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

e gravity of the charges, "the applicant's personality" and "the evidence in the applicant's case file, proving that she might abscond or influence the witnesses if released". The judge also noted that the investigating authorities had produced a medical report stating that the applicant had no need of medical treatment.
26. In her appeal against the decision of 25 May 2000 the applicant stated, inter alia, that Judge A. should have been disqualified from reviewing her detention, as this judge had already considered and rejected her applications for release on two previous occasions.
27. On 25 June 2000 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 25 May 2000. With respect to the applicant's argument concerning Judge A., the court noted that the domestic law entitled a judge to examine a repeated complaint about the lawfulness of detention.
28. On 30 May 2000 a deputy prosecutor of the Sakhalin Region refused the applicant's request for release.
29. On 2 June 2000 the applicant was charged with a number of additional counts relating to embezzlement, abuse of power and forgery.
30. On 13 June 2000 the preliminary investigation was terminated and the applicant and her lawyer began studying the case file.

4. The applicant's detention between 21 June
and 24 August 2000

31. On 21 June 2000 the regional prosecutor ordered the extension of the applicant's detention until 10 August 2000.
32. The applicant appealed against the prosecutor's decision, claiming that she was unable to obstruct the establishment of the truth or influence the witnesses, since the investigation had already terminated. She also referred to her poor state of health.
33. On 24 July 2000 judge B. of the Town Court dismissed the applicant's complaint, holding that her detention was "in accordance with law" and necessary in view of the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's personality. The judge also took note of medical certificates produced by the applicant's lawyer as well as the aforementioned medical report adduced by the investigating body, and found the applicant's allegations that she was in poor health unsubstantiated.
34. On 13 September 2000 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal. The court noted that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and its severity alone could, according to Article 96-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permit her continued detention.
35. On 8 August 2000 the applicant's counsel lodged a complaint against the investigator in charge, requesting the court to order the applicant's inpatient examination by an independent medical authority.
36. On 15 August 2000 Judge B. of the Town Court declined jurisdiction to examine the complaint, stating that it fell within the competence of the prosecutor. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 25 October 2000.
37. In the meantime, on 7 August 2000, the regional prosecutor extended the period of the applicant's remand in custody until 25 August 2000.
38. On 15 August 2000 the applicant appealed to the court against the prosecutor's order. Her complaint was assigned to Judge A. of the Town Court.
39. The applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge. On 18 August 2000 Judge A. dismissed the challenge.
40. At the hearing on 21 August 2000 the applicant and her defence counsel claimed that the preliminary investigation had been completed, that the applicant had finished studying her case file, and that therefore the investigating authorities had no reasons to believe that the applicant might flee or obstruct the establishment of the truth if at large. Moreover, the applicant posed no danger to the public and suffered from various health problems, which required proper medica

> 1 2 3 4 ... 24 25 26