City Court quashed the judgment of 7 December 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court noted, inter alia, that the trial court had failed (1) to ensure the examination of several witnesses, instead relying exclusively on their written statements and (2) to ensure participation of the applicant's lay defender in the closing arguments. The court indicated that the applicant should remain in custody pending a new trial.
C. Second set of criminal proceedings
24. On 15 April 2002 the Nikulinskiy District Court scheduled a new hearing of the case for 23 April 2002.
25. On 23 April 2002 the District Court dismissed the defendants' applications for release. The court noted that all three defendants were charged with a serious offence and, if released, they "might interfere with the thorough, complete and objective examination of the case".
26. On 17 May 2002 the Nikulinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. The court based its findings on the statements of witnesses who had testified in court, including the applicant's co-accused, victims of the crime, and forensic evidence. The court held that the applicant was to serve his sentence in a correctional colony with strict conditions of detention.
27. On 9 September 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant's conviction in substance on appeal, indicating that the applicant was to serve his sentence in a correctional colony with normal conditions of detention.
28. It appears that the applicant was sent to serve a prison sentence in a correctional colony with strict conditions of detention. On 14 February 2005 he was transferred to a correctional colony with normal conditions of detention.
29. According to the applicant, he challenged the lawfulness of his detention in the colony with strict conditions of detention by lodging numerous complaints with the prosecutor's office, department of corrections and the court.
II. Relevant domestic law
30. Until 1 July 2002 criminal-law matters were governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federalist Socialist Republic (Law of 27 October 1960, "the old CCrP"). From 1 July 2002 the old CCrP was replaced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Law No. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001, "the new CCrP").
A. Investigation of criminal offences
31. The old CCrP established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator upon the complaint of an individual or on the investigative authorities' own initiative when there were reasons to believe that a crime had been committed (Articles 108 and 125). It was incumbent on the investigative authorities, a prosecutor or a court to accept and follow up on the allegations concerning a criminal offence within three days of the complaint being lodged. That time-limit could be extended up to ten days in exceptional circumstances (Article 109). A prosecutor was responsible for the general supervision of the investigation (Articles 210 and 211). He or she could order a specific investigative action, transfer the case from one investigator to another or order an additional investigation. If there were no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation, the prosecutor or investigator issued a reasoned decision to that effect which had to be communicated to the interested party. The decision was amenable to an appeal to a higher prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction (Article 113).
B. Placement in custody and detention
1. Preventive measures
32. "Preventive measures" or "restrictive measures" include an undertaking not to leave a town or region, a personal guarantee, bail and remand in custody (Artic
> 1 2 3 4 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
