CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 février 2007

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCD69D36A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D7F0777 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s51385260 { width:29.29pt; display:inline-block } .sC5D86EA3 { width:177.23pt; display:inline-block } .s97FE94B5 { width:26.96pt; display:inline-block } .s597AF570 { width:223.91pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 64140/00 by Yevgeniy Ivanovich ROZHKOV against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5   February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. 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 Yevgeniy Ivanovich Rozhkov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Belgorod, Russia. The Russian Government were represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation before 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.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant is a former employee of the Belgorod Customs Office ( Белгородская таможня ) where he had occupied the post of Deputy Head of the Investigations Department ( заместитель начальника отдела дознания ). On 28 October 1999 the applicant was arrested and detained. Some time thereafter the investigating authority instituted criminal proceedings no.   999161 against him on suspicion of bribery. (a)     Pre-trial proceedings (i)     Appointment of counsel A.M. It appears that already upon his arrest the applicant had requested to be represented by counsel A.M. On 29 October 1999 the applicant formally repeated his request to be represented by counsel A.M. On the same date A.M. presented the relevant warrant ( ордер ) and was formally admitted to the case. He was present at the applicant’s interrogation which took place at around noon. On 30 October 1999, the investigating authority instituted another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant, no. 999163, concerning a different incident that took place in 1998 in which the applicant was suspected of having abused his authority to coerce a woman to have intercourse with him. On the same date A.M. was questioned as a witness in connection with these proceedings. (ii)     Disqualification of counsel A.M. On 31 October 1999 the investigating authority decided to join these two sets of criminal proceedings under no. 999161, as both were instituted against the applicant. On the same date the investigating authority decided to bar defence counsel A.M. from representing the applicant on the ground of his participation as a witness. On 5 November 1999 the applicant was formally charged with bribery under Article 290 of the Criminal Code ( Уголовный кодекс РФ ). (iii)     The applicant’s complaints in respect of the disqualification of A. M. On 15 November 1999 the applicant complained to the court that the disqualification of A.M. had been unlawful. A.M. had been first admitted as a defence counsel and only afterwards was he questioned as a witness. The applicant claimed that this had violated his right to have legal assistance of his own choosing. On 20 January 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod found the disqualification of A.M. to be lawful, stating that: “... [A.M.] has been questioned as a witness. [The applicant’s] arguments that [A.M.] was questioned after [the applicant’s] arrest are groundless. An analysis of Article 67 § 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code reveals that a counsel who has been questioned as a witness may be disqualified irrespective of when he was questioned as a witness. The phrase ‘previously participated’ concerns only the participation of the prosecutor and other participants of the proceedings in processing of the case. A witness is not a participant in the proceedings and does not participate in the case. Under such circumstances, the disqualification of the counsel is justified.” On 27 January 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. On 1 March 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court found that the applicant’s submissions that A.M.’s disqualification had been unjustified were unconvincing, because A.M. had been questioned as a witness which excluded his participation as a defence counsel. The applicant continued to complain unsuccessfully about the unlawful disqualification of A.M. throughout the proceedings against him. (iv)     The applicant’s access to the case file On 24 January 2000 the applicant’s case was taken over by defence counsel I.Ya., obtained for him by his relatives. According to the applicant, on 13-14 April 2000 he was allowed by the investigator to acquaint himself with various expert opinions prepared during the investigation. The applicant agreed to do this in the absence of counsel I.Ya. By 15 April 2000 he managed to examine almost two expert opinions, whereupon he was given 20 minutes to acquaint himself with the remaining six opinions. The applicant objected, but to no avail. On 17 April 2000 the investigating authority decided that the investigation had been completed and that the applicant could start examining the case file, which consisted of three volumes (317 pages, 232   pages and 365 pages, respectively), three videos and an audiotape. The applicant was informed of this decision the