. In these circumstances, the Court does not need to consider separately the applicant's additional arguments concerning the quality of domestic law and the length of his detention.
136. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
(b) Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
137. The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 5 § 4 is to guarantee to persons who are arrested and detained the right to judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the measure to which they are thereby subjected (see, mutatis mutandis, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 76, Series A No. 12). A remedy must be made available during a person's detention to allow that person to obtain speedy judicial review of its lawfulness. That review should be capable of leading, where appropriate, to release. The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see Talat Tepe v. Turkey, No. 31247/96, § 72, 21 December 2004).
138. The Court observes that it is not disputed between the parties that the applicant spent more than two years in detention pending extradition. It considers that new issues affecting the lawfulness of the detention might have arisen during that period and that, accordingly, by virtue of Article 5 § 4, he was entitled to apply to a "court" with jurisdiction to decide "speedily" whether or not his deprivation of liberty had become "unlawful" in the light of new factors which emerged subsequently to the decision on his initial placement in custody (see Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, No. 2947/06, § 146, ECHR 2008-...).
139. The Court emphasises that it has already found on numerous occasions that the provisions of Articles 108 and 109 of the CCP did not allow those detained with a view to extradition to initiate proceedings for examination of the lawfulness of the detention in the absence of a request by a prosecutor for an extension of the custodial measure (see Nasrulloyev, cited above, § 88, Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 151, and Muminov v. Russia, No. 42502/06, § 114, 11 December 2008). Furthermore, in the present case the applicant's counsel's attempt to complain about the prosecutors' failure to request such an extension proved to be futile as the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court expressly stated on two occasions that Article 125 of the CCP was inapplicable in the applicant's case (see paragraphs 56 and 60 above).
140. In these circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that the provisions of domestic law secured the applicant's right to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention would be examined by a court.
141. It follows that throughout the term of the applicant's detention pending extradition he did not have at his disposal any procedure for a judicial review of its lawfulness.
142. There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
III. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention
143. The applicant complained that the wording of the extradition order had violated his right to be presumed innocent, in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
A. The parties' submissions
144. The Government claimed that the extradition order merely contained a classification of the offence with which the applicant had been charged under the Russian law and not a finding as regards his guilt.
145. The applicant submitted that the Russian Prosecutor General's Office in its order of 20 November 2008 had stated that he had been guilty, in breach of the presumption-of-innoc
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 21 ... 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
