CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 décembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s67017A4B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCF1862B4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s16BA7444 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4612AB6B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEA848A06 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s45A47774 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3CDDC92B { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s36433D38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7C65603C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDDEC8B1D { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s57A2FB83 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s72A1204C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s292CCFD { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s40E223D1 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s757697B4 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sAFF9DC53 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5EC407A5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5AF2DFE5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA0304DDC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC2EB63 { width:201.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 62936/00 by Valentin MOISEYEV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9   December 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev, judges , and   Mr   S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Valentin Ivanovich Moiseyev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mmes K. Moskalenko and K. Kostromina of the International Protection Centre, lawyers practising in Moscow, and by Mr W. Peukert, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The respondent Government are represented by Mr   P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1. The applicant's arrest and indictment On 3 July 1998 Mr C., a South Korean diplomatic officer, was apprehended by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation ( Федеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации, “the FSB”) while receiving certain materials from the applicant who was then a deputy head of the First Asian Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. On the following day Mr C. was declared persona non grata and he left Russia. On 3 July 1998 at 11.30 p.m. a group of eight armed FSB officers entered and searched the applicant's flat. They apprehended the applicant and escorted him to the Lefortovo detention centre. On 3 August 1998 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the applicant for serious breaches of the Russian legislation on the civil service. On 4 July 1998 the investigators of the FSB Investigations Department ( Следственное управление ФСБ РФ ) interrogated the applicant as a suspect in a high treason case. According to the applicant, the investigators intimidated him to obtain a confession, threatening to bring charges against his daughter and son and lock them in the adjacent cell. On 6 July 1998 a deputy Prosecutor General authorised the applicant's detention on remand. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. On 8   July 1998 the investigator requested legal services office no. 13 ( юридическая консультация № 13 ) to appoint a defence lawyer for the applicant. The legal office's director designated Mr Konoval. On 9 July 1998 Mr Konoval arrived at the FSB Investigations Department and offered his services to the applicant. On 13 July 1998 the applicant was charged with high treason in the presence of Mr Konoval. He was accused of having disclosed classified information to a South Korean intelligence agent. On 15 July 1998 the applicant retained Mr Gervis as his defence counsel. On 22 and 23 July, 16 September and 12   November 1998 the investigator ordered seizure of the applicant's car and car box, 5,447 US dollars and a computer from his home, as security in respect of possible forfeiture of the applicant's property following the conviction. On 14 January, 12 March and 20 May 1999 the applicant attempted to challenge the orders authorising his continued detention on remand. On 1 February and 4 June 1999 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant's complaints and rejected them as unsubstantiated. The court found that the investigator had correctly imposed the preventive measure having regard to the gravity of the charge and the applicant's potential to abscond or interfere with the investigation. On 10 June 1999 the pre-trial investigation was finished and the applicant was granted access to the case-file. On 25 August 1999 the bill of indictment was served on the applicant. The applicant was refused permission to take a copy of the indictment to his cell because the document contained classified information. The applicant could access the indictment at the special department ( спецчасть ) of the detention facility. 