozza v Italy, the European Court of Human Rights stressed that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled to take part in the hearings. This entitlement is based on the right to a fair trial and the right to a defence, both of which are required by The Convention (Articles 6(1) and 6(3)). Furthermore, the court stressed that a person convicted in absentia shall be entitled to a fresh trial once he becomes aware of the proceedings:[4]

When domestic law permits a trial to be held notwithstanding the absence of a person "charged with a criminal offence" who is in Mr. Colozza’s position, that person should, once he becomes aware of the proceedings, be able to obtain, from a court which has heard him, a fresh determination of the merits of the charge.
European Court of Human Rights, Colozza vs. Italy[5]


The Human Rights Committee (HRC) examined Monguya Mbenge v. Zaire (1990) in which the applicant was sentenced to death while exiled in Belgium and was only able to learn of the case against him through the media. Due to these circumstances, the Committee found that a number of the applicant’s procedural rights had been violated, especially in consideration of the fact that the Crown had hardly attempted to contact the applicant despite possible knowledge of the applicant’s address. This highly impeded the applicant’s capacity to prepare any form of defense. Failed evidence to support the case that a court had tried to inform the accused of proceedings against him/her provides the Committee with the opinion that the right to be tried in one’s presence was violated.[6]

Czech Republic

Under Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms of the Czech Republic, which has the same legal standing as the Czech Constitution, no one may be prosecuted or deprived of their liberty except on grounds and in a manner specified by law.[7]

In general, the Czech Criminal Procedural Code requires the presence of the defendant in any criminal proceedings. The Code recognizes the following exemptions from this rule, when criminal proceedings may be conducted without the presence of the person charged:[8]

  • When confiscating property involved in criminal case from an unknown owner, the property confiscated will remain the property of the unknown owner pending a trial and a court decision to transfer the property confiscated to the state. An example could arise where the property to be confiscated might endanger people, property or society, or might be used for commission of a felony. Typically, this concerns prohibited weapons or ammunition, explosives, narcotics, poisons, etc., seized by the police without, at the time of the seizure, knowing the owner's identity.[10]

Apart from the aforementioned cases of in absentia proceedings in the narrow sense, the defendant may also be absent during the trial under following circumstances:


Italy is one of several countries in Europe that allow trials in absentia.[18]

Trials in absentia are ‘not infrequently held in Italy’.[19]

In Maleki v Italy (1997), The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that the Italian policy on trials in absentia was a breach of the right to fair trial under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Italy argued that where a defendant in absentia is represented by court-appointed counsel and where he or she has an opportunity to be re-tried, the right to a fair trial will not be violated. However the Committee disagreed, describing Italy’s position as

clearly insufficient to lift the burden placed on the State party if it is to justify trying an accused in absentia. It was incumbent on the court that tried the case to verify that [Maleki] had been informed of the pending case before proceeding to hold the trial in absentia. Failing evidence that the court did so, the [HRC] is of the opinion that [Maleki's] right to be tried in his presence was violated.[20]

In 2009, a former CIA station chief and two other Americans were tried and convicted in absentia by a Milan appeals court for the abduction of Egyptian terror suspect Osama Hassan Mustafa Nasr. The decision meant that 26 Americans tried in absentia for the abduction were found guilty.[21]

The highly publicised trial of American Amanda Knox for the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher has highlighted the issue of Italy’s willingness to try defendants in absentia. In 2013 the Italy’s highest court, the Court of Cassation decided to annul Knox’s appeal (alongside the co-accused, Italian Raffaele Sollecito) thus overturning their previous acquittals, declaring the acquittal as "full of deficiencies, contradictions and illogical conclusions".[22]

As Amanda Knox remained at her home in the United States, her appeal was heard in absentia, in Florence, Italy. On 30 January 2014 her guilty verdict was re-instated for the murder of Kercher and her sentence set at 28 years and six months imprisonment.[23]

In the case of Goddi v. Italy, the Strasbourg Court held that the failure of Italy’s judiciary to inform the officially appointed lawyer of the applicant in regards to the correct date of the trial hearing deprived the applicant of an effective defence, and therefore Article 6 (3) (c) had been violated.[24]

Certain case law supports the notion that in some circumstances representation by counsel at the trial will not be enough to make an in absentia conviction conclusive enough for the establishment of probable cause. In Gallina v Fraser, the appellant Vincenzo Gallina was convicted in absentia according to established Italian procedure for two robberies. The verdict in Gallina has been since interpreted to suggest that the presence of legal counsel alone is in certain cases, insufficient to give an in absentia conviction that establishes probable cause.

United States of America

For more than 100 years, courts in the United States have held that, according to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant's right to appear in person at their trial, as a matter of due process, is protected under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

In 1884, the Supreme Court of the United States held that

the legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution.

Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884).

A similar holding was announced by the Arizona Court of Appeals in 2004 (based on Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure):

A voluntary waiver of the right to be present requires true freedom of choice. A trial court may infer that a defendant's absence from trial is voluntary and constitutes a waiver if a defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, the right to be present, and had received a warning that the proceeding would take place in their absence if they failed to appear. The courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.

