e charges held against the arrested persons (see Bordovskiy v. Russia, No. 49491/99, § 56, 8 February 2005). While it is true that insufficiency of information of the charges held against an arrested person may be relevant for the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention for persons arrested in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c), the same does not apply to arrest with a view to extradition, as these proceedings are not concerned with the determination of a criminal charge (see K. v. Belgium, No. 10819/84, Commission decision of 5 July 1984, Decisions and Reports (DR) 38, p. 230).
116. The Court observes in this connection that, as can be seen from the written statement signed by the applicant, on the day of his arrest he studied at least some investigative documents concerning the criminal case instituted against him in Tajikistan and claimed that he had not committed the crimes he had been charged with (see paragraph 33 above). In such circumstances the Court considers that the information provided to the applicant by the Russian authorities was sufficient to satisfy their obligation under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see Eminbeyli v. Russia, No. 42443/02, § 57, 26 February 2009, and Bordovskiy, cited above, § 57).
117. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
(b) Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention
118. As regards the Government's plea of non-exhaustion, the Court considers that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits.
119. The Court further notes that the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It considers that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds and must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
120. The Court will first examine the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
121. The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 5 § 4 is to guarantee to persons who are arrested and detained the right to judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the measure to which they are thereby subjected (see, mutatis mutandis, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 76, Series A No. 12). A remedy must be made available during a person's detention to allow that person to obtain speedy judicial review of its lawfulness. That review should be capable of leading, where appropriate, to release. The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see Talat Tepe v. Turkey, No. 31247/96, § 72, 21 December 2004).
122. The Court notes at the outset that the Government did not provide detailed information on the avenues available for challenging the lawfulness of the applicant's detention pending extradition but merely referred to the possibility of complaining to either a prosecutor or a court. They also claimed that the applicant could have appealed against the decisions of 30 November and 28 December 2007.
123. The Court observes that the decisions of 30 November and 28 December 2007 were both entitled "Decision concerning the choice of custodial detention as a preventive measure" and mentioned Article 108 of the CCP as their legal basis. It was also indicated that the decisions were appealable before the Moscow Regional Court within three days of the date of their delivery (see paragraphs 34 and 36 above).
124. The Court readily a
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 21 22 23
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
