Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.04.2010 «Дело Юрий Яковлев (Yuriy Yakovlev) против России» [англ.]

f the investigation in the criminal case.
The case file materials contain information from the FSB that even while detained in the detention facility [the applicant] tries to influence other members of the group and witnesses to his criminal activities, looks for opportunities to conceal the results of his crimes in other regions of the Russian Federation by warning, through his relatives, individuals who participate in unlawful activities.
[The applicant] is not registered with a drug abuse unit or psychiatric hospital; [he] does not have illnesses which preclude his detention.
[The applicant's] family situation and his age also do not prevent his further detention.
In these circumstances, there are no grounds authorising a change of the measure of restraint applied to the applicant to another measure of restraint."
27. On 29 July 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the City Court's decision, merely noting that it was well-founded and that the City Court had made a correct finding that, if released, the applicant may obstruct the examination of the case.

G. Detention order of 29 August 2008 (extension
until 10 December 2008)

28. On 29 August 2008 the Moscow City Court, in a decision which concerned both the applicant and his co-defendants, extended their detention until 10 December 2008 for the purpose of providing them with additional time to study the case file. The City Court also referred to the gravity of the charges against the defendants as a ground warranting the further extension of their detention.
29. The applicant and his lawyers appealed against the detention order, requesting the applicant's release on bail.
30. On 14 October 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the detention order, holding, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"As follows from the materials presented, [the co-defendants and the applicant] are charged with particularly serious criminal offences; a large amount of evidence was collected in the case; the case file, which the defendants have to study, comprises eighty-nine volumes, to which a substantial number of audio and video recordings and material evidence is attached.
The case file materials were presented to [the applicant's co-defendants] and their lawyers long before the expiration of the maximum period of detention.
Taking into account those circumstances and the investigator's reference that, if released, [the applicant and his co-defendants] may contact persons who had taken part in the criminal offences with which [the defendants] are charged and who are still not detained, and that they may influence witnesses, the court rightfully considered that the extension of the detention was exceptional and rightfully decided to extend [the detention] for an additional three months, at the same time [the applicant's] period of detention does not exceed eighteen months.
...
[The court considers] manifestly ill-founded [the defendants'] appeal arguments that [their] detention exceeded the reasonable time-limits and is excessive and unlimited.
As follows from the materials the pre-trial investigation was closed long ago; since 27 December 2007 the defendants have been studying the case file materials and recently [the applicant and another defendant] have asked to study the case file materials once again, and [another co-defendant] has not yet studied a number of audio and video recordings.
It follows that the lengthy periods of the [applicant's and his co-defendants'] detention are caused by [the fact that it takes the defendants] a long time to study the case file.
At the same time the case file does not contain any information proving that the delay in the examination of [the case file] was caused by the investigat



> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 ... 18 19 20

	Поделиться:	Tweet