Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Гултяева (Gultyayeva) против России» [англ.]

d" and that "there were no such circumstances" in the applicant's case.
12. On the same date the applicant resigned from her position.
13. On 1 March 2000 the investigator in charge remanded the applicant in custody. The order, which was approved by a deputy prosecutor of the Sakhalin Region, referred to the danger of the applicant's absconding, the risk of her obstructing the establishment of the truth and influencing the witnesses who had been her subordinates, and to the gravity of the charges against her.
14. The applicant's request to release her subject to the imposition of another measure of restraint was examined and refused by the investigator on 2 March 2000.

2. The applicant's detention between 3 March 2000
and 18 April 2000

15. On 6 March 2000 the applicant's lawyer appealed to the court against the applicant's pre-trial detention.
16. The application was examined by judge A. of the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court ("the Town Court") on 10 March 2000. At the hearing the applicant and her counsel reiterated their request for the applicant's release in view of her poor health, the fact that she had family commitments and a good reference from her former place of work. The judge confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody, having based this decision on "the evidence in the applicant's case file, proving that she might abscond or influence the witnesses if released".
17. According to the applicant, the evidence referred to by Judge A. was a transcript of an audio tape recording of telephone conversations of another suspect, K. During one such conversation K. stated that "on Monday Nina Ivanovna will leave forever".
18. On 12 April 2000 the Sakhalin Regional Court ("the Regional Court") upheld the decision of 10 March 2000 on appeal.
19. Meanwhile, on 7 March 2000, formal charges of embezzlement and abuse of power had been brought against the applicant. Since the applicant's counsel was unable to attend the police station that day, the investigating authorities appointed another lawyer to assist her. However, in the absence of her counsel, the applicant refused to read and sign the decision to charge her.
20. On 15 March 2000 the applicant's lawyer challenged the decision of 7 March 2000 before the court, claiming that the applicant's right to defence had been violated. He also requested the court to release the applicant pending trial.
21. On 4 April 2000 judge A. of the Town Court disallowed the above complaint, having noted that the allegations advanced by the applicant's representative had already been examined and rejected by the courts during the first judicial review of the applicant's detention.
22. On 3 May 2000 the Regional Court set aside the above decision and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the complaint of 15 March 2000. The court noted, inter alia, that the applicant was entitled to appeal against the alleged infringement of her right to defence at the trial stage.

3. The applicant's detention between 19 April 2000
and 20 June 2000

23. On 19 April 2000 the regional prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 25 June 2000 on the ground that she might flee the trial or put pressure on witnesses while at liberty.
24. On 17 May 2000 the applicant challenged this order before the court, and requested to be released. She maintained, in particular, that she could not hinder the investigation or influence the witnesses, since the audit had terminated on 13 April 2000. The applicant also referred to poor conditions of her detention and deterioration of her health.
25. On 25 May 2000 judge A. of the Town Court dismissed the applicant's complaint as unfounded, with reference to th

> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26