BERNARD JUDGMENT OF 23 APRIL 1998 ii SUMMARY1 Judgment delivered by a Chamber France – statements by two psychiatric experts at a trial in an assize court I. GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Submitted that applicant had neglected to ask investigating judge to order independent expert report. Submission referred to expert reports filed during investigation stage, whereas applicant had challenged remarks made by two experts at his trial in the Assize Court. Applicant had raised complaint in question before Assize Court and later before Court of Cassation. Conclusion: objection dismissed (unanimously). II. ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION Reference to Court’s case-law. Purpose of psychiatric examinations: to determine whether applicant was suffering from some mental or psychological disorder, if so whether there was a link between disorders found and offences he stood accused of, and whether he was dangerous. Two experts logically had to start from working hypothesis that he had committed the crimes in question. Their conclusions had been filed during the investigation and contained comments complained of. Before Indictment Division applicant had had opportunity to challenge expert reports and ask for them to be declared null and void – no attempt to do so by his lawyers. Before Assize Court applicant had lodged an interlocutory application, but court refused to declare experts’ evidence inadmissible, on ground that phrases challenged did not prove that they had prejudged merits of case or expressed their opinion as to defendant’s guilt. Record of hearings showed that all witnesses called by applicant had been heard and that defence had had opportunity to make observations after each witness had given evidence. Court of Cassation dismissed applicant’s argument that presumption of innocence had been infringed, on ground that comments complained of had not revealed any breach of oath sworn by experts to assist court on their honour and according to their conscience. Applicant’s conviction based on all charges preferred and evidence obtained during investigation and discussed at trial hearings – Court could not regard statements in issue, which formed only one part of evidence submitted to jury, as contrary to requirements of fair trial and presumption of innocence. Conclusion: no violation (eight votes to one). 1. This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.