e applied to the applicant should remain unchanged because the applicant had been charged with particularly serious crimes.
26. On 3 and 11 May 2005 the applicant's counsel appealed against the decisions of 27 and 28 April 2005, respectively.
27. On 19 May 2005 the district court extended the applicant's detention until 12 June 2005 because he had been charged with particularly serious crimes and, if released, could have absconded or continued criminal activities. On 27 May 2005 the applicant's counsel appealed against that decision.
28. On 10 June 2005 the district court extended the term of the detention until 12 July 2005 because the applicant had been charged with particularly serious crimes and, if released, could have absconded, impeded the investigation or continued criminal activities. On 15 June 2005 the decision was appealed against.
29. On 16 June 2005 the regional court upheld the decision of 27 April 2005 on appeal.
30. On 23 June 2005 the regional court upheld the decision of 19 May 2005 on appeal.
31. On 28 June 2005 the regional court upheld the decision of 28 April 2005 on appeal.
32. On 8 July 2005 the district court authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention until 12 August 2005, arguing that the applicant was charged with particularly serious crimes, was a national of another State, could abscond, continue criminal activities and impede the investigation. On 8 July 2005 the applicant's counsel appealed against the decision.
33. On 13 July 2005 the regional court upheld the decision of 10 June 2005 on appeal.
34. On 15 July 2005 the prosecutor's office transferred the case file to the district court. On 20 July 2005 the district court received it.
35. On 1 August 2005 the district court scheduled a hearing in the applicant's criminal case. It also noted that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged, without providing any reasons.
36. On 4 August 2005 the regional court upheld the decision of 8 July 2005.
37. On 8 August 2005 counsel for the applicant appealed against the decision of 1 August 2005. On 9 September 2005 the regional court dismissed the appeal.
38. Between 10 August 2005 and 9 February 2006 the district court rescheduled hearings on eight occasions for various reasons.
39. On 17 January 2006 the district court extended the term of the applicant's pre-trial detention until 20 April 2006 for the following reasons: the criminal case file was particularly complex and voluminous; the applicant had been charged with particularly serious crimes; there were no reasons to change the measure applied. The decision was taken in the presence of counsel; the applicant himself was absent.
40. On 7 March 2006 the regional court upheld the decision of 17 January 2006 on appeal.
41. Between 9 February and 13 April 2006 the district court rescheduled hearings on six occasions for various reasons.
42. On 13 April 2006 the district court sentenced the applicant to three years' imprisonment.
43. On 21 June 2006 the regional court upheld the judgment of 13 January 2006 on appeal.
B. Conditions of the applicant's pre-trial detention
1. The applicant's account
44. On 6 April 2004 the applicant was placed in custody in remand prison IZ-33/1 in Vladimir ("the remand prison").
45. While in the remand prison, the applicant was kept in different cells. The number of inmates kept in each cell varied. In particular, cell No. 17 measured approximately 28 sq. m and was equipped with ten bunk beds; eight to fifteen inmates were kept there at the same time as the applicant. Cell No. 43 measured around 28 sq. m, was equipped with eight bunk beds and housed from six to ten inmates. Cell No. 56 me
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
