Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 17.06.2010 «Дело Колесник (Kolesnik) против России» [англ.]

hority of the Office of the Prosecutor General, tried members of the armed forces for criminal offenses.
Trial Procedures
The law provides due process for defendants, including a public trial, access to accusatory material, the right to call witnesses to testify on their behalf, a defense attorney or a court-appointed lawyer if the defendant cannot afford one, and the right to represent oneself in court. In practice authorities often denied these rights. Defendants frequently did not enjoy a presumption of innocence. There was no jury system. The government permitted the public to attend most trials but closed some trials, especially those it considered politically sensitive. There were few independent lawyers available to represent defendants. The CPC provides that a defendant be present at his or her trial and consult with his or her attorney in a timely manner. The law sets no restrictions on a defendant's access to an attorney. If a defendant cannot afford to pay for attorney's services, an attorney is provided at public expense. The court at times did not allow a defendant to confront or question a witness against him or her and denied the defendant and his or her attorney access to government evidence. In some cases courts refused to accept exculpatory evidence provided by defense attorneys, even if that evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial.
Even when the courts observed due process, the authority of the government prosecutor far exceeded that of the defense attorney, making it difficult for the defendant to receive a fair trial. Court transcripts were frequently flawed or incomplete, especially when defendants' testimony had to be translated from Russian to Turkmen. Defendants could appeal a lower court's decision and petition the president for clemency. In most cases courts ignored allegations of torture when defendants raised such allegations in trial. There were credible reports that judges often predetermined the outcome of the trial and sentence.
There were regular reports that police would arrest an individual and request he or she pay a fine for breaking a specific law. When a citizen asked to see the law, police or other government officials refused or stated the laws were secret. ...
...There was no further information on 2007 reports that some prisoners accused of economic crimes, including a number of former senior government ministers, might have been moved from Owadan Depe Prison to Mary Prison. Government officials continued to ignore inquiries from family members and foreign diplomats about many prisoners' locations or condition. Government officials also continued to prevent family members, foreign diplomats, and international observers such as the ICRC from accessing detainees or prisoners associated with the 2002 attack."
58. The FCO - UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office reported in their latest publication on the subject, Human Rights Annual Report 2009 - Countries of Concern: Turkmenistan, March 2010 (available at www.ecoi.net):
"In 2009, there were indications that Turkmenistan was backtracking on previous improvements and commitments to human rights. ...
Prison conditions remain extremely worrying. The Turkmen government has still not granted the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) access to Turkmen prisons."

C. Criminal law of Turkmenistan

59. Section 218 of the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan (adopted in 1997) provides that forging documents, use and sale of forged documents or stamps is punishable by correctional labor terms of up to two years, or by a prison sentence of up to two years. The same actions if committed repeatedly are punished by a prison sentence of up to four years.
60. Section 229 § 4 provides that misappropriation of funds, committed by a group or which has caused significant damage, is punishable b



> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 12 13 14

	Поделиться:	Tweet