next day. In response, the applicant submitted that he wished to examine the case file only with the assistance of his counsel. On 18 April 2000, following a meeting with counsel I.Ya., the applicant dispensed with her services on the ground that she had little experience in cases involving serious charges such as his case. He requested that his examination of the case file be deferred until 24 April 2000, so that he could appoint a new counsel. His request for deferral was rejected. On 27 April 2000, following a failure to find a new counsel, the applicant requested that I.Ya. be reappointed. On 28 April 2000 the investigator informed the applicant that counsel I.Ya. had been informed about his request of 27 April 2000 and that she would be admitted to the case as soon as she had presented the relevant warrant. In the meantime, the applicant was advised to start examining the case file on his own. The applicant refused to examine the case file without counsel I.Ya., claiming that, in her absence, the investigator could again resort to allegedly unlawful behaviour as on 15 April 2000. He further submitted that counsel I.Ya.’s warrant was already in the case file and she was not obliged to present a second one. The Government submitted that on 3 May 2000 counsel I.Ya. informed the investigator that she intended to conclude a new legal aid agreement with the applicant before starting to work with the applicant’s case. On 6 May 2000 the investigator found that the applicant was deliberately delaying the examination of the case file and decided to fix a schedule for this purpose which included: 10-11 May – Volume No. 1; 12 May – Volume No. 2; 13 May – video and audio materials; 14 May – a Sunday break; and 15 May – Volume No. 3. On the same date, counsel I.Ya. presented the relevant warrant. She submitted that she would not be able to appear on 10 May 2000 because of her involvement in other proceedings. Between 10 and 15 May 2000 the applicant examined 13 pages of the case file and the audiotape as counsel I.Ya. appeared on two afternoons on 12 and 15 May 2000. The rest of the time the applicant refused to examine the case file on his own. On 16 May 2000 the investigator decided to extend the period for the examination of the case file and fixed a new schedule which included: 17   May – Volume No. 1; 18 May – video materials; and 19 May – Volumes Nos. 2 and 3. The investigator referred to counsel I.Ya.’s failure to appear despite being aware of the schedule and found that her assertions of making daily trips to another town for preparation of court hearing materials in another civil case were unconvincing as, despite her involvement in that case since 5 May 2000, she did not participate in the relevant trial. Between 17 and 18 May 2000 the applicant managed to examine further 10 pages of the case file. No examination of the video materials took place due to the absence of counsel I.Ya. The applicant requested that the period for the examination of the case file be extended. On 19 May 2000 the investigator decided to discontinue the applicant’s examination of the case file, finding that: “... [the schedule fixed for 10-15 May 2000] was disrupted because of [counsel I.Ya.] ...Thus, from 18 April to 18 May 2000 [the applicant] and [counsel I.Ya.] examined 23 pages of the case file and an audio recording. [Such behaviour] is considered by the investigating authority as an obvious and deliberate delaying of the examination of the case file with the intention to be released from detention, taking into account that [the authorised period of pre-trial detention] expires on 28 May 2000... Since it is impossible to further extend [the period for examination of the case file], as it is necessary to transmit the case file to [the prosecutor] for examination and preparation of the bill of indictment, the investigating authority finds it necessary to discontinue [the applicant’s] and his counsel’s examination of the case file.” Between 28 October 1999 and 25 May 2000 the case was pending before the prosecution authorities. On the latter date the bill of indictment was approved and the applicant’s case file was sent for examination to the trial court. (b)     Trial (i)     The applicant’s motion of 30 May 2000 On 30 May 2000, following the transmission of the case to the court, the applicant lodged a motion with the Regional Court requesting that counsel A.M. be admitted to the case and that the case be remitted for an additional investigation because of the unlawful disqualification of counsel A.M. and an incomplete examination by him of the case file. He also requested his release. On 20 June 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion and scheduled a hearing for 26 June 2000. In refusing to release the applicant, the court found that the applicant and his counsel had had sufficient time to study the case file and the schedule fixed by the investigator had been reasonable. No violation of the applicant’s rights of defence or other procedural violations had been disclosed. On 21 June 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. He also raised other complaints. Subsequently, on 13 September 2000, the Supreme Court of Russia, presided by judge G., dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding the decision of 20 June 2000 to be lawful