n into custody in the courtroom.
B. Quashing of the conviction on 5 June 2003.
Detention on remand from 5 June to 10 July 2003
10. On 5 June 2003 the Ryazan Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of 9 April 2003, remitted the case for a fresh examination and ordered, without providing any reasoning or indicating any legal grounds, that the applicants should remain in custody. The decision of 5 June 2003 was not amenable to appeal.
C. Detention from 10 July to 8 October 2003
11. On 10 July 2003 the Sasovo District Court fixed the first trial hearing for 18 July 2003 and ordered that the measure of restraint applied to the applicants should "remain unchanged". No reasons for the extension were given. At the same time the District Court indicated that the decision could be appealed against to the Ryazan Regional Court within ten days. The applicants did not appeal.
12. The applicants' lawyers asked the District Court to release the applicants on their own recognisance. Both requests were dismissed, on 11 and 14 July 2003, respectively, because the District Court had already examined the detention matter on 10 July 2003. The lawyers did not appeal against the decisions.
13. On 25 July 2003 the Sasovo District Court examined the applicants' requests for release and dismissed them by two separate identically worded decisions. In particular, the District Court held that the applicants were charged with serious criminal offences and could influence witnesses. The decisions were amenable to appeal, however, no appeal followed.
D. Detention from 8 October 2003 to 9 January 2004
(detention order of 8 October 2003)
14. On 8 October 2003 the District Court extended the applicants' detention on remand until 9 January 2004. It held that the applicants had committed a serous criminal offence and, if released, might obstruct justice. The District Court also mentioned that it had ordered an expert examination which had not yet been completed.
15. The applicants appealed, arguing that their conviction had been quashed and there were no further grounds to keep them in custody. They noted that they had children, had permanent places of residence and did not have any criminal record.
16. On 30 October 2003 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the decision of 8 October 2003, noting that the detention had been lawfully extended with reference to the seriousness of the charge against the applicants.
E. Detention from 9 January to 12 February 2004
(detention order of 25 December 2003)
17. On 25 December 2003 the Sasovo District Court, by two separate similarly worded decisions, extended the applicants' detention for an additional three months, that is, until 9 April 2004. The District Court listed the following grounds for the extension: the gravity of the charge against the applicants, the fact that not all witnesses had yet been heard in open court, the likelihood that the applicants might try to influence the victim and witnesses and to prevent the establishment of the truth in the case.
18. The applicants' lawyers appealed, relying on Article 5 of the Convention and arguing that, when extending the applicants' detention, the District Court had not taken into consideration their personal circumstances: that Sasovo was their permanent place of residence, that they needed to take care of small children, etc. They further submitted that there was no evidence of the alleged likelihood that the applicants would obstruct the course of justice. They had never attempted to influence the victim or witnesses and had never tried to interfere with the course of the investigation or judicial proceedings.
19. On 20 January 2004 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the deci
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
