Communication No. 387/1989 Submitted by: Arvo O. Karttunen (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 2 November 1989 Alleged victim: The author State party: Finland Date of adoption of Views: 23 October 1992 (forty-sixth session) Subject matter: Notion of “Impartiality” of the Court Procedural remedies issue: Exhaustion of court, which subsequently considers the case. The court’s decisions are usually adopted by consensus. In the event of a split decision, the career judge casts the decisive vote. domestic Substantive issues: Impartial tribunal—Fair trial—Public hearing—Equality of arms 2.3 In Mr. Karttunen’s case, the court consisted of one career judge and five lay judges. One lay judge, V. S., was the uncle of E. M., who himself was a partner of the Säkhöjohto Ltd. Partnership Company, which appeared as a complainant against the author. While interrogating the author’s wife, who testified as a witness, V. S. allegedly interrupted her by saying “She is lying”. The remark does not, however, appear in the trial transcript or other court documents. Another lay judge, T. R., allegedly was indirectly involved in the case prior to the trial, since her brother was a member of the board of the Rääkkyla Cooperative Bank at the time when the author was a client of the Bank; the brother resigned from the board with effect of 1 January 1984. In July 1986, the Bank also appeared as a complainant against the author. Article of the Covenant: 14(1) Article of the Optional Protocol: 5(2)(b) Rules of procedures: Rule 94(3) Individual opinion: Dissenting Mr. Bertil Wennegren opinion by 1. The author of the communication is Arvo O. Karttunen, a Finnish citizen residing in Helsinki, Finland. He claims to be a victim of violations by Finland of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel. 2.4 The author did not challenge the two lay judges in the proceedings before the District Court; he did raise the issue before the Court of Appeal. He also requested that the proceedings at the appellate stage be public. The Court of Appeal, however, after having re-evaluated the evidence in toto, held that whereas V. S. should have been barred from acting as a lay judge in the author’s case pursuant to Section 13, paragraph 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the judgement of the District Court had not been adversely affected by this defect. It moreover found that T. R. was not barred from participating in the proceedings, since her brother’s resignation from the board of the Rääkkyla Cooperative Bank had been effective on 1 January 1984, long before the start of the trial. The Court of Appeal’s judgement of 31 March 1988 therefore upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the author’s request for a public hearing. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author was a client of the Rääkkyla Cooperative Bank, which financed his business activities through regular disbursement of loans. In July 1983, he declared bankruptcy, and on 23 July 1986 he was convicted on a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy by the Rääkkyla District Court and sentenced to 13 months of imprisonment. The Itä-Suomi Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal for Eastern Finland) confirmed the judgment of first instance on 31 March 1988. On 10 October 1988, the Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. 2.2 Finnish district courts are composed of one professional judge and five to seven lay judges, who serve in the same judicial capacity as the career judge. The latter normally prepares the court’s decision and presents it to the full 108