merits of the case owing to the absence of one of the translators who was busy elsewhere.
81. On 17 May 2007 the hearing of the case resumed.
82. On 17 May 2006 the applicant contested the decision of 12 May 2006.
83. The decision of 12 May 2006 was upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 July 2006, again repeating the same reasons.
16. Extension of detention until 14 November 2006
84. On 25 July 2006 the Regional Court ordered the extension of the applicant's detention for another three months, until 14 November 2006. The court again mentioned the same reasons as previously, having rendered a decision in respect of a number of co-accused in the case. In response to the applicant's argument about poor conditions of detention, the court noted that the applicant had failed to present any evidence of the alleged conditions.
85. On 31 July 2006 the decision of 25 July 2006 was contested by the applicant.
86. On 19 October 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. It also essentially dismissed the assertion about poor conditions of detention as unsubstantiated.
17. Extension of detention until 14 December 2006
87. On 7 November 2006 the Regional Court, in a decision collectively referring to a number of co-accused, including the applicant, again extended the applicant's detention on remand, this time until 14 December 2006.
18. First-instance judgment and appeal proceedings
88. On 14 November 2006 the applicant, along with eight other co-accused, was found guilty by the Regional Court of having taken part in aggravated robbery, participation in a criminal gang, and illegal storage, trafficking and use of firearms, and was sentenced to twelve years and six months of imprisonment. The court established that the applicant and the co-accused, acting as a criminal gang, had robbed trucks by disguising themselves as police officers and using real firearms to scare the drivers. They had subsequently sold the stolen property at local markets. The body of evidence included, among other items collected in various regions of Central Russia, oral and written submissions given by over forty witnesses and nine victims.
89. The judgment of 14 November 2006 became final after it was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court on 21 June 2007. It appears that the applicant raised an argument concerning the conditions of his detention on remand, but the court rejected it as irrelevant.
B. The conditions of the applicant's detention in IZ-33/1
90. Since 26 February 2004 the applicant has remained in custody.
91. Between that date and 4 March 2004 the applicant was detained in a Temporary Detention Wing of the Department of the Interior of the town of Vladimir.
92. Between 4 March 2004 and 31 August 2007 he was held in pre-trial detention centre IZ-33/1.
93. Since 31 August 2007 he has been detained in penitentiary establishment IK-4.
1. The applicant's account of conditions
of detention in IZ-33/1
94. The applicant submitted that he had been detained in cells Nos. 39, 19, 55, 36 and 32: cell No. 39 measured thirty-two square metres with twenty-four sleeping places and thirty-five to forty inmates at all times; cell No. 19 measured twenty-four square metres, had thirteen sleeping places and contained fifteen to seventeen inmates; cell No. 55 measured fifty-six square metres, had thirty-five sleeping places for the total number of inmates ranging from thirty-two to sixty-two; cell No. 36 measured forty-eight square metres, had thirty-five sleeping places and contained thirty-five to forty inmates; cell No. 32 measured forty-eight square metres, had thirty sleeping places for no more than thirty inmates.
95. In all cells to
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 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
