st a judgment taken by a justice of the peace, should conduct a judicial investigation which includes examination of the parties' submissions and evidence, including the hearing of witnesses, experts, and so on. The district court may, at the parties' request, hear new witnesses, authorise an expert examination, and collect material evidence and documents, even if the justice of the peace previously refused to perform those procedural actions. The district court may not dismiss a party's request pertaining to examination of new evidence on the ground that such a request was also dismissed by the justice of the peace.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention
84. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that his arrest had been unlawful, in that the authorities had not had any reasons to suspect him of having committed any criminal offence. The relevant parts of Article 5 provide:
"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so..."
A. Submissions by the parties
85. The Government, relying on a copy of the record of the applicant's arrest issued on 2 December 2002, stated that the arrest had been carried out in compliance with the requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, based on reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a number of serious criminal offences. The Government stressed that the suspicion had been based on extensive evidence, including witness statements and documents, implicating the applicant in large-scale fraud and money laundering.
86. The applicant averred that his arrest had been unlawful as the domestic authorities had not cited any grounds warranting the conclusion that he had committed a crime. He further argued that the authorities had not relied on the exhaustive list of grounds under Article 91 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure in the record of his arrest.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
87. The Court notes that this complaint 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
88. The Court firstly reiterates that the "reasonableness" of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against arbitrary arrest and detention laid down in Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. This requires the existence of some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence, though what may be regarded as reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A No. 182, p. 16, § 32).
89. In the present case the Court notes that the applicant was arrested by the prosecution authorities on suspicion of having committed an aggravated fraud. A record, drawn up immediately after the arrest and signed by the applicant, contained a description of the charges against him and listed evidence on which the suspicion was based. The investigating authorities, relying on Article 91 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, further cited the applicant's liability to abscond an
> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
