Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.06.2009 «Дело Штейн (Shteyn (Stein)) против России» [англ.]

tracts), and Celejewski v. Poland, No. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006). The Court cannot agree that the concerted nature of the alleged criminal activities formed the basis of the detention orders at the initial or advanced stage of the proceedings. Neither was the Court provided with any evidence which would support the Government's own submission on that point.
106. Thus, the above circumstances alone could not constitute a sufficient basis for holding the applicant for a long period of time.
107. The other grounds for the applicant's continued detention were the domestic courts' findings that the applicant could abscond, pervert the course of justice and reoffend. The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the domestic authorities to establish the existence of concrete facts relevant to the grounds for continued detention. Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, No. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005). It remains to be ascertained whether the domestic authorities established and convincingly demonstrated the existence of specific facts in support of their conclusions.
(a) The danger of perverting the course of proceedings
108. As to the domestic courts' findings that the applicant was liable to pervert the course of justice, in particular by putting pressure on witnesses, the Court notes that at the initial stages of the investigation the risk that an accused person may pervert the course of justice could justify keeping him or her in custody. However, after the evidence has been collected, that ground becomes less justified. In particular, as regards the risk of pressure being put on witnesses, the Court reiterates that for the domestic courts to demonstrate that a substantial risk of collusion existed and continued to exist during the entire period of the applicant's detention, it did not suffice merely to refer to an abstract risk unsupported by any evidence. They should have analysed other pertinent factors, such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings, the applicant's personality, his behaviour before and after the arrest and any other specific indications justifying the fear that he might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed at falsification or destruction of evidence or manipulation of witnesses (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 36, Series A No. 254-A).
109. Furthermore, the Court notes that the pre-trial investigation in respect of the applicant was completed in October 2005. Thereafter, he remained in custody for two years and nine months, of which most of the time the proceedings were pending before the trial court. It thus appears that the domestic authorities had sufficient time to take statements from witnesses in a manner which could have excluded any doubt as to their veracity and would have eliminated the necessity to continue the applicant's deprivation of liberty on that ground (see, for similar reasoning, Solovyev v. Russia, No. 2708/02, § 115, 24 May 2007). Moreover, the prosecution completed the presentation of evidence in September 2007 (see paragraph 33 above). Thus, it may be assumed that the witnesses testifying in relation to the charges against the applicant had been examined by that date. However, no explanation was given as to why the alleged risk persisted. The Court observes that the national courts did not specify why such risk existed in relation to the applicant and did not exist in relation to the other detained or non-detained co-accused. Only two of four defendants, including the applicant and Z, were kept in detention throughout the investigation and pending the tr

> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 24 25 26

0.161 с