2. First conviction and its quashing On 16 December 1999 the Criminal Division of the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment and ordered forfeiture of the seized property. On 15 June 2000 and other dates the applicant and his lawyers appealed against the conviction. On 25 July 2000 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the conviction and remitted the case to the trial court for a fresh examination. It found as follows: “In finding [the applicant] guilty of the offence under Article 275 of the Criminal Code, the [first-instance] court noted that... between early 1994 and 3 July 1998 [the applicant] had... transmitted information and documents containing State secrets to the South Korean intelligence. The [first-instance] court only gave a general list of information and documents..., without specifying which information and documents and when [the applicant] had transmitted. As the offences imputed to [the applicant] are continuous in time and span over the period from 1992-1993 to July 1998, during which period the Russian laws changed, the determination of these issues is of crucial importance for the case. Pursuant to Article 29 § 3 of the Constitution... the list of information constituting State secrets was to be defined in a federal law. Such list was first established in the federal law “On introduction of changes and amendments to the Russian Federation Law 'On State secrets'” of 6 October 1997. Hence, until that date there was no list of information constituting State secrets that met the requirements of the Constitution. As there is no indication in the judgment about the time when [the applicant] transmitted information and documents, it is impossible to reach the correct conclusion as to which of the offences imputed to the applicant were committed during the period when the federal law containing the list of State secrets and compatible with the requirements of the Constitution was in force. It follows from the case-file that... experts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared their report [on the classified nature of information transmitted by the applicant] on the basis of the law on State secrets of 21 July 1993, the President decree of 30 November 1995 and the Government resolution of 18 September 1992, and the expert of the Main Intelligence Department of the General Headquarters of the Russian Army worked on the basis of the federal law 'On security' of 5 March 1992, the law on State secrets of 21 July 1993 and the President decree of 30 November 1995. However, it has to be taken into account that the law on State secrets of 21 July 1993 on which the above experts relied contained no list of information constituting State secrets. Section 5 of the law (text of 21 July 1993) only referred to the information that could be classified as State secrets. The conclusions of these reports... have to be assessed with regard to the above considerations. Taking into account that the actus reus of the offence under Article 275 of the Criminal Code only comprises acts involving State secrets, the [first-instance] court should have determined which information and documents listed in the indictment and transmitted by [the applicant] could have been considered as State secrets in accordance with the requirements of then effective laws.” 3. Second conviction (a) Hearings under Judge Gubanova On 5 September 2000 the Moscow City Court began hearing the applicant's case. Presiding Judge Gubanova and two lay assessors sat on the bench. The applicant applied to the court for release pending trial. On the same day the court rejected the application. It held that detention on remand could be imposed on a person charged with high treason on the sole ground of dangerousness of the offence and there were therefore no grounds to release the applicant. On 11 September 2000 the applicant requested the court to change the measure of restraint applied to him. On the same day the court dismissed the request, finding that dangerousness of the offence alone was a sufficient ground to remand him in custody. On 15 September 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision of 11   September 2000 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. According to the applicant, his appeal was never examined. He alleges, however, that the letter of Judge Galiullin of the Supreme Court to Judge Yegorova, president of the Moscow City Court, of 14 March 2001 indicated that “there had been no grounds to lodge an appeal against that decision of the court” (a copy of the document has not been made available to the Court). (b) Hearings with Judge Koval On 29 November 2000, at the stage of closing arguments, Judge Korzhikov, acting president of the Moscow City Court, ordered a change in the court's composition, citing the illness of Judge Gubanova. On the same day Judge Koval and two new lay assessors were assigned to the case. On the same day the applicant challenged the new composition of the bench as unlawful and asked for copies of the decision officialising the change and of documents confirming the lawfulness of appointment of new lay assessors as no reasons for the replacement of lay assessors had been given. Judge Koval dismissed the challenge in general terms. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 14 March 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It found that Judge Gubanova had indeed been ill between 15 November and 13   December 2000, as well as between 18   December 2000 and 18 January 2001, and the decision of 29   November 2000 had therefore been lawful and justified. The court did not address the appointment of new lay assessors. On 1 December 2000 the applicant applied again for release, claiming his innocence. The Moscow City Court dismissed the application, finding that the measure of restraint had been imposed in accordance with the law and there was no reason to change it. