Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.04.2010 «Дело Гултяева (Gultyayeva) против России» [англ.]

ince she had waived her claims.

II. Relevant domestic law

The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, as in force
at the relevant time

139. Article 96 (Taking into custody) provides that taking into custody as a measure of restraint may be imposed in cases concerning criminal offences punishable by law with more than one year's imprisonment. The Article also refers to a number of serious criminal offences, including embezzlement, and provides that in respect of persons charged with those offences, taking into custody as a preventive measure may be applied on the sole ground of the danger presented by the criminal offence committed.
140. Article 97 (Periods of detention) provides that the duration of detention during the investigation of criminal cases may not exceed two months. This period may be extended by a relevant prosecutor to up to three months, and further detention can be authorised by a regional prosecutor (or a prosecutor of equal rank) to up to a maximum of six months. Extension of detention beyond six months is allowed in exceptional cases only with regard to persons charged with serious criminal offences, and can be authorised by a deputy Prosecutor General for a period of up to one year, and by the Prosecutor General for a period of up to one and a half years. Further extension of detention is not allowed: the person must be released immediately.
141. Article 101 (Revocation or alteration of measure of restraint) provides that a measure of restraint shall be revoked when no longer needed. A measure of restraint may be changed to a more severe or a milder one if the circumstances of the case so require.
142. Article 223-1 (Ordering a court session) provides that, if an accused is kept in custody, a judge shall take a decision to order a court session within fourteen days of the date when the criminal case was received by the court.

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

143. The applicant complained that the conditions of her pre-trial detention, including a refusal of medical examination and lack of medical assistance, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. In her observations of 7 May 2005 the applicant further complained under this head that the conditions of transportation to and from the court-house were poor. The relevant Convention provision reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Submissions by the parties

144. The applicant contested most of the Government's submissions on the conditions of her detention and maintained her complaints.
145. The Government insisted that the conditions of the applicant's detention in the IZ-62/1 fully complied with the requirements of the national legislation and the Convention standards. In support of this argument, they contended that during the period of her detention the applicant had never complained about any aspect of the conditions in which she had been held. They also largely relied on the certificates issued by the head of the IZ-62/1 and information provided by the warders of the IZ-62/1 (see paragraph 75 above). The Government gave no explanation as to their failure to adduce documentary evidence pertaining to the period of the applicant's detention in reply to the Court's specific request, but insisted that the documents submitted by them could be regarded as reliable evidence as they had been issued by competent officials who were aware that they could be subject to criminal persecution for falsification of any information reflected in the documents.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Conditions of the applicant's detention in the



> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet