ecided to return the case to the prosecution. The court ordered an additional investigation to be carried out, having spotted a number of defects in the work of the investigator, including multiple breaches of the rights of the accused.
47. By the same decision the court decided to leave the applicant's preventive measure unchanged. The court referred to all the accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. It gave the following reasoning:
"...Deciding on the question of the preventive measure in respect of all the accused, the court is of the view that they are accused of committing a few crimes in the categories of serious and especially serious offences, do not have any fixed abode in the Vladimir Region, and according to the bill of indictment had committed crimes as part of a criminal group, and therefore the preventive measure imposed on them should be left unchanged."
48. The decision of 19 July 2005 was contested by the applicant through his lawyer in the Supreme Court on 25 July 2005.
49. On 6 October 2005, that is two months and eighteen days later, the Supreme Court examined and rejected the appeal. The court referred to all the accused collectively, without analysing their circumstances individually. It upheld the decision of 19 July 2005 in full, having noted that:
"...the grounds for choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention in respect of [the applicant] had not changed; the need for its application had not ceased..."
12. Extension of detention until 23 September 2005
50. On 2 September 2005 the District Court, whilst the case was still pending with the investigator, authorised the applicant's detention for twenty days more, until 23 September 2005. It indicated the same reasons for the detention as in the previous decision. In particular, it noted:
"The extension of the term of detention of [the accused] is justified by objective reasons and is well-founded. [The applicant] is accused of the commission of a number of crimes, including very serious offences that were highly dangerous to society, and has no fixed place of residence in Russia; this is why there are reasons to believe that if at large he may continue his criminal activity, abscond from the investigative bodies or impede the investigation in the case. In these circumstances, there are no grounds for a change in the preventive measure or for its cancellation..."
51. On 5 September 2005 the applicant, through his lawyer, complained to the Regional Court about the decision of 2 September 2005.
52. On 4 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 2 September 2005. The court noted that the applicant's detention on remand was lawful and that:
"...the impossibility of applying to [the applicant] a different, milder, preventive measure was justified in the court decision on several occasions and the circumstances which served as a basis for confinement of [the applicant] have not become obsolete [since then]..."
13. Extension of detention until 1 January 2006
53. On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court, whilst the case was still pending with the investigator, further extended the applicant's detention, this time until 1 January 2006.
54. The decision of 22 September 2005 was contested by the applicant through his lawyer on 23 September 2005.
55. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court decided to uphold the decision of the Regional Court dated 22 September 2005, having noted that "[the applicant] had been accused of a number of crimes, including serious and very serious offences" and that the applicant's detention on remand had been, and remained, lawful and justified.
14. Decision dated 11 November 2005 to send the case
to the trial court for examination on the m
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 20 21 22
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
