articularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and of their importance for the appellant (see Hermi, cited above, § 62, with further references; Metelitsa v. Russia, No. 33132/02, § 27, 22 June 2006; and Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II).
34. It is also of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal (see Metelitsa and Lala, both cited above, §§ 28, and 33, respectively). As regards, in particular, the need for an applicant to be provided with legal-aid counsel on appeal, the Court has already held that the situation in a case involving a heavy penalty where an appellant was left to present his own defence unassisted before the highest instance of appeal, which has wide powers in the assessment of the case, was not in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 (see Shulepov v. Russia, No. 15435/03, § 32, 26 June 2008; Granger v. the United Kingdom, 28 March 1990, §§ 47 - 48, Series A No. 174; Maxwell v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, §§ 38 - 41, Series A No. 300-C; and Boner v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, §§ 38 - 44, Series A No. 300-B).
(ii) Waiver
35. Lastly, the Court reiterates that a waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - in so far as it is permissible - must not run counter to any important public interest, must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to the waiver's importance (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], No. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II, and Hermi, cited above, § 73). Moreover, before an accused can be said to have by implication, through his conduct, waived an important right under Article 6, it must be shown that he could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see Talat {Tunc} v. Turkey, No. 32432/96, § 59, 27 March 2007, and Jones v. the United Kingdom (dec.), No. 30900/02, 9 September 2003).
(b) Application of the above principles to the present case
36. The Court notes at the outset that the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, and therefore the applicant's complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 should be examined together (see Vacher v. France, 17 December 1996, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI).
37. The Court would further observe that it does not consider it necessary to decide whether the absence of the applicant and his counsel, taken separately, would render the proceedings before the appellate court unfair. Neither of them was present before the Orenburg Regional Court, and it is against this background that the Court will determine the complaint in issue (see Metelitsa, cited above, § 30).
38. Having regard to paragraphs 15 - 17 above, the Court notes that the jurisdiction of appeal courts in the Russian legal system extends to both issues of facts and law (see also Sidorova (Adukevich) v. Russia, No. 4537/04, § 25, 14 February 2008, and Shulepov, cited above, § 34) and that the Orenburg Regional Court had the power to fully review the case and consider additional arguments which had not been examined at the trial. In his appeal statement the applicant contested his conviction on both factual and legal grounds, his account of events differing from those of his co-accused in important aspects (see paragraph 11 above and compare Metelitsa, cited above, § 31). The appeal court was thus called upon to make a full assessment of the applicant's guilt or innocence regarding the charges against him. In the Court's view, the issues raised by the applicant in his appeal statement can reasonably be considered to have presented a certain factual and legal complexity. It also cannot disregard that the prosecutor and the applicants' co-defendants were
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