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. According to him, the merits of the appeal were never considered. On 10 April 2001 the proceedings were stayed until 13 June 2001 pending translation of some documents from Korean into Russian. The court rejected the applicant's proposal to appoint a civilian translator for this assignment and picked of its own motion the translator who had worked in the past for the Military and Diplomatic Department of the “Novosti” state information agency. The applicant challenged the appointment of the translator and the decision on adjournment of the proceedings which had the effect of extending the applicant's detention on remand; the trial court dismissed the challenge. On 6 June 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the appeal concerning the adjournment of the proceedings as unsubstantiated. (c) Hearing under Judge Medvedev On 10 July 2001, following a three-month pause in the hearings, the entire bench was replaced and the case was assigned to Judge Medvedev and two new lay assessors. No reasons for the replacement were given. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the substitution of the bench. On 16 July 2001 the applicant appealed against the rejection of his challenge to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 26 September 2001 as unsubstantiated. (d) Hearings under Judge Komarova i. Replacement of the presiding judge and lay assessors On 20 July 2001 Judge Medvedev and both lay assessors were replaced with Judge Komarova and two new lay assessors. No grounds were indicated. The applicant challenged the new bench; his challenge was dismissed on the same day. His appeal to the Supreme Court of 24 July 2001 was examined and rejected on 26   September 2001. ii. New replacement of lay assessors On 31 July 2001 both lay assessors were replaced with new ones once again, without citing any reason for the change. The applicant challenged the new change, but to no avail. His appeal against the rejection was considered and dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2001. iii. Further applications for release On 10, 20 and 31 July 2001 the applicant lodged three further applications for release. Those were rejected by the Moscow City Court on the same days. Each time the court determined that the measure of restraint had been imposed lawfully and there were no grounds to change or revoke it. On 16 and 24 July and in early August 2001 the applicant filed appeals against these decisions with the Supreme Court. On 26   September 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined all three appeals and upheld the decisions of the city court. iv. The applicant's conviction On 14 August 2001 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of high treason under Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As regards the actus reus of the offence, the court found that during his long-term diplomatic mission in Seoul in 1992-1994 the applicant had consented to informal co-operation with the South Korea's Agency for National Security Planning (“KCIA”) in return for regular pay. In fulfilment of the KCIA's instructions, between early 1994 and 3 July 1998 the applicant had arranged no less than 80 meetings with the KCIA's agent, Mr   C., and transmitted to the KCIA a considerable number of documents. In particular, in August and November 1994, in May and September 1995, on 18 March, 20 June and in September 1996 and in the autumn of 1997 the applicant had handed over classified information constituting State secrets in the field of military co-operation between Russia and the North Korea. In 1994-1998 the applicant also transmitted copies of official documents that did not contain State secrets. Furthermore, in 1997 the applicant procured and made available to Mr   C. copies of treaties and protocols on co-operation between Russian and the North Korean, as per the list compiled by Mr C. The court established that the KCIA had paid the applicant no less than fourteen thousand US dollars in remuneration. The court supported its findings by reference to, in particular, the applicant's own statements obtained in the days immediately following his arrest and statements by several witnesses. Most witnesses were identified in the judgment only by their three initials, i.e. the first letters of their first, father's (patronymic) and last names. In respect of some witnesses only the first letter of their last name was given. The witness “K.G.B.” stated in his pre-trial deposition that virtually all documents concerning bilateral relationships of Russia with other countries and appraisal of the political and economic situation in these countries which had been prepared within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had contained sensitive information and their disclosure or communication to other states had been highly undesirable. The court noted that on 12   September 1990 the applicant, when taking up his duties at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had signed an undertaking not to disclose State or work-related secrets. In their pre-trial depositions the witnesses “M.A.I” and “I.A.T.” confirmed that the applicant had had access to sensitive documents which had been of interest to the South Koreans and that Mr C.'s affiliation with the intelligence service had been common knowledge among the experts in Korean issues. Their depositions were read out in the court and the witness “T.G.D.” also made oral submissions to the same effect. Both “I.A.T” and “T.G.D.” testified that the South Koreans had had good knowledge of the issues which they