ial, until November 2001 there had been two court hearings, the latter ending with a new adjournment for an indefinite period of time. The prosecutor lastly emphasised that the applicant was being kept in an overcrowded detention facility and requested that measures be taken to expedite the proceedings.
37. In response, the President of the Military Court of the Tyumen Garrison informed the prosecutor that the situation described in his letter was due to the applicant's own behaviour, and in particular to his constant appealing against the trial court decisions and his request for additional access to the case file. The President pointed out that on the last occasion when the applicant had had access, on 4 December 2001, he had behaved "inappropriately" again. In particular, he had shouted at the courier, had sworn and had refused to familiarise himself with the documents in the absence of a prosecutor.
J. The trial hearings of 13 and 17 December 2001
and the decision on the applicant's fresh
psychiatric examination
38. The proceedings resumed on 13 December 2001, presided over by judge Kh. with two law assessors, officers Ya. and Ch. The applicant again requested the court to release him and to refer the case back for an additional investigation because the charges of bribery were allegedly unclear. He also requested the court to accept his former wife, his son and a Mr P. as his representatives and filed several other requests.
39. On a motion by the prosecutor the court adjourned the hearing until 17 December 2001.
40. In a decision of 17 December 2001, acting upon the prosecutor's request, the trial court ordered a fresh in-patient psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant in the Serbskiy State Scientific Centre of Social and Forensic Psychiatry in Moscow. The court referred to the applicant's behaviour on 4 December 2001, to the "number and content" of his complaints to different bodies, to the impossibility of controlling his conduct and to the lack of "effective contact" with him during the court hearings. In view of the above, the court raised doubts as to the previous experts' conclusions and said that the applicant's psychiatric condition needed further clarification. The proceedings were adjourned until the examination report was available.
41. In a decision of the same date the court rejected the applicant's requests for release, with reference to the gravity of the charges and to the fact that "there were sufficient grounds to consider that, if released, he would obstruct the establishment of the truth and abscond since such attempts have already taken place, according to the case file". No time-limits were set for the extended detention period.
42. In the same decision the court rejected the applicant's request to have his former wife, his son and Mr P. accepted as his representatives. At the same time the court allowed a certain Ms Porfilo to represent him.
43. On 5 February 2002 the Military Court of the Ural Command upheld the decision of 17 December 2001 on appeal.
K. Hearing of 14 August 2002
and the applicant's release on bail
44. The examination of the applicant's case resumed with the hearing of 14 August 2002, the applicant and his two representatives, Mr Trofimov and Mr Postnikov, being present. The applicant submits that Ms Porfilo was not duly notified about the hearing and was absent.
45. It appears that at the hearing Mr Trofimov again requested the court to change the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant.
46. In a decision of 14 August 2002 the trial court granted the request, terminated the applicant's detention and released him on bail of 10,000 Russian roubles. The court stated, in particular:
"Having exami
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 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
