t submitted that the applicant's car had been inspected in the presence of two attesting witnesses; two cans of diesel had been seized from the car. As follows from the inspection record signed by the applicant, he had poured out the diesel from his employer's premises. Thereafter, he had been apprised of his right not to testify against himself and had been questioned under Article 415 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) (see paragraph 23 above). The applicant confirmed that he had taken the diesel for personal use. The Government contended that Article 47 of the CCrP had not been applicable in the record-based proceedings (see paragraph 22 above). The latter did not require presence of counsel for an on-the-spot interview such as that of the applicant on 21 February 2001. In any event, the applicant waived his right not to testify against himself.
2. Complaints concerning the court proceedings
33. The applicant also complained that the trial court should not have convicted him on the basis of his pre-trial statements; the trial judge had arbitrarily rejected the testimonies by the defence witnesses, including the applicant's wife and Mr P and thus had failed to examine them under the same conditions as the prosecution witnesses, who merely attested the fact of the car inspection. He also contended that both the trial and appeal courts had wrongly refused to verify and to take into consideration other exculpatory evidence, including an invoice for the purchase of diesel.
34. The Government submitted that the applicant's conviction had been based on his pre-trial statements and witness testimonies by Mr K, Mr P and Mr F. The witnesses suggested by the applicant had been examined by the trial court. Their testimony had not been considered reliable in view of their interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Despite repeated requests from the trial court, the applicant had failed to provide a convincing explanation for the delay in submitting the invoice. Thus, this document had not been accepted in evidence.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
35. The Court considers that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
36. The Court reiterates that Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its requirements (see {Ocalan} v. Turkey [GC], No. 46221/99, § 131, ECHR 2005-IV, and Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A No. 275). The manner in which Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) is to be applied during the preliminary investigation depends on the special features of the proceedings involved and on the circumstances of the case. In order to determine whether the aim of Article 6 - a fair trial - has been achieved, regard must be had to the entirety of the domestic proceedings conducted in the case (Imbrioscia, cited above, § 38).
37. In Salduz v. Turkey [GC] (No. 36391/02, §§ 55, 27 November 2008) the Court held that as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (ibid, and more recently, {Cimen} v. Turkey, No. 19582/02, §§ 26 - 27, 3 February 2009).
38. The
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 11 12 13
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