had not been supposed to be aware of. The court further noted that, according to the information of the External Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation ( СВР РФ ) and the Main Investigations Department of the Russian Army Headquarters ( ГРУ ГШ ВС РФ ), during his work in Seoul between June 1992 and February 1994 the applicant had had contacts with employees of the Korean intelligence services and had negligently discussed sensitive matters in unprotected areas. In 1996 it was discovered that the South Korean intelligence regularly received confidential information to which the applicant had access and that the applicant maintained private contacts with Mr C. for remuneration. The witness “M.”, an employee of the Federal Security Service, testified to the court that in January 1996 he had contacted the applicant and advised him of Mr C.'s official mission as a representative of the KCIA in Moscow. The applicant had acknowledged that he had known it himself. Referring to a letter from the Counter-intelligence Operations Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation ( УКРО ДКР ФСБ РФ ) of 9 July 1998, the court established that in February 1997 the External Intelligence Service had provided the Federal Security Service with copies of a “draft order on the organisation of work of the Moscow KCIA residents in 1997” and the applicant's “personal resident file”, wherefrom it followed that the applicant had been recruited by the KCIA during his stay in the South Korea and enlisted as a functioning agent of that service. The applicant contested the accuracy of the translation, disputing, in particular, the translation of the Korean word “ 공작원 ” as “operative agent”. Having sought the opinion of the witness “M.” who mastered the Korean language and who indicated that the dictionary translated the word both as an “employee” and as a “person performing the assignment of an organisation for remuneration”, the court determined that the translation was correct because a person performing assignments of an foreign intelligence service for remuneration was in fact an “operative agent” of that service. The court relied on the conclusions by unidentified experts in order to establish that the information communicated by the applicant had contained State secrets. It found as follows: “The court agrees with the experts' conclusions because the [study] was performed by competent persons, in compliance with the rules of criminal procedure and [it has been] scientifically proven. According to experts' opinions, the information reveals the substance of the Russian foreign policy and co-ordination agreements with foreign states in the field of military co-operation and intelligence and also contains politically sensitive data. The defendant's and his lawyer's arguments about the lack of competence on the part of experts cannot be considered substantiated because the expert study was carried out by a panel that included experts designated by [the applicant] and his defence; at their request the experts who had been on the expert panel at the stage of pre-trial investigation had taken part in the court hearing and they supplied [the court] with their written conclusions and clarifications...” In so far as the applicant alleged that he had been forced to incriminate himself, the court found as follows: “It follows from the case-file that during the pre-trial investigation [the applicant] repeatedly gave evidence about the committed offence in the presence of various lawyers; on several occasions the rights of a suspect and defendant were explained to him; however, neither he nor his lawyers made any complaints about unlawful methods of investigation. Moreover, already during the pre-trial investigation [the applicant] changed his deposition in the presence of the same lawyer, which goes to show that he was under no pressure to give false evidence.” The court questioned the investigator P. and his supervisor O. who denied having exercised any pressure on the applicant and stated that the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Russian Constitution had been put at the applicant's disposal before the interrogation. Finally, the court dismissed in the following terms the applicant's argument that he could not be held liable for disclosure of State secrets because there had been no list of classified information before the amendment of the law on State secrets of 6 October 1997: “Pursuant to section 2 of the law on State secrets of 6 October 1997, the list of information constituting State secrets is the aggregate of categories of information which can be classified as State secrets... This definition was included in the terminology part [of the law] in order to bring its original wording in compliance with the Russian Constitution. Since the information constituting State secrets cannot be explicitly enumerated in the law, the approach was chosen, according to which the list has to be understood as an aggregate of relatively generic categories of information described in section 5 of the new law [i.e. of 6 October 1997]. Hence, there is merely an unimportant semantical difference between section 5 of the law on State secrets in its 1993 wording and that of 1997. By no means it implies that there were no legal instrument countering the encroachments upon the fundamentals of the constitutional structure and security of the Russian State until 6   October 1997... Nor are the arguments to the effect that the actus reus of the offence under