ourts under domestic law, the Court considers that a defending party's presence at an appeal hearing may be crucial for securing respect for the right to a fair trial.
80. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court points out that in the first instance the applicant was convicted of rape and attempted rape. Even though he was not to serve his sentence in detention, the fact of being convicted of a violent crime per se might have had a significant adverse impact on his private and social life. The Court thus considers that re-examination of the conviction on appeal was of particular importance for the applicant.
81. As to the manner in which the applicant's interests were protected in the second instance, the Court observes that on 30 September 2003, before examining the applicant's case on appeal, the Rostov Regional Court decided that it could hear the case in the accused's absence. It is clear that by then the appeal court was fully aware of the fact that the applicant's counsel was not present in the court room that day. Therefore, the Rostov Regional Court knowingly decided to hold an appeal hearing in a criminal case in the absence of any person capable of bringing arguments in the applicant's defence. It is noteworthy in this respect that the prosecutor appeared and pleaded before the appeal court.
82. The Court is not convinced by the Government's argument that the need to avoid protraction of the proceedings could in itself justify the decision to hold the appeal hearing in the applicant's, as well as his counsel's absence. In view of the serious nature of the crime of which the applicant had been found guilty at trial and the fact that the defending party was put in a disadvantageous position {vis-a-vis} the prosecution at the appeal hearing of 30 September 2003, the Court considers that the interests of justice required that the appeal court postpone a hearing so that the applicant be present in the court room.
83. The Court thus concludes that the proceedings before the Rostov Regional Court did not comply with the requirement of fairness.
84. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant's absence from the appeal hearing.
(b) Length of criminal proceedings
85. The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term (see, among other authorities, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A No. 275). It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued.
86. The period under consideration in the present case began on 10 July 1995, when criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, and ended on 30 September 2003, when the applicant was convicted in the final instance, with the exemption of the period between 10 October and 13 December 1995, during which no proceedings were pending. Accordingly, the period under consideration amounted to a total of eight years and sixteen days. This period spanned the investigation stage and the judicial proceedings, during which the case was remitted for a fresh examination twice at the first level of jurisdiction and once at the second. The period falling under the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis after the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Russia on 5 May 1998 in this case amounts to five years, four months and twenty-seven days. The Court notes at the same time that it may take into account the state of the proceedings existing on the date of ratification (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 124, ECHR 2002-VI).
87. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of the proceed
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
