Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Полонский (Polonskiy) против России» [англ.]

lgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of pressure on witnesses and jurors.
65. In his grounds of appeal the applicant submitted that he had never put pressure on witnesses and that there was no danger of his hampering the court proceedings. On 1 March 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal. It repeated verbatim its reasoning set out in the decision of 14 December 2004.
66. On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was "opportune" to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, as it could not exclude the risk of pressure on witnesses or jurors. The court found irrelevant the applicant's argument that it was not necessary to extend his detention as he was currently serving his sentence under the judgment of 6 April 2004 and, for that reason, could not tamper with witnesses or threaten jurors. It noted that the purpose of the applicant's detention was to ensure that the criminal proceedings were completed in good time. On 8 July 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal.
67. On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including being members of an armed criminal gang, supposedly organised by the applicant. On 31 August 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal.
68. On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.
69. On 5 July 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 October 2006 for the same reasons as before.
70. In his grounds of appeal the applicant complained that the extension order had been poorly reasoned and the court's conclusions that he could abscond or put pressure on witnesses had been hypothetical and had not been supported by relevant facts. On 26 September 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal. It held that the gravity of the charges was a sufficient reason for the defendant's continued detention.
71. On 2 October 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 January 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges and the defendants' "characters". The court also indicated that the purpose of the detention was to eliminate any risk of the defendants' absconding, re-offending or hampering the court proceedings.
72. The applicant appealed, claiming that the Regional Court had used a stereotyped formula to justify his detention and that its conclusions had been hypothetical. He also complained that he had not been given access to the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their request for extension.
73. On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. The defendants were charged with serious criminal offences, therefore they might abscond, re-offend or obstruct the proceedings. The allegedly excessive length of their detention, their poor health and permanent place of residence were not sufficient reasons to warrant release.
74. On 27 December 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 April 2007 for the same reasons as before.
75. On 10 April 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants' detention until 12 July 2007 for the same reasons as before.
76. On 9 July 2007 the Volgograd Regional Court extende



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet