Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.10.2010 «Дело Скачков (Skachkov) против России» [англ.]

particular, it was held at night between 2.25 and 2.45 a.m. D. was not asked before the parade for a description of the alleged kidnappers; D. saw the applicant, who was handcuffed, in the hallway of the police station before the parade; two other participants were easily distinguishable from the applicant (M. was nine years older and six centimetres taller and K. was eleven years younger). Besides, the applicant had a swollen face and was wearing creased and dirty clothes.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with kidnapping, robbery, extortion and organising a criminal gang and placed in custody pending the investigation and trial.

B. Trial

11. On an unspecified day the Moscow City Court started hearing the case in respect of the applicant and three other defendants.
12. D. testified during the trial. He identified the defendants, including the applicant, as the people who had kidnapped him. He also denied having seen the applicant in the hallway of the police station before the identification parade. D. claimed that he had a very clear recollection of the face of his kidnappers.
13. The applicant claimed that on 23 May 2001, the day D. was kidnapped, he had been at his friends' place at a birthday party. His alibi was confirmed by his mother and six other persons, who testified on his behalf in court. He further asked the court to obtain from the investigator the photographs that had been taken by his friends at the party on 23 May 2001 and the negatives. The court dismissed his request as unsubstantiated.
14. On 30 June 2004 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty of organising a criminal gang, robbery and kidnapping and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. The court relied on D.'s testimony, which was supported by the statements made by other witnesses, including the police officers in charge of the investigation phase, and forensic evidence. As regards the evidence of the witnesses called by the applicant, the court rejected it as unreliable and contradictory to the other evidence examined in the course of the trial.
15. The applicant appealed, alleging that the City Court had unlawfully refused to examine the photographs that confirmed his alibi and that D. had erred in identifying him as one of the kidnappers because of his poor eyesight and the stress he was under. He maintained his innocence, and referred to the witness statements confirming his alibi.
16. On 28 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia considered the matter on appeal. It acquitted the applicant on the charge of organising a criminal gang and reduced his sentence to nine years' imprisonment. It noted that the City Court had properly admitted and assessed the evidence before it. The identification parade had been carried out in accordance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure, which did not prevent it being held at night if the circumstances of the case so required. As regards D.'s testimony, the court further noted that he had claimed to have a clear recollection of the faces of his kidnappers and found no reason not to believe him.

C. The applicant's detention in the remand prison

17. On 25 March 2002 the applicant was placed in remand prison No. 77/2 in Moscow, where he was held until 25 February 2005.

1. The description provided by the Government

18. The Government provided the following information concerning the applicant's detention there.

-----------------------------------------T--------T-----------T-----------¬
¦ Period of detention ¦Cell No.¦ Surface ¦ Number of ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ area (in ¦ beds ¦
¦ ¦ ¦ square ¦ ¦

> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11