, and they might therefore abscond, reoffend or obstruct the proceedings. The allegedly excessive length of their detention, their poor health or family situation were not sufficient reasons to warrant release.
30. On 27 December 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2007 for the same reasons as before.
31. The applicant appealed, referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and complaining that his detention had exceeded a reasonable time and the extension order had been poorly reasoned. The Regional Court had already heard all prosecution witnesses and examined the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, therefore he could no longer put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the proceedings in any other way. Referring to his permanent place of residence, positive references and poor health, he asked to be released under an undertaking not to leave the town.
32. On 28 March 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.
33. On 10 April 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2007 for the same reasons as before.
34. On 9 July 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2007, finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure.
35. On 11 October 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding or intimidating the witnesses or jurors.
36. On 9 January 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2008 for the same reasons as before.
37. On 8 April 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court rejected the applicant's request to be released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2008. The decision reads as follows:
"As the trial has not yet been completed, it is necessary to extend the defendants' detention.
The court considers that the gravity of the charges justifies applying to the defendants a preventive measure in the form of detention.
However, in addition to the gravity of the charges - namely the organisation of an armed gang... and commission of assaults on citizens and murders - carrying a sentence of up to twenty years' imprisonment for each of the defendants, the court also takes into account other factors.
Thus, the court is entitled to believe that... application to the defendants of an undertaking not to leave the town or other preventive measures will not exclude the possibility of their absconding or exercising pressure on participants to the proceedings and jurors.
The defendants' argument that their detention has been excessively long is not in itself sufficient to warrant release.
The defendants have not produced any material showing the existence of factors making impossible [sic] their stay in detention facility conditions.
The court is not convinced by the defendants' argument that they have not been granted access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension. The court has at its disposal only the materials from the criminal case file, which had been studied by the defendants.
The court considers that the grounds for the detention of the defendants, who are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences, are relevant and sufficient. Their detention serves the interest of society, as it prevents the commission of similar criminal offences and ensures high-quality and effective examination of the present criminal case.
The criminal case file contains sufficient evidence against each defendant justifying an extension of their
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
