issue of his unlawful detention between 21 and 24 July 2008 before the Town Court (see paragraph 37 above), thus making use of an avenue prescribed by domestic law.
111. In such circumstances, it is highly questionable whether the applicant could have effectively challenged the lawfulness of this period of detention before a court. The Court therefore dismisses the Government's objection as to the applicant's failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his detention between 21 and 24 July 2008.
112. The Court notes, therefore, that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
113. The Court has previously noted that where deprivation of liberty is concerned, it is particularly important that the general principle of legal certainty be satisfied. The requirement of "quality of law" in relation to Article 5 § 1 implies that where a national law authorises a deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently assessable, precise and foreseeable in application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Baranowski v. Poland, No. 28358/95, §§ 50 - 52, ECHR 2000-III, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, No. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
114. In so far as the question concerns the quality of national law governing detention pending extradition, the Court points out that it has already faced similar issues in the cases of Nasrulloyev v. Russia, No. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, §§ 138 - 140, and Ryabikin v. Russia, No. 8320/04, §§ 127 - 130, 19 June 2008, where the Court found it established that the domestic provisions concerning detention pending extradition fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention.
115. In their arguments in the present case the Government referred to Constitutional Court decision No. 333-O-P of 1 March 2007. The Court notes that this decision established that the domestic legal provisions and practice governing detention pending extradition should comply with the general rules of criminal procedure, and that this decision did not introduce new rules to be followed by the domestic court in dealing with such detention. Bearing in mind that in the above-mentioned cases the Court already found the rules of criminal procedure concerning such detention to be inconsistent, mutually exclusive and not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness, the Court cannot find that the Government's reference to the Constitutional Court's decision of 1 March 2007 warrants a different conclusion concerning the provisions of Russian law governing the detention of persons with a view to their extradition and their application in the present case.
116. Further, the Court notes that the Government acknowledged that the applicant's detention between 21 and 24 July 2008 had not been based on a court order. At the same time they contended that in any case this detention had been authorised by the court order of 24 July 2008 which had authorised the applicant's detention between 12 June and 24 July 2008 and extended it until 12 December 2008.
117. The Court notes the inconsistency of the Government's stance concerning the legal grounds for the applicant's detention between 21 and 24 July 2008. But even assuming that this detention was authorised by the court order of 24 July 2008, the Court reiterates that any ex post facto authorisation of detention on remand is incompatible with the "right to security of person" as it is necessarily tainted with arbitrariness. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention on remand without a judicial decision would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional depa
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
