unlawful. The domestic courts examined the substance of these arguments and rejected them as unfounded. In the Court's view, in these particular circumstances the applicant had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him (see, mutatis mutandis, Dzhavadov v. Russia, No. 30160/04, § 27, 27 September 2007). The Government's objection must therefore be dismissed.
32. As regards the Government's argument that a deduction had been made from the applicant's sentence, and insofar as they may be understood to raise the objection concerning the loss of the victim status, the Court considers that it was not properly substantiated; it thus rejects it.
33. Given that the applicant does not raise any complaint as regards his detention beyond the period from 4 to 13 January 2005, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the lawfulness of the whole period of the applicant's pre-trial detention of its own motion. However, the Court will have regard to the relevant circumstances for its analysis in relation to the applicant's detention on the disputed dates.
34. The Court further notes that the complaint in respect of the above period of pre-trial detention is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
35. The Court reiterates that a trial court's decision to maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the court had acted within its jurisdiction, had power to make an appropriate order, and had given reasons for its decision to maintain the custodial measure, for which it had also set a time-limit (see Korchuganova v. Russia, No. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006, and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, No. 28957/02, §§ 41 - 46, 24 May 2007).
36. The Court observes that the latest domestic judicial decision addressing the issue of the applicant's detention was that of 30 December 2004, whereby the domestic court decided that the measure of restraint should remain unchanged.
37. The Court accepts that on 30 December 2004 the trial court acted within its powers and there is nothing to suggest that its decision to maintain the applicant's custodial measure was invalid or unlawful under domestic law at the relevant time. The question thus arises as to whether the decision that the measure of restraint should remain unchanged could be considered to be "an appropriate order".
38. At the outset, the Court observes that judicial decision of 30 December 2004, as well as that of 22 December 2004, merely upheld the previously ordered measure of restraint, without either setting any time-limit or stating reasons for maintaining the applicant in custody or for a periodic review of the preventive measure.
39. First, turning to the duration of detention, the Court notes that the main controversy between the parties relates to the issue of whether the decision of 30 December 2004 set, albeit implicitly, any time-limit for the applicant's detention, and if so, whether such a time-limit extended beyond the five days granted by the court to correct the mistakes in the investigation file.
40. The Court notes in this respect the Government's argument that in the present case the five-day time-limit referred to by the applicant was only set by the domestic court for remedying the violations by the investigator and did not apply to the applicant's pre-trial detention. The Court accepts this submission.
41. The Court further notes that it has on many occasions examined the peculiar feature of the Russian legal framework consisting of detention "pending investigation" and detention "pending trial", and the corresponding methods of calculating relevant periods of detention. In such a framework, several non-consecutive
> 1 2 ... 3 4 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
