riminal-law complaint.
19. The applicant appealed, claiming that the Town Court's refusal to examine his complaint was unlawful and breached his constitutional right of access to court. However, on 22 May 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of the Vidnovo Town Court of 29 March 2002. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the decision of the prosecutor not to proceed with the case should have been challenged under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
B. Applications for release
20. During the pre-trial investigation of criminal case No. 39697 and the trial of his case before the Vidnovo Town Court the applicant remained in the remand prison. On several occasions he requested the investigator in charge of his case and the town prosecutor to release him. In particular, on 22 March 2001 he lodged an application with the Vidnovo town prosecutor. However, it was refused on the ground that the applicant might abscond or interfere with the course of justice.
21. On 17 April 2001 <*> the applicant lodged another application for release with the court. In his application he described the alleged ill-treatment and extortion of money by the police officers. He also referred to various defects in the investigation proceedings and to his poor health and personal circumstances.
--------------------------------
<*> The case file contains two identical applications for release, both addressed to the Kashira Town Court and dated 14 and 17 April 2001 respectively. The Court retains the later date as the date of introduction of the application for release because this is the date indicated in the applicant's submissions.
22. On 11 May 2001 the Kashira Town Court of the Moscow Region rejected his application, putting forward the following arguments:
"[The applicant] has committed several intentional crimes, including serious ones. This fact is not disputed either by [the applicant] or by his defence counsel. There is no information that the state of his health is incompatible with detention pending investigation. Given this fact and taking into account the fact that Mr Medvedev committed the impugned crime in another district, the Court holds that the investigative authorities have rightly applied detention pending investigation as a preventive measure."
The applicant was informed in that ruling that he had seven days to lodge an appeal with the Moscow Regional Court.
23. The applicant's lawyer appealed. The applicant indicated that his appeal had been lodged on 14 May 2001; the Government did not dispute that assertion. On 13 June 2001 the appeal was dismissed by the Moscow Regional Court. It appears that neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the appeal court hearing. The ruling of the appeal court was very short and dealt with the applicant's arguments summarily.
24. The applicant indicated that he had received a copy of the appeal court's decision in February 2002 <*>. The Government did not dispute that; they claimed, however, that the case file concerning the application for release before the Kashira Town Court had been destroyed after the expiry of the time-limits established by domestic legislation for the storage of documents in the court's archives. The applicant indicated that under the applicable rules on document management in the Russian courts the case file concerning his application for release should have been kept in the Moscow Regional Court until 2007, so these documents should have been in the possession of the authorities.
--------------------------------
<*> From the letter from the Kashira Town Court it appears that copies of the decisions of 11 May and 13 June 2001 were dispatched to the applicant at his request on 30 January 2002.
C. Trial of the applicant's case
> 1 2 3 4 ... 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
