Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.04.2009 "Дело "Кондратьев (Kondratyev) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

applicant's personal situation in greater detail and to give specific reasons for holding him in custody.
49. The Court reiterates that after 4 November 2000 the applicant's detention was extended on twelve occasions. When extending the applicant's detention or examining the lawfulness of, and justification for, his continued detention, the domestic authorities consistently relied on the gravity of the charges as the main factor and the applicant's potential to abscond and obstruct the course of justice. On two occasions reference was made to the applicant's "character" (see paragraph 12 above).
50. As regards the domestic authorities' reliance on the gravity of the charges as the decisive element, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see Panchenko, cited above, § 102; Ilijkov, cited above, § 81; and Goral v. Poland, No. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003). This is particularly true in the Russian legal system, where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of whether the evidence obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 180).
51. The other grounds for the applicant's continued detention were the domestic authorities' findings that the applicant could abscond and obstruct the course of justice. The Court must in this respect ascertain whether the domestic authorities established and convincingly demonstrated the existence of specific facts in support of their conclusions.
52. The Court notes that the domestic authorities gauged the applicant's potential to abscond by reference to the fact that he had been charged with serious criminal offences, thus facing a severe sentence. In this connection the Court reiterates that, although the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or reoffending, the necessity to continue the deprivation of liberty must be examined with reference to a number of other relevant factors. In the present case, contrary to the Government's submission, the domestic authorities did not mention any specific facts warranting the applicant's detention on that ground. The Court further observes that the authorities did not indicate a single circumstance suggesting that if released the applicant would abscond or evade justice, or that he would otherwise upset the course of the trial. The Court finds that the existence of such a risk was not established.
53. In so far as the references to the applicant's character are concerned, the Court observes that on both occasions this statement was not accompanied with any description of the applicant's character or an explanation as to why it made his detention necessary.
54. The Court further emphasises that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at the trial (see {Jablonski}, cited above, § 83). During the entire period under consideration the authorities did not consider the possibility of ensuring the applicant's attendance by the use of other "preventive measures" - such as a written undertaking or bail - which are expressly provided for by Russian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. This failure is made all the more inexplicable by the fact that the new Code of Criminal Procedure expressly requires the domestic courts to consider less restrictive measures as an alternative to custody.
55. In sum, the Court finds that the domestic authorities' decisions were not based on an analysis of all the pertinent facts. They took no notice of the

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18