Article 275 of the Criminal Code only comprises the acts involving State secrets, based on the law. The object of espionage may include information constituting State secrets, as well as other information that is being collected and transmitted at the request of a foreign intelligence service for the use detrimental to the external security of the Russian Federation...” Having regard to the applicant's clean criminal record, age, state of health, lengthy detention of custody, positive work references and the absence of aggravating circumstances, the court invoked the “special-circumstances” clause of Article 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced him to a shorter term than provided in the relevant sanction, and notably to four years and six months' imprisonment in a strict-security correctional colony, with account for the time served from 4 July 1998, and confiscation of the already seized property. On 26 December 2001 and other dates the applicant and his three lawyers appealed against the conviction to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. They alleged violations of the applicant's rights guaranteed by the Russian Constitution and various Convention provisions. The points of appeal touched on substantially the same issues as those raised before this Court. On 9 January 2002 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, presided over by Judge Galiullin, upheld the conviction of 14 August 2001. The court rejected the arguments by the defence and found that the first instance court and the investigators had fully complied with both national and international law throughout the proceedings. There had been no violations of law capable of rendering the judgment unfounded or unlawful. The Supreme Court reproduced verbatim the city court's reasoning concerning criminal liability for disclosure of State secrets. 4. The applicant's detention on remand (a) The conditions of the applicant's detention From 4 July 1998 to 25 January 2002 the applicant was held in the “Lefortovo” detention centre ( СИЗО «Лефортово» ) run by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. i. General conditions The Government submit that the applicant was held in a two-person cell measuring 8.2 sq. m. The cell was equipped with heating, mandatory ventilation, opening window, furniture, a fridge, a TV set, a sink and a lavatory. The applicant had an individual sleeping place and bedding. He received food three times a day in accordance with standard norms. The applicant was given cutlery, personal hygiene items, as well as books and magazines from the library. He could exercise outside for one hour a day. The applicant submits that the standard cell of 8.2 sq. m was designed for three inmates as it contained three bunk beds fixed to the concrete floor and walls. In fact, he shared the cell with two other detainees in February and March 2000 and then from 19 September 2000 to 15 January 2001. As regards the furniture, the cell contained two small tables and an open shelf which the detainees mockingly called “a TV set” because all items on the shelf were on display. Contrary to the Government's assertion, there was no fridge or TV set. As regards hygienic standards, the applicant submits that the lavatory in the corner of the cell had no flush system and the inmates filled a pail with water from the sink to eliminate waste. The toilet was not separated from the living area; the applicant had to use the toilet and apply his treatment for haemorrhoids in front of his cellmates and wardens observing them through the peephole in the door. Detainees cleaned the cell themselves. No broom, dustbin or detergent was given to them. Once in a while they received 100 g of sodium hydrate to disinfect the lavatory. The applicant had access to showers once a week and he received 50 g of laundry soap for washing. According to the applicant, the cell was dimly lit with two bulbs of 40-60 watts each fixed in the ceiling and covered with metal bars and opaque glass. The artificial light was never switched off. The window pane also had frosted glass. The exercise courts were located on the roof of the facility and measured about 10 sq. m. The walls were three metres high and the opening to the sky was protected with metal bars and netting. Finally, the applicant submits that the food was meagre and of poor quality. No fresh vegetables, fruit, dairy products, beef or pork were ever served. He could only receive food from his wife twice a month and up to 15 kg each time. He also bought food from the facility shop. ii. Medical conditions The Government submit that the applicant was provided with adequate medical assistance. During the period of his detention he was examined more than 40 times in the medical department of the facility and received treatment for osteochondrosis, vegeto-vascular dystonia, allergic dermatitis, pharyngitis and other diseases. Medical examinations and consultations were carried out by competent doctors who performed x-rays of the applicant's thorax, stomach and knee joint and an electrocardiogram. The applicant received supportive drug therapy. A doctor also prescribed him dietary food that comprised additional 20 g of butter, 250 g of milk, 22 g of kissel [*] per day, as well as additional servings of bread and sugar. The applicant submits that on his placement in the pre-trial detention centre “Lefortovo” on 4 July 1998 he was practically fit, weighed 75 kg and had no major diseases, apart from chronic gastritis and haemorrhoids. As