n of 8 August 2000 quashed on the ground that the sentence imposed was too lenient and specifically challenging the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code.
14. On 15 November 2000 the Presidium of the Kirov Regional Court granted the application and remitted the case for a new examination at first instance. The Presidium also quashed the decision of 18 August 2000.
15. On 27 December 2001 the Vyatsko-Polyanskiy District Court of the Kirov Region found the applicant guilty on the same counts and sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment. It found that there had been no "exceptional circumstances" justifying the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to this judgment, the applicant was taken into custody following the court hearing.
16. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment claiming, inter alia, that he had been tried and punished twice for the same offence.
17. On 3 April 2001 the Kirov Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court in the final instance.
18. On 28 November 2002 the Kirovo-Chepetskiy District Court of the Kirov Region released the applicant on parole.
II. Relevant domestic law
A. Criminal liability
19. Article 131 § 2 (b) of the 1996 Criminal Code provides that a rape committed by a group of persons is punishable by a prison term of four to ten years. Article 132 § 2 (b) provides for the same penalty for a violent sexual assault committed by a group of persons.
20. Article 64 of the Code provides that the court may impose a penalty below the minimum punishment provided for in respect of a particular criminal offence if it finds exceptional circumstances mitigating the public danger of the crime committed. The following circumstances, or their combination, may be considered for the purposes of this provision: the aim or the cause of the crime; the extent of participation; the culprit's behaviour during or after the commission of the crime; and other circumstances.
21. Section 1 of the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000 absolved all persons convicted for the first time and whose sentence did not exceed three years from serving their sentence.
B. Supervisory review in criminal proceedings
22. The relevant domestic law governing supervisory review in criminal proceedings has been summarised in the case Fadin v. Russia (No. 58079/00, 27 July 2006).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
and of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention
23. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that the supervisory review conducted in his case had been unfair and had resulted in an unfairly harsh penalty. These Articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 6 of the Convention
"In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair... hearing... by [a]... tribunal..."
Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
"1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case."
A. The parties' submissions
24. The applicant claimed that he had been
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
