25. On 22 May 2001 the prosecution forwarded the applicant's case, together with the bill of indictment, to the Vidnovo Town Court of the Moscow Region. In the course of the trial the applicant raised the issue of ill-treatment and extortion of money by the police officers before the court as an argument in support of his innocence.
26. On 10 September 2001 the Vidnovo Town Court delivered its judgment. As to the alleged ill-treatment, the court rejected this argument, referring to the inquiry conducted by the Vidnovo town prosecutor at the applicant's request. The court further noted that the security guards at the furniture depot, who had been present at the time of the applicant's arrest, had testified that the applicant had confessed to the alleged theft immediately. So there had been no need to put further pressure on him in order to extort a confession.
27. The court found the applicant guilty of attempted theft but acquitted him of illegal possession of firearms. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.
28. The judgment of 10 September 2001 was subject to appeal to the Moscow Regional Court. However, the applicant did not appeal, allegedly out of fear of reprisals by the police officers implicated in the ill-treatment. Therefore, the conviction became final on 17 September 2001. A supervisory-review appeal by the applicant was rejected by the Moscow Regional Court on 13 December 2001.
29. On 24 October 2001 the applicant was released from prison.
II. Relevant domestic law
30. The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (in force until 1 July 2002, "the old CCrP") established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator following a complaint by an individual, or on the investigating authorities' own initiative where there was a reason to believe that a crime had been committed (Articles 108 and 125). A prosecutor was responsible for the overall supervision of the investigation (Articles 210 and 211). He could order specific investigative actions, transfer the case from one investigator to another or order an additional investigation. If there were no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation, the prosecutor or investigator issued a reasoned decision to that effect which had to be notified to the interested party. The decision was amenable to appeal to a higher-ranking prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction (Article 113 of the old CCrP).
31. Federal Law N 4866-1 on Judicial Review of Acts and Decisions Infringing Individual Rights and Freedoms dated 27 April 1993 (hereinafter "the Judicial Review Act"), provided for a judicial avenue for claims against public authorities. It stated that any act, decision or omission by a state body or official could be challenged before a court of general jurisdiction if it encroached on an individual's rights or freedoms. Such complaints had to be introduced and examined under the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 3 of the Act provided that this did not apply to situations for which the law established another legal avenue of judicial review. The Ruling of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 21 December 1993 (No. 10) specified that a civil-law complaint, provided for by the Judicial Review Act, was not an appropriate legal remedy against decisions of the prosecution authorities taken within the criminal proceedings. Such decisions were to be challenged under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
32. On 29 April 1998 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation invalidated Article 113 § 4 of the Code because it did not allow for judicial review of a prosecutor's or investigator's refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament should amend the legislation on criminal procedure by inserting a po
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 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
