proceedings against the other defendants.
11. On 25 April 2002 the first applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. The trial resumed on 22 August 2002.
12. On 19 September 2002 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court convicted the first applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to eleven years' imprisonment.
13. Counsel for the first applicant filed a statement of appeal.
14. On 27 December 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The hearing was conducted by means of a videolink connecting the courtroom with the remand prison where the first applicant was held. Counsel for the first applicant was not invited to take part in the appellate proceedings.
15. On 10 September 2007 the first applicant sent an application for supervisory review to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, complaining that he had not been represented in the appellate proceedings. It appears that the institution of supervisory review proceedings was refused.
B. Criminal proceedings against both applicants
16. In 2002 both applicants were charged with beating a Mr O., and fraudulently gaining possession of his car.
17. On 16 August 2002 the second applicant was remanded in custody for an initial two-month detention period.
18. On 10 October 2002 the first applicant and his counsel asked the investigator, among other matters, to secure the attendance of the witnesses Ms E., Mr B., Mr U., as well as unnamed garage employees and others, at the trial. On the following day the investigator acceded to that request and directed that the witnesses be included in the witness list accompanying the charge sheet.
19. The case was sent for trial to the Miass Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on 17 October 2002.
20. On 6 November 2002 the Town Court returned the case-file to the prosecutor on the ground that the charge sheet had not been properly served on the defendants.
21. On 25 February 2003 the Town Court held a preliminary hearing. The court rejected the first applicant's request to call further witnesses, other than those already listed on the charge sheet. The applicants did not appeal against the decision.
22. On 11 March 2003 the Town Court noted that the witnesses had not appeared but decided to proceed with the trial. It heard the parties' views on the order of oral argument and examined the victim Mr O.
23. On 7 April 2003 the Town Court issued an order requiring the witness Ms E. and others to attend. On 7 and 21 April 2003 a bailiff filed two reports, stating that he would be unable to bring the witnesses to the court because he did not have enough money to travel to their places of residence.
24. On 17 April 2003 the witness Mr B. sent a telegram to the Town Court informing it that he would not be able to attend because of financial constraints. On the following day the nurse of a child of the witness Mr U. contacted the court by telephone and said that Mr U. had been away for professional reasons.
25. On 22 April 2003 the Town Court, among other procedural matters, rejected the first applicant's request for examination of Mr U. before the court.
26. On 15 May 2003 the Town Court examined the prosecutor's application for a further extension of the applicant's detention. It noted that the authorised period of detention had expired on 17 April 2003 and held that it should be extended for a further three months, until 17 July 2003.
27. During the trial the Town Court overruled the applicants' objection to the reading-out of Ms E.'s written statement made at the stage of the preliminary investigation and authorised the prosecutor to use this piece of evidence. Subsequently, the court rejected the applicants' second request to obtain the attendance and examination of Ms E.<
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
