ed against the conviction.
31. The first applicant, among other matters, specifically complained about the trial court's failure to examine the witness Ms E. and the reading-out of her written statement.
32. The second applicant complained, in particular, that the trial court had not taken measures to obtain the attendance of the defaulting witnesses Ms E. and Mr B. and had read out their written statements despite the objections by the defence. He maintained that the trial court had unlawfully decided to examine the witnesses for the defence before those for the prosecution. Finally, he submitted that his detention from 17 April to 15 May 2003 had been unlawful.
33. On 4 September 2003 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. As regards the applicants' specific grievances, it found as follows:
"The convicts' argument that the trial court did not take measures for summoning the witnesses is unfounded because the case-file contains several court orders requiring the witnesses to attend, which shows that the court complied with the requirements of the criminal-procedure law.
The convicts' argument that the trial court breached the order of examination of evidence is unfounded because the trial record shows that the decision on the order of examination of evidence was made upon consultation with the parties and that the witnesses were examined in the order of their appearance before the trial court.
...
The convicts' argument that there was no reason to read out the written statement by the witness Ms E. is unfounded because the grounds and procedure for making such a decision are compatible with Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The convict Strokov's argument that he was unlawfully detained from 17 April to 15 May 2003 is unfounded because this period, like all other detention periods, was credited towards the sentence imposed on him."
II. Relevant domestic law
A. Custody matters
34. The Russian Constitution establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or his or her detention extended (Article 22).
35. The Code of Criminal Procedure ("CCrP") provides that the term of detention "during the trial" is calculated from the date the court received the file and to the date the judgment is given. The period of detention "during the trial" may not normally exceed six months, but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences, the trial court may approve one or more extensions of no longer than three months each (Article 255 §§ 2 and 3 of the CCrP).
B. Legal representation in the appellate proceedings
36. Article 51 of the CCrP provides for mandatory legal representation if the accused faces serious charges carrying a term of imprisonment exceeding fifteen years, life imprisonment or the death penalty. Unless counsel is retained by the accused, it is the responsibility of the investigator, prosecutor or the court to appoint legal-aid counsel.
37. The Constitutional Court, in its decision of 18 December 2003, confirmed the applicability of the requirements of Article 51 of the CCrP to the appellate proceedings.
THE LAW
I. Joinder of the applications
38. Having regard to the fact that the applicants were co-defendants in the same criminal proceedings, the Court decides to join their applications, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
II. Alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention
39. The first applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention from 14 January 1995 to 9 November 2000 and from 25 April to 19 September 2002 had been excessively long and proce
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 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
