e not mentioned in the detention orders and it is not the Court's task to establish such facts and take the place of the national authorities who ruled on the issue of detention (see Korchuganova v. Russia, No. 75039/01, § 72, 8 June 2006). The Court therefore finds that the existence of such a risk was not established.
(ii) The danger of perverting the course of justice
74. As to the domestic courts' findings that the applicant was liable to pervert the course of justice, the Court notes that at the initial stages of the investigation the risk that an accused person will pervert the course of justice could justify keeping him or her in custody. However, after the evidence has been collected, that ground becomes irrelevant (see Mamedova v. Russia, No. 7064/05, § 79, 1 June 2006).
75. In its decision of 4 July 2007 the Basmanniy District Court for the first time relied on the information provided by the FSB lieutenant-general, Mr V., and concluded that the applicant was planning to interfere with the course of justice, allegedly urging witnesses to distort information about his criminal activities (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above). In every subsequent detention order the judicial authorities relied heavily on the applicant's potential to tamper with witnesses, given the information provided by the FSB. The Court understands the authorities' concerns the first time they received the relevant information. It acknowledges that in view of the gravity of the accusations against the applicant and the seriousness of the information submitted by the FSB officials, the judicial authorities could justifiably have considered that an initial risk of the applicant's perverting the course of the investigation had been established (see, for similar reasoning, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, No. 15217/07, § 125, 12 March 2009).
76. The Court cannot however overlook the fact that the information from the FSB officials was not supported by any evidence (statements by witnesses allegedly approached by the applicant or his acquaintances, records of official inquiries, and so on). The Court accepts that the extension of the applicant's detention may initially have been warranted for a short period to provide the prosecution authorities with time to verify the information presented by the FSB official and to adduce evidence in support. However, with the passage of time the mere availability of the statement, without any evidence to support its veracity, inevitably became less and less relevant, particularly so when the applicant persistently disputed his intention to interfere with the course of the criminal proceedings and had been cooperating impeccably with the investigating authorities for months prior to his arrest.
77. In this connection the Court considers that the domestic authorities were under an obligation to analyse the applicant's situation in greater detail and to give specific reasons, supported by evidentiary findings, for holding him in custody (see Musuc v. Moldova, No. 42440/06, § 45, 6 November 2007). The Court does not find that the domestic courts executed that obligation in the present case. It is a matter of serious concern for the Court that the domestic authorities applied a selective and inconsistent approach to the assessment of the parties' arguments pertaining to the grounds for the applicant's detention. While deeming the applicant's arguments to be subjective and giving no heed to relevant facts which reduced the risk of his interfering with the establishment of the truth, the courts accepted the statement from the FSB official uncritically, without questioning its credibility. The Court further reiterates that for the domestic courts to demonstrate that a substantial risk of collusion existed and continued to exist during the entire period of the applicant's detention, it did not suffice merely to refer to the FSB info
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 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
