icant's detention on remand, having noted the risk that he might flee or impede the investigation, as well as the gravity of the charges brought against him.
13. The detention order was appealed against by the applicant and then upheld by the Military Court of the Tyumen Garrison on 26 September 2000.
C. The detention order of 22 September 2000
14. On 22 September 2000 the Military Prosecutor of the Ural Military District extended the applicant's detention on remand to five months, that is, until 2 November 2000. In making the order, the prosecutor described in detail all the steps that had been taken by the investigation authorities until then, such as questioning several dozen witnesses, organising confrontations with witnesses and the co-accused, searching the co-accused's flats and seizing various documents.
D. The referral of the applicant's criminal case
to the trial court
15. On 2 November 2000 the acting Military Prosecutor of the Tyumen Garrison approved the bill of indictment and the case was sent to the trial court.
16. On 4 November 2000 the Military Court of the Tyumen Garrison accepted the case for trial.
17. By a decision of 18 November 2000 the court scheduled the first hearing for 6 December 2000 and noted, without going into further detail, that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.
E. The hearings of 6 and 7 December 2000
18. On 6 December 2000 judge S. and two lay assessors, officers Ya. and M., started the examination of the applicant's case. The applicant was represented by a lawyer, Mr Trofimov.
19. In a decision dated 6 December 2000 the court granted a request by the prosecutor for a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. The court noted the prosecutor's description of the applicant's behaviour during the investigation of the case, including occasional threats and verbal attacks against escorting policemen, attempts to punch them, and banging his head against the wall. In addition, the applicant was said to have eaten the schedule of his access to the case file.
20. The proceedings in the applicant's criminal case were therefore suspended. In the same decision the court made the applicant available for examination in the Tyumen Regional Psychiatric Clinical Hospital and ordered him to remain in custody.
21. In a document dated 7 December 2000 judge S. informed the military prosecutor of the Tyumen Garrison that the investigator G. had been perfectly aware of the applicant's allegedly "inappropriate" behaviour and that it had been his duty to order the latter's examination at an earlier date. His failure to do so during the preliminary investigation was viewed as a serious shortcoming which had adversely affected the applicant's constitutional rights since it had resulted, among other things, in the extension of the period of his detention.
F. The applicant's placement in hospital
and the related review proceedings
22. It appears that on 8 December 2000 the applicant was admitted to hospital. The applicant appealed against the decision of 6 December 2000 and also brought proceedings against the hospital.
23. In a letter dated 15 December 2000 judge S. asked the head of the department of in-patient psychiatric examinations to suspend the applicant's examination in view of his appeal against the decision of 6 December 2000.
24. On 20 December 2000 the case file was sent to the Military Court of the Ural Command for an examination of the applicant's appeal. On 11 January 2001 the court rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned decision.
25. Owing to the heavy workload in the military communication services the case file was not returned to the
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