a result of detention, he lost 15 kg in weight. Starting from July 1998 he suffered from vegeto-vascular dystonia, osteochondrosis, dyshidrosis of palms, hygroma of a knee joint, furunculosis and haemorrhoids. In October 1999 the applicant's gastritis evolved into an acute gastroduodinitis but no systemic treatment was given and the medications had to be provided by his wife. In September 2001 a team of doctors, including a gastroenterologist, examined the applicant and took blood and urine samples. iii. Complaints to various authorities On 6 July 2000 the applicant's wife complained to the Prosecutor General and the Minister of Justice about the applicant's precarious state of health necessitating urgent medical measures. It appears that her complaint received no response. On 16 July and 9 August 2001 the applicant's wife requested the Prosecutor General to allow an examination of his medical condition by independent medical experts. On 14 September 2001 a prosecutor of the department for supervision of lawfulness of execution of criminal punishments rejected the request as “there were no grounds justifying intervention of the Prosecutor General's office”. On 5 December 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow about the general conditions of his detention, inadequate medical assistance, meagre food and the lack of privacy in the cell. The applicant alleges that on the same day he was called upon by the head of the remand prison and senior medical officer with a view to explaining them the reasons for lodging the above complaint. The head of the prison had a printed copy of the applicant's originally hand-written complaint, although the complaint had never been addressed to the prison administration. On 17   December 2001 the Lefortovskiy District Court invited the applicant to specify the agency which he complained about and to pay the court fee, by 27 December 2001. The applicant only received this decision on 27 December 2001. On the same day the court disallowed the applicant's complaint because the instructions of 17 December 2001 had not been fulfilled; the copy of that decision was served on the applicant on 8 January 2002 and on the following day his conviction became final. (b) The conditions of the applicant's transport between the detention facility and of his confinement at the courthouse i. Conditions of transport to and from the courthouse The Government submit that the applicant was transported in special prison vans equipped for the transport of detainees in accordance with applicable standards. A typical car measured 3.8 m (length) by 2.35 m (width); its passenger compartment had two general cells, designed for 12   detainees each, and one soundproof solitary-confinement cell. Hard benches were installed in all cells. Cells were heated with a special device that delivered heat from the car cooling system. For ventilation, there was a peephole in the entrance door and emergency hatches in cells. The lighting in the cells was on during the entire stay of detainees inside the van. The passenger compartment was cleaned and disinfected on a daily basis. The travel time from the Lefortovo facility to the Moscow City Court and back did not exceed 30 minutes. The applicant submits that for attendance at court hearings he was usually taken out of the detention centre early in the morning and he was not brought back until ten to fifteen hours later. Whilst being transported, the applicant and occasionally up to eighteen other detainees were kept in a small closed metal rear of a prison van. The passenger compartment of the van, in addition to detainees' cells, comprised a 1.5-metre-wide lobby for two police officers. The heater and lighting only functioned when the engine was running. Natural flow of air through emergency hatches was insufficient. Moreover, the hatches were located in the wardens' lobby and they opened and closed hatches at their whim. The floor of the cells was extremely dirty and covered with cigarette butts, food crumbs and packaging, plastic bottles and bags with urine; no access to the toilet was possible during the transport. The road from the Moscow City Court to the Lefortovo facility took much longer than 30 minutes because the van called on its way into either the “Matrosskaya Tishina” or “Butyrka” facility that served as assembly points for detainees. As a result, the travel time was as long as three to eight hours. By way of example, the applicant gives the following figures: on 26 December 2000 the travel time from the court to the facility was 3 h 10 min; 11 January 2001 – 4 h 30 min; 17 January 2001 – 4   h 15 min; 5 February 2001 – 3 h 20 min; 27 July 2001 – 3 h 30 min (to the court) and 4 h 20 min (from the court); 30 July 2001 – 4 h 50 min; 3   August 2001 – 5 h 20 min; 9 August 2001 – 5 h 50 min (until 1.10 a.m. on the following day). ii. Conditions of confinement in the Moscow City Court's premises The Government submit that convoy cells of the Moscow City Court have standard dimensions of 1.95 m (width) by 1 m (depth) by 3.1 m (height). Cells are equipped with a bench fixed to the floor, mandatory ventilation, heating, lighting and a metal door with a peephole in it. In cold seasons the average temperature inside is 22 o C. Cells are cleaned daily and disinfected weekly. The convoy premises have a toilet room, to which detainees have access at their discretion. The applicant submits that before the hearing, between court sessions or after the hearing while waiting for other detainees, he