Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 26.03.2009 "Дело "Елизаров (Yelizarov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]





erefore, there had been a risk that he might abscond if released. Further, the domestic courts had referred to the danger of reoffending, that danger being gauged by reference to his membership of the National Bolshevik Party. That Party had been recognised as an extremist organisation by a Russian court and had been banned. Its members had resorted to radical and violent action to express their political views and many of them had been convicted or accused of criminal offences. The applicant had been previously fined in administrative proceedings for commission of disorderly acts, which proved that he was likely to reoffend. The domestic courts had also taken into account that the imputed offence had been committed by an organised group. It had been therefore necessary to hold the applicant in custody to prevent his obstructing the establishment of the truth by communication of the details of the investigation to his accomplices. Finally, the Government submitted that the domestic courts had carefully examined the applicant's arguments and had found them insufficient to warrant release. Thus, as the applicant had no permanent income, his argument regarding his having a child had rightly been considered irrelevant by the domestic courts. In the Government's view, the applicant's pre-trial detention had been founded on "relevant and sufficient" reasons.
42. The applicant considered that the domestic courts had not advanced "relevant and sufficient" reasons to hold him in custody. He had not fled from justice during the year that had passed between the fight and his arrest, although he had had plenty of opportunity to do so if he wished. He considered himself the victim rather than the perpetrator of the attack and was interested in cooperating with the investigation to assist them in establishing the truth. He had no criminal record, had a permanent place of residence and permanent employment and was the only breadwinner for his ailing wife and his daughter. He had offered to post bail and had provided the courts with the personal surety of a member of Parliament. Therefore there had been no risk of his absconding. Nor could he interfere with the investigation, as he had been arrested after the investigation had been completed. He further argued that his membership of the National Bolshevik Party had not given rise to a danger of reoffending. The members of the National Bolshevik Party had never resorted to violence. All criminal proceedings against them had been politically motivated and they had been persecuted for their political views and membership of an opposition organisation, the National Bolshevik Party. The applicant concluded that the domestic courts had extended his detention without demonstrating the existence of specific facts in support of their conclusion that he might abscond, interfere with the investigation or reoffend.

2. The Court's assessment

(a) General principles
43. The Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention. However after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
44. The presumption is in favour of release. As the Court has consistently held, the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial. Until his conviction, th



> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 19 20 21

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1314 с