indings to a substantial degree on statements by witnesses, including Mr I. and Mr K., who had never been heard in open court. The Presidium quashed the conviction for drug trafficking, having found that there was no evidence of the applicant's guilt. The effect of the proceedings which formed the basis for the applicant's complaints has thus also been quashed (see Ryabov v. Russia, No. 3896/04, § 50, 31 January 2008).
78. The Court further notes that following the judgment of 15 January 2010, when the applicant's sentence was reduced to two years in view of his remaining conviction for drug possession, the applicant was released without delay. In addition, by virtue of the Presidium's judgment he acquired the right to rehabilitation which, and it was not disputed by the applicant, enabled him to seek compensation for damages resulting from his conviction for drug trafficking and detention and to claim restoration of other rights, if they had been infringed as a result of the detention and conviction (see paragraph 41 above). While the Court notes that there is no evidence in the file that the applicant has made use of his right to rehabilitation, that legal avenue still remains open for him.
79. Having regard to the content of the judgment of 15 January 2010, the subsequent acquittal and the rehabilitation avenue which the applicant is able to effectively employ, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention.
80. It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, No. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), No. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; and Brinzevich v. Russia (dec.), No. 6822/04, 11 December 2007; and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, No. 5548/03, 16 June 2005, and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), No. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
81. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning inadequate medical care during the applicant's imprisonment admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 September 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Soren} NIELSEN
Registrar
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
