ed the hearing. His counsel asked the court to consider the case in his absence and did not appear at the hearing. The applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.
11. On 14 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the court order of 8 October 2003. He asked the appeal court to ensure his and his lawyer's presence at the hearing.
12. On 3 November 2003 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal. The hearing was held in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The prosecutor considered that the applicant's appeal should be dismissed. The City Court found that the extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention was in accordance with the law and upheld the decision of 8 October 2003.
13. The District Court further extended the applicant's detention pending trial. Extensions were granted at the prosecutor's request on 3 December 2003 and 10 February 2004. The City Court upheld those decisions on appeal on 21 January and 9 March 2004 respectively. The applicant did not provide any other details in respect of the detention orders.
14. On several occasions in 2004 the applicant asked the investigator to question additional witnesses and examine forensic evidence. The investigator dismissed the applicant's requests, indicating, inter alia, that:
"The guilt of [the defendants] ha[d] been fully proved".
15. On 30 January 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint about the prosecutor's refusal to open a criminal investigation against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him during his arrest. The applicant did not appeal.
B. The trial
16. On 1 April 2004 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow received the case file.
17. On 20 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to four and a half years' imprisonment.
18. On 19 April 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal.
C. Conditions of the applicant's detention
1. Detention in the temporary detention facility
19. From 13 to 20 August 2003 the applicant was held in cell No. 2 of the Maryinskiy temporary detention facility. The cell measured 8 sq. m. The applicant was detained there alone. According to him, the cell was poorly lit, and the cement floor was dirty. The cell was infested with bedbugs and other insects. The corners were covered in cobwebs. No bed sheets, mattresses or blankets were provided. The radio was left on during the whole night. Water was available twice a day. There was no sink and the applicant had to wash himself over the toilet. The applicant received one meal a day.
2. Detention in remand prison No. 77/1
(a) The description provided by the applicant
20. On 20 August 2003 the applicant was transferred to remand prison No. 77/1. On arrival he was placed in a cubicle measuring 1 sq. m where he spent the whole day. He was not given any food or allowed to use the bathroom for the whole of the time he spent in the cubicle.
21. On 21 August 2003 the applicant was placed in cell No. 274, where he was detained until 11 September 2004. It measured 16 sq. m and had eight sleeping places. It housed from ten to fifteen persons (in his subsequent submissions the applicant stated that it housed from twelve to sixteen persons). The inmates had to take turns to sleep. The beds were 1.65 m long. The cell did not have any drawers or shelves to allow the inmates to store their personal belongings properly. Approximately eighty per cent of the inmates smoked and the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed to tobacco smoke. The toilet was located about one metre from the dinner table. It was dirty and foul smelling. There was no separation between the t
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
