licant's case. The main reason for that decision was that while the lower courts had made a correct assessment of the facts of the case, they had erred in the legal characterisation of the offence committed by the applicant.
11. According to the Government, on 5 November 2002 notifications that the supervisory review hearing would take place on 19 November 2002 were sent to the applicant and the lawyer who had represented him at the trial. They were also invited to respond to the arguments of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court.
12. According to the applicant, he received a notification in the form of a telegram about the hearing of 19 November on 6 November 2002. From the documents submitted by the applicant it follows that he received a copy of the request of 11 June 2002 only on 27 November 2002, that is already after the supervisory review hearing in his case.
13. The applicant explained that once the main set of criminal proceedings was over, the lawyer in question had ceased to represent him. He submitted a copy of the lawyer's letter dated 29 January 2006, in which the lawyer had confirmed the absence of any agreement to act on the applicant's behalf in the supervisory review proceedings of 19 November 2002. The lawyer also confirmed the receipt of the notification of 5 November 2002, along with a copy of the request of 11 June 2002, but stated that he had been unable to react to these documents for lack of authority.
14. The parties agreed that the applicant asked to attend the supervisory review hearing in person.
15. The applicant submitted a copy of that request. The request was made on 10 November 2002 but was not received by the Supreme Court until 26 November 2002.
16. On 19 November 2002 the Supreme Court, in the presence of the prosecutor and one of the other co-defendants' lawyers, examined the arguments of the Deputy President's supervisory review appeal and amended the sentence by changing the charges of aggravated kidnapping to aggravated deprivation of liberty. The applicant's sentence was thus reduced from sixteen to thirteen years of imprisonment accordingly.
17. By letter of 4 December 2002 the Supreme Court notified the applicant of the outcome of the supervisory review proceedings.
II. Relevant domestic law
18. Section VI, Chapter 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР), in force at the material time, allowed certain officials to challenge a judgment which had become effective and to have the case reviewed.
19. Pursuant to Article 356 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, a judgment became effective and enforceable as of the day when the appeal instance pronounced its decision or, if the judgment had not been appealed against, when the time-limit for appeal expired.
Article 379. Grounds for setting aside judgments which have become effective
"The grounds for quashing or changing a judgment [on supervisory review] are the same as [those for setting aside judgments which have not become effective on cassation appeals]."
Article 342. Grounds for quashing or changing judgments [on cassation appeal]
"The grounds for quashing or changing a judgment on appeal are as follows:
(i) prejudicial or incomplete inquest, investigation or court examination;
(ii) inconsistency between the facts of the case and the conclusions reached by the court;
(iii) serious violation of procedural law;
(iv) misapplication of [substantive] law;
(v) inappropriate sentence considering the gravity of the offence and the convict's personality."
20. Article 371 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 provided that the power to lodge a request for a supervisory review could be exercised by the Prosecutor General, the President of
> 1 2 3 4 ... 5 6
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