was confined for hours to a small unventilated cell of the courthouse called “stone hole” ( «каменный стакан» ) measuring approximately one square metre, together with one or two other defendants, some of them with tuberculosis. The walls of the “stone hole” were covered with sharp-edged reinforced concrete lining ( «бетонная шуба» ). The cell had one bench fixed to the concrete floor that could barely accommodate two persons. The third person had to remain standing. The cell was lit with a small bulb behind metal bars that provided insufficient light to read by. The floor and the bench were dirty and covered with cigarette butts, food waste and torn paper. The cell had no windows and the only opening was the peephole in the door. Heating and mandatory ventilation were not available; the air was heavy with cigarette smoke from prisoners smoking in the cell and police officers smoking outside. A visit to the toilet was possible two or three times a day at the warden's order; from within the cell it was impossible to call the warden. The applicant never received any food (hot meal or a dry ration) while in the convoy cell. On more than a dozen occasions – on 7 and 21 September, 1, 15, 20 and 23 November, 5 and 19 December 2000, 11 and 29 January, 1 February, 5   and 21 March 2001 – the applicant was brought to the courthouse, but no hearings were held and he remained in the convoy cell for the entire day. iii. Complaints to various authorities The applicant gave the following account of the conditions of his transport in a complaint of 25 January 2001 (or 25 December 2000) addressed to the Prosecutor General's office: “On 22 December 2000 [we] left from the premises of the Moscow City Court around 5 p.m., and I was brought back to the detention centre of the FSB (Lefortovo) at 1.15 a.m. on the following day, i.e., 8 hours later. During the entire period I was kept in an unheated van [used] for transport of detainees, the outside temperature being approximately -10 o C, without anything to eat or drink and without access to a toilet. Each section of the van contained up to 18 persons: they had to stand or to sit on each other's lap. Following this 'trip' I showed the symptoms of a flu, I had an acute condition of my gastroduodenitis, [suffered from] headache and other symptoms resulting from a lengthy sitting on cold benches in the frost. This situation was in no way exceptional: on 19 December, for example, we started from the courthouse of the Moscow City Court approximately at 9.30 p.m., while the court hearing ended at about 5 p.m. We arrived to the detention centre at about 11 p.m. ... Similar facts also occurred thereafter: instead of 10-15 minutes normally required for a ride, [transportation] to the detention centre takes, as a rule, three to eight hours.” On 28 April 2001 the commander of the police convoy regiment replied to the applicant that the unidentified regiment officer who had violated applicable regulations had been disciplined. On 13 February 2001 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to complain about the conditions of the transport to the administration of the detention facility. A similar complaint lodged with the Prosecutor General's office on 13   August 2001 evoked the following response written from the Moscow City Department of the Interior on 23 November 2001: “The delays in transportation were due to objective causes. Measures have been undertaken to avoid similar delays in the future”. In August 2001 the applicant complained about degrading and inhuman conditions of transport to the trial judge. The statements were entered in the trial record and the judge promised to get in touch with the relevant authorities to find a way to improve the situation. The applicant also mentioned appalling conditions of his transport to and from the detention facility in his complaint to the Lefortovskiy District Court of 5 December 2001 (see above). (c) Restrictions on family visits i. During the pre-trial investigation The applicant had no family visits from 3 July 1998 to 9 April 1999. On 25 January 1999 the applicant's wife asked the investigator P. for permission to see her husband. Her request was refused on 10 February 1999 with reference to the nature of the applicant's case and the gravity of the charge against him. The investigator considered a visit “inappropriate”. On 22 February 1999 the applicant asked the same investigator to allow his wife to visit him. On 26 February 1999 his request was refused as the visit was deemed to be “inappropriate at that moment”. On 10   March 1999 the applicant's wife complained about the investigator's decision to the Prosecutor General's office. By a letter of 30   March 1999, the Chief Military Prosecutor's office responded that by law the investigator had full discretion in the matter of family visits and in that case he had acted within his competence. On 18 March 1999 the applicant wrote a complaint to the Chief Military Prosecutor's office. He indicated, in particular, that he had not seen his family for more than eight months and that the investigator had offered him to permit a family visit in exchange of his abandoning of a judicial complaint concerning the unlawfulness of his detention. On 2 April 1999 the prosecutor's office responded that the FSB Investigations Department had been asked “to settle the issue” of family visits. On 5 April 1999 the applicant applied for permission for his wife and daughter to visit him. The permission was granted to his daughter only