concerning detention on remand upon transfer of a criminal case from a prosecutor to a trial court complied with the Constitution. However, their practical interpretation by the courts might have contradicted their constitutional meaning. The Ruling, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
"The second part of Article 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation provides that... detention is permitted only on the basis of a court order... Consequently, if the term of detention, as defined in the court order, expires, the court must decide on the extension of the detention, otherwise the accused person must be released...
These rules are common for all stages of criminal proceedings, and also cover the transition from one stage to another. ...The transition of the case to another stage does not automatically put an end to the preventive measure applied at previous stages.
Therefore, when the case is transmitted by the prosecution to the trial court, the preventive measure applied at the pre-trial stage... may continue to apply until the expiry of the term for which it has been set in the respective court decision [imposing it]...
[Under Articles 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure] a judge, after having received the criminal case concerning a detained defendant, should, within 14 days, set a hearing and establish "whether the preventive measure applied should be lifted or changed". This wording implies that the decision to detain the accused or extend his detention, taken at the pre-trial stage, may stand after the completion of the pre-trial investigation and transmittal of the case to the court, only until the end of the term for which the preventive measure has been set.
The prosecution, in its turn, when approving the bill of indictment and transferring the case file to the court, should check whether the term of detention has not expired and whether it is sufficient to allow the judge to take a decision [on further detention of the accused pending trial]. If by the time of transfer of the case file to the court this term has expired, or if it appears to be insufficient to allow the judge to take a decision [on detention], the prosecutor, applying Articles 108 and 109 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, [must] ask the court to extend the period of detention."
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
71. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand prison were poor. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. The parties' submissions
72. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. In particular, he had not sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage before a court. To prove the effectiveness of that remedy, they referred to an article in a Russian newspaper, reporting on the case of Mr D., who had contracted scabies while in detention and had been awarded 25,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by the Novgorod Town Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They further referred to the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Orel of 2 June 2004, awarding Mr R. RUB 30,000 as compensation for unlawful detention lasting fifty-six days, for four of which he had been without food.
73. The Government further submitted that the Court had competence to examine the conditions of the applicant's detention only after 8 October 2004, arguing that the preceding period fell out of the Court's competence. They contended that the applicant's detention was not a continuing situation, as he had been repeatedly transferred from one cell to another and the conditions of his detention had varied in different cells. Moreo
> 1 2 3 ... 23 24 25 ... 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