and well-founded. (ii)     Oral evidence given by witness Ye. Meanwhile, at the hearing of 30 June 2000, the Regional Court stated that witness Ye. was sick with chronic bronchitis and was hospitalised. The applicant and his counsel objected to this witness’ statement made during the investigation being read out in court, alleging that Ye. was the most crucial witness and they wanted to cross-examine him. Their objection was overruled. It appears that Ye. informed the court about his treatment which started on 29 June 2000. He did not object, that the court hear the case without him and confirmed all his earlier witness statements. At the hearing of 7 July 2000 the applicant requested that the proceedings be adjourned until the recovery of witness Ye. The court dismissed his request, stating that it was not known how much time Ye. would need to recover. (iii)     Judgment of 14 July 2000 On 14 July 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The court examined and referred to several items of evidence, including oral and written statements of at least nine witnesses, namely, M., Do., Du., E., Ye., T., O., Kh. and B., as well a number of other items of evidence such as audio tapes of the applicant’s conversations, several expert reports and reports on examination of the applicant’s entrance hall. (c)     Appeal proceedings On 25 July 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment in which he extensively complained that the special operation aiming at the applicant’s arrest on the spot had entailed numerous violations of the law and that the case had been fabricated. On 22 November 2000 the applicant supplemented his appeal, complaining that he had not had access to all the materials of the case file, that he had been deprived of the right to have legal assistance of his own choosing, that the decision to join two sets of proceedings had been unlawful and that he had not been tried by a jury. He also complained about the inability to examine witness Ye. On 30 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 14 July 2000. At the hearing the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to challenge presiding judge G. on the ground that she had participated in the examination of the lawfulness of his detention on 13 September 2000. 2.     The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment (a)     Background information on the applicant’s state of health Prior to the institution of criminal proceedings on 28 October 1999, the applicant had twice suffered brain concussion for which he had received in-patient treatment in 1994 and 1997. On 23 June 1999 the applicant was diagnosed by an oculist as having “initial retinal angiopathy and essential hypertension of the right eye”. The oculist prescribed some eye drops and advised the applicant to undergo regular medical observation. It appears that the applicant was underwent observation by an ophthalmologist, in the course of which the above diagnosis was confirmed, including a suspicion of glaucoma. He was advised to use the appropriate eye drops twice a day on a constant basis and to undergo a surgical treatment of the right eye. (b)     Events of 28-29 October 1999 On 28 October 1999, at 10.10 p.m., the applicant was arrested in the entrance hall to his apartment building by the officers of the Belgorod Regional Department of the Fight against Organised Crime (hereafter “the DFOC”, Управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью при УВД Белгородской области ) when he was allegedly taking a bribe. The applicant’s arrest was the outcome of a planned operation which was initiated on the basis of statements made by the individuals E. and Ye. According to them, the applicant had made a promise to Ye. that he would release E.’s son from detention if she paid him 1,000 USD. Ye., who was the counsel of E.’s son, actually participated in the operation and was the person who was handing over the money to the applicant at the time of his arrest. The applicant submits that the DFOC officers applied force during his arrest. His arms were twisted behind his back, whereupon he was pushed down on his knees and had his face forcefully pressed against the concrete floor. The applicant briefly remained in this position. As a result of the blow he urinated in his pants. He submitted that he had felt sick but his request for medical assistance had been refused. According to the Government, two DFOC officers, Z. and O., entered the applicant’s house porch shortly after the applicant had received a sum of money from Ye. They saw the applicant standing near the elevator’s door and ran to him shouting “Stand still, it is the police!” Officer Z. got hold of the applicant’s arms and raised them up to prevent the applicant from disposing of any evidence he might have had in his pockets. The applicant attempted to break free and, in response, the officers forced him to prostrate himself and fettered his hands with handcuffs. The Government denied that any other forms of physical coercion had taken place. The applicant submitted that the officers had been accompanied by a cameraman and two women who had participated as witnesses in the examination of the scene of the incident. According to him, during the whole period of the examination of the location, the applicant was kept standing in wