Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Колесник (Kolesnik) против России» [англ.]

9;s Office of 11 March 2008 to be valid. The City Court heard the applicant and her lawyer, as well as Ms Ryabinina, who made a statement as an expert on the situation in Central Asia and in Turkmenistan in particular. The court reviewed the documents submitted by the applicants, including copies of the relevant international reports about the situation in Turkmenistan. The court also examined the decisions by which the applicant's request for temporary asylum had been rejected. The court found that the first applicant's allegations of the danger of ill-treatment in Turkmenistan were based on general information and unsubstantiated. It relied on the assurances provided by the General Prosecutor's Office of Turkmenistan and found that they had been issued by a competent body. It also took into account information about the legal framework of the criminal proceedings and detention in Turkmenistan, which appeared to be consistent with the requirements of fair trial and lawfulness of detention. The court took note of the annual amnesties announced in Turkmenistan for convicted persons. The City Court refused to consider the first applicant's arguments concerning the circumstances of the imputed actions, noting that she had been charged with a criminal offence in Turkmenistan and that the question of her involvement would be decided by the competent court in that country.
38. The first applicant appealed. On 31 March 2009 the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of 13 February 2009.

D. The first applicant's detention

1. The first applicant's first arrest

39. On 14 May 2007 the first applicant was arrested by Russian police.
40. On 16 May 2007 the deputy prosecutor of Donskoy town applied to the Donskoy Town Court seeking authorisation to remand the applicant in custody.
41. On 18 May 2007 the Donskoy Town Court dismissed the deputy prosecutor's request and the first applicant was released in the courtroom. The court found, inter alia, that at the time of her departure from Turkmenistan the first applicant had not been suspected of or charged with any criminal offences, no preventive measures had been applied to her and her freedom of movement had not been restricted. It also noted that the first applicant herself had contacted the Tula Regional department of the interior in relation to her placement on the wanted list by Turkmenistan.
42. On 21 May 2007 the Donskoy Town Prosecutor's Office appealed. On 4 July 2007 the Tula Regional Court set aside the decision of the Donskoy Town Court and remitted the case for a fresh examination.

2. The first applicant's second arrest

43. On 19 August 2007, when attempting to leave for Ukraine to visit her relatives, the first applicant was arrested and placed in remand prison IZ-77/6 in Moscow.
44. On 21 August 2007 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow examined the documents concerning the first applicant's extradition and granted the prosecutor's request to detain her provisionally until 24 August 2007. The first applicant and her counsel stated that they agreed with the prosecutor's request.
45. On 24 August 2007 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the first applicant's detention pending extradition proceedings. The court set no time-limits for her detention. The first applicant did not appeal against this order.
46. In October 2007 the first applicant complained to the Moscow Lyublinskiy District Court arguing that the administration of remand prison IZ-77/6 had held her in custody unlawfully, since the term of her detention had already expired.
47. On 11 January 2008 the Lyublinskiy District Court granted the complaint. It found that the term of the first applicant's detention had expired on 19 October 2007 and that

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 12 13 14