urs they had still not managed to see the applicant.
36. According to the Government, on 2 August 2006 Mr V. spoke to Ms Bokareva and another person, who indicated that they were the applicant's lawyers. Mr V. informed them that a visit could be granted in compliance with the applicable procedure only at a prisoner's request (see paragraph 47 below). The visitors left his office and did not return. According to a report dated 2 October 2006 and signed by Mr Sm., on 2 August 2006 he received two persons, one of whom was Mr R. The latter produced documents certifying that he was a lawyer and the applicant's counsel. The visitors asked Mr Sm. to contact the applicant so that he could make a written statement asking for an appointment with the lawyers. In the meantime, they were asked to wait outside the colony administrative building. The applicant, who was in a punishment cell, signed the statement and handed it over to Mr Sm. However, when Sm. returned the lawyers had already left the area.
37. The applicant's representative submitted observations in reply and claims for just satisfaction on 4 August 2006.
II. Relevant domestic law and practice
A. Examination of witnesses
1. RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure
38. Criminal proceedings were regulated by the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure until 1 July 2002, when the 2001 Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) entered into force. Under Article 162 of the Code, an investigator was authorised to set up a face-to-face confrontation between two persons who had been previously interviewed and whose testimonies contained significant discrepancies.
39. Article 163 of the Code read as follows:
"...The investigator starts the confrontation procedure by asking the participants whether they know each other and what their relationship is. Thereafter, each participant in turn is invited to give evidence on the relevant issues. After they have given evidence, the investigator can ask questions. The participants can ask questions to each other, if allowed by the investigator..."
2. Code of Criminal Procedure 2001 (CCrP)
40. Article 240 of the Code provides as follows:
"1. All the evidence should normally be presented at a court hearing...The court should hear statements from the defendant, the victim, witnesses...and examine physical evidence...
2. The reading of pre-trial depositions is only permitted under Articles 276 and 281 of the Code..."
41. Article 276 § 1 of the Code read in 2002 as follows:
"The reading out of a pre-trial deposition made by the defendant...may be allowed if requested by the parties and if (1) there are substantial discrepancies between the pre-trial statement and the statement before the court..."
42. Article 281 § 1 of the Code read as follows in 2002:
"The reading-out of earlier statements made by the victim or witness...is permitted if the parties give their consent to it and if (1) there are substantial discrepancies between the earlier statement and the later statement before the court, (2) the victim or witness has not appeared before the court."
3. Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Russia
43. Sitting as a court of appeal in a criminal case, the Supreme Court held that before the legislative amendment in July 2003 the requirement of consent to the reading-out of depositions under Article 281 of the CCrP made it possible for one of the parties to the criminal proceedings to act in breach of the adversarial nature of those proceedings (appeal decision No. 3-74/03 of 19 February 2004). Thus, with reference to Article 15 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court considered that the first-instance court was empowered not to apply Article 281 of the Code and to rely directly on the Constitut
> 1 2 3 ... 24 25 26 ... 36 37 38
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
