Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Крестовский (Krestovskiy) против России» [англ.]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KRESTOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 14040/03)

JUDGMENT <*>

(Strasbourg, 28.X.2010)

--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Krestovskiy v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina {Vajic} <*>,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.

Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 October 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 14040/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Vadim Vladimirovich Krestovskiy ("the applicant"), on 19 March 2003.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms M. Misakian, a lawyer practising in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were initially represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the criminal case against him had not been heard in public.
4. On 7 February 2008 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 1).
5. The Government objected to a joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

6. The applicant was born in 1963 and is serving a prison sentence in Yagul, Udmurtiya Republic.
7. On an unspecified date D., M., Gil. and Gut. were arrested and charged, inter alia, with the murders of P. B. and S. When questioned, D. and Gil. testified that the applicant had hired them to kill B.
8. On 23 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting the murder of B. He remained in custody pending trial and was repeatedly questioned by the investigator.
9. On 9 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic set the trial for 23 October 2001.
10. On 19 October 2001 the head of the organised crime unit of the regional department of the interior informed the Supreme Court as follows:
"Since December 2000, [the organised crime unit] has been investigating [S.'s murder]... Defendants [D]., [M]. and [Gil.]... pleaded guilty and gave truthful statements. On the basis of those statements and the evidence collected it was possible to establish that a leader of the Izhevsk organised criminal gang [V.] had been involved in S.'s murder, committed in April 1998. V. has been put on the federal wanted list.
...[The organised crime unit] received information that the organised crime leaders had decided to kill D. after he testified against V. ...Furthe



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7

	Поделиться:	Tweet