and on 9 April 1999 she paid him a visit. On 11 May 1999 the applicant asked for permission to see his wife. On 24   May 1999 his wife was allowed to see him. ii. In subsequent periods The applicant had no family visits from 3 March to 5 September 2000. On 25 July 2001 the applicant's daughter asked to see her father. She was refused because on 9 June 2001 she had already come to visit him together with her mother and that counted as two visits, whilst the law only provided for two visits by relatives a month. On 26   July 2001 the applicant's wife complained about the refusal to the Moscow City Court and the Prosecutor General's office alleging, inter alia , a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. A week later she was granted permission to visit the applicant. Between 7 December 2001 and 10 January 2002 no permits for family visits were issued. (d) Restrictions on communication with lawyers and preparation of defence i. Restrictions on communication with lawyers Throughout the proceedings the applicant's lawyers were permitted to visit him on the basis of permits valid for one visit only. At the stage of pre-trial investigation a permit was issued by investigators of the Federal Security Service in charge of the applicant's case. During the trial permission was granted by the trial judge. On 26 April and 4 May 2000 Ms Moskalenko, one of the applicant's lawyers, applied to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for an unrestricted permit to visit the applicant. In both cases the registry clerk gave her a printed permit valid for “a visit”. However, yielding to Ms Moskalenko's demands, each time the clerk made handwritten corrections, changing singular to plural. On 26 April 2000 the staff of the Lefortovo detention facility treated the Supreme Court's document as a permit valid for one use because it contained handwritten corrections and because it originally referred to a single visit. On 5 May 2000 Ms Moskalenko attempted to file a written request to the director of the Lefortovo facility for an unrestricted permit to visit the applicant. The facility staff refused to take her request and told her that she could not see the facility director. On an unspecified date a deputy director of the Lefortovo facility visited the acting director of legal services office no. 10 where Ms   Moskalenko worked and orally alleged that Ms Moskalenko had forged the permit to visit the applicant, threatening criminal prosecution against her. Ms Moskalenko denied all allegations. On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Court issued Ms Moskalenko with a printed permit valid for “visits” to the applicant. On 21   August, 12 September and 17 October 2001 Ms Kostromina, one of the applicant's lawyers, applied to the trial court with a view to obtaining a “multiple-use” permit to visit the applicant. Her requests were rejected. Such an unrestricted permit was only granted on 10 January 2002, after the conviction had become final. ii. Restrictions on access to the case-file and notes According to the applicant, throughout the trial his lawyers were restricted in the use made of their notes taken during the previous hearings and they were required to store them in a special court facility. Moreover, when he studied the case-file in the premises of the Moscow City Court after the court session on that day was over, he was chained by his hand to a table or chair. As a result, he had to assume a very uncomfortable posture and his chained hand went numb after a while. Moreover, when he was chained by his right hand, he could not use a pen and make notes. The time afforded for studying of the case-file was granted at the discretion of wardens. On 29 October 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about inadequate conditions of preparation of defence with the Moscow City Court. The complaint remained unanswered. On 26 and 29 December 2001 and 9 January 2002 the applicant's lawyers complained about the inadequate conditions of examination of the case-file and restricted access to the bill of indictment in their appeals against the conviction. iii. Other impediments On 25 September 2000 the FSB staff installed a “high-frequency encoding device” on the computer of the court registrar. On 3 May 2001, in response to the applicant's inquiry about the function of the device, the deputy director of the FSB informed him that the device had been installed in order to preserve the confidentiality of information stored in the court registrar's computer. (e) Preparation of the application to this Court On 8 November 2000 the applicant signed a power of attorney for the International Protection Centre for his representation before the Court. He requested the facility administration to certify his signature and hand it over to his wife. Once the administration certified it, the document was sent to the Moscow City Court which – on 14 November 2000 – returned it as “sent to a wrong address”. On 19 December 2000 the applicant's wife applied to the Moscow City Court for permission to receive the power of attorney. On the same day Judge Koval signed her refusal without giving any explanations. On 9 January and 28 February 2001 the applicant's wife complained to the president of the Moscow City Court who transferred her complaint for decision to the same Judge Koval. On 24   January 2001 Judge Koval responded to her that the power of attorney could not be given to her “because there was no case concerning Valentin Moiseyev in the European Court