State v. Whitley, 85 P.3d 116 (2004) (Depublished Opinion).

Although United States Congress codified this right by approving Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946 and amended the Rule in 1973, the right is not absolute.

Rule 43 provides that a defendant shall be present

However, the following exceptions are included in the Rule:

Indeed, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have recognized that a defendant may forfeit the right to be present at trial through disruptive behavior,[25] or through his or her voluntary absence after trial has begun.[26]

In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited Rule 43 in the case of Crosby v. United States.[27] The Court unanimously held, in an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, that Rule 43 does not permit the trial in absentia of a defendant who is absent at the beginning of trial.

This case requires us to decide whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43 permits the trial in absentia of a defendant who absconds prior to trial and is absent at its beginning. We hold that it does not. ...The Rule declares explicitly: "The defendant shall be present . . . at every stage of the trial . . . except as otherwise provided by this rule" (emphasis added). The list of situations in which the trial may proceed without the defendant is marked as exclusive not by the "expression of one" circumstance, but rather by the express use of a limiting phrase. In that respect the language and structure of the Rule could not be more clear."

However, the Crosby Court reiterated an 80-year-old precedent that

Where the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, . . . if, after the trial has begun in his presence, he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present and leaves the court free to proceed with the trial in like manner and with like effect as if he were present. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. at 455 [1912] (emphasis added).

Some state laws provide for automatic retrial of fugitives who are arrested after being convicted in absentia.[28]


Examples of people convicted in absentia are:

See also

Look up in absentia in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


  1. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-09-05. Retrieved 2014-07-22.
  2. Martin Bose. ""Harmonizing procedural rights indirectly: The Framework Decision on trials in absentia"" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  3. Alan Greenblatt (2013-03-26). "Knox Or Not: Plenty Of Cases Are Tried Without A Defendant". NPR. Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  4. Keller, Helen & Sweet, Alec Stone (2008), A Europe of Rights:The Impact of the Echr on National Legal Systems, Oxford University Press
  5. Colozza v. Italy (appl. no. 9024/80), Judgement (Chamber), 12 February 1985, Series A, Vol. 89
  6. Goodman, Ryan (2014-01-18). "Trials in Absentia Under International, Domestic and Lebanese Law". Just Security. Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  7. "Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 2 (1993). Retrieved July 9, 2013.
  8. Císařová, Dagmar (2006), Trestní právo procesní, Prague: Linde Praha a.s.
  9. Šámal, Pavel (2013), Trestní řád I., II., III. (7th ed.), Prague: C. H. Beck, pp. 1977–1983
  10. Šámal, Pavel, Trestní zákoník (2nd ed.), Prague: C. H. Beck, pp. 1195–1209
  11. "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 8, 2013. §302
  12. "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 8, 2013. §303
  13. "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 8, 2013. §304
  14. "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 8, 2013. §306
  15. "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 8, 2013. §306a
  16. 1 2 "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 12, 2013. §202
  17. "Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic". Collection of the laws of the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague. 141 (1961). Retrieved July 12, 2013. §204
  18. "General Information" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  19. "Trials in Absentia". Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  20. Chris Jenks (2009). "Notice Otherwise Given: Will in Absentia Trials at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon Violate Human Rights?" (PDF). Fordham International Law Journal. 33. Retrieved 2016-09-18.
  21. "Italian court convicts CIA trio in kidnap". NY Daily News. Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  22. "Amanda Knox is a no-show as new trial for murder begins in Italy". NBC News. Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  23. 1 2 Natanson, Phoebe (2014-01-30). "Amanda Knox 'Frightened' By Guilty Verdict and 28 Year Sentence - ABC News". Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  24. "Keane" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-09-07.
  25. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970)
  26. Taylor v. United States (1973), 414 U.S. 17 (1973)
  27. 506 U.S. 255
  28. "Pakistan | Cases against PM's wife withdrawn by NAB". Dawn.Com. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  29. "Craxi: Fallen kingpin". BBC News. 20 January 2000.
  30. Thomas, Robert McG. "Boleslavs Maikovskis, 92; Fled War-Crimes Investigation". The New York Times. 8 May 1996. Retrieved 4 December 2009.
  31. Ware, From CNN Correspondent Michael. "U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber  -". Retrieved 7 September 2016.
  32. "Agent of Chilean Secret Service Convicted of Murder Attempt". UPI. 11 March 1993.
  33. From CNN Correspondent Michael Ware (22 February 2007). "U.S. military: Iraqi lawmaker is U.S. Embassy bomber". Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  34. Blair, David (12 April 2008). "Embassy bomber given Iraq coalition seat". Telegraph. Retrieved 8 November 2010.
  35. Russia Today – Georgian ex-minister gets 11 year sentence (28 March 2008)
  36. Dansker nægtes medicin i rumænsk fængsel, by Michala Rask Mikkelsen, Berlingske Nyhedsbureau, March 7 - 2012
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/12/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.