rmore, the police believe that D. knows about other crimes committed by organised crime leaders in Udmurtiya.
Having regard to the above..., we consider it possible that an attempt might be made to assassinate D. We hereby request that the trial be closed to the public and conducted at correctional colony No. 9...
11. On 22 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic decided to dispense with the public hearing of the criminal case against the applicant and D., M., Gil. and Gut. The defendants or their lawyers were not present. In particular, the court noted as follows:
"The Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic received a letter from the head of the [organised crime unit] concerning the possibility that D. would be assassinated during the trial. D. had earlier testified about V. being involved in the crimes under investigation.
Having regard to the fact that [(1)] the defendants are charged with particularly serious offences, including involvement in organised crime and [(2)] the court is under obligation to ensure the safety of D. and all parties to the proceedings, the employees of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic and other persons, [the court] decides to close the trial and to conduct [it] at remand prison No. 1. Another reason to justify the closure of the trial is the fact that D. is accused of murdering [S.] because the latter had raped [D.'s sister]."
12. On 23 October 2001 the Supreme Court opened the trial at remand prison No. 1. The applicant was represented by counsel of his own choice. The court granted his request to hear additional witnesses on his behalf. The applicant pleaded not guilty and testified in court.
13. On 13 December 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment. The court based its findings on the confessions provided by the applicant's co-defendants D. and G., statements from eight witnesses, the crime scene investigation and forensic reports.
14. The applicant appealed against the conviction. He complained about the lack of a public hearing of the criminal case against him and assessment of evidence by the first-instance court.
15. On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 13 December 2001 on appeal. The hearing was public. After hearing the applicant and his counsel, the court endorsed the lower court's findings as to the points of fact and law. It appears from the text of the decision that the applicant's argument regarding the lack of public hearing at first instance remained unanswered by the court.
II. Relevant domestic law
16. The Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time provided as follows:
Article 18. Public hearing
"All matters shall be heard in a public hearing unless it contravenes the interests of protection of state secrets.
The [court] may decide... to close a trial concerning persons under the age of sixteen, sex crimes and other cases in order to prevent the disclosure of information about the private lives of the parties to the proceedings.
The proceedings in the event of a closed trial, shall comply with all rules of [criminal procedure].
The verdict shall be pronounced in public."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
17. The applicant complained that he had not had a public hearing in the criminal proceedings against him, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by [a] tribunal... Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be ex
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
