ussia (No. 45100/98, 8 February 2005), and Mamedova v. Russia (No. 7064/05, 1 June 2006), insisting that the evidence had been collected and there was no need to proceed with the applicant's detention.
38. On 12 March 2009 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having examined the lawyers' statements of appeal, upheld the decision of 23 January 2009, having supported the correctness of the City Court's findings that the applicant was liable to abscond and interfere with the course of justice if released.
39. On 22 June 2009 the Moscow City Court collectively extended the detention of the applicant and his two co-defendants until 25 September 2009. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:
"The Moscow City Court received the present criminal case on 25 December 2008 and since 19 February 2009 the merits of the case have been examined in court hearings with the participation of a jury; the evidence presented by the defence is being examined now.
[The applicant and two other defendants] are charged with a criminal offence which, by virtue of Article 15 of the Russian Criminal Code, is considered particularly serious...
As follows from the case file materials, the measure of restraint in the form of the arrest was taken in respect of [the applicant and two defendants] in compliance with the requirements of Articles 97 - 99 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, with the information about their character and state of health, ...and the nature of the crime having been taken into consideration. Despite the arguments of the defence, the necessity to apply the measure of restraint chosen earlier in respect of [the applicant and two defendants] did not cease to exist, irrespective of the stage of the trial proceedings; therefore, there are no grounds to annul or apply a more lenient measure of restraint, as was requested by the lawyers and defendants. The time-limit for [the defendants'] detention will expire on 25 June 2009... The case is at the stage of trial examination. Although the prosecution has finished presenting their evidence, the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure envisage an opportunity to supplement the judicial inquiry after the defence finishes presenting their evidence; therefore, the grounds for keeping the defendants in custody did not cease to exist. The length of the judicial proceedings is caused by objective reasons, that is the facts that the case against eleven defendants is examined by the jury; that a large number of prosecution witnesses were examined and now the defence witnesses and experts are being heard; that numerous written materials, laid down in 139 volumes of the case file, were examined; that the large number of audio and video recordings... were studied. There is no information about any circumstances which preclude [the defendants'] detention. There are no grounds to apply bail or other [more lenient] measures of restraint.
Taking into account the described circumstances, the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has granted priority treatment to application No. 5453/08 lodged by [the applicant] against Russia cannot serve as a ground for releasing him."
40. On 12 August 2009 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of 1,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
II. Relevant domestic law
A. Placement in custody and detention
41. From 1 July 2002 matters of criminal law are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Law No. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001, "the new CCrP").
1. Preventive measures
42. "Preventive measures" or "measures of restraint" include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, a personal guarantee, bail and remand in custody (Article 98 of the new C
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 18 19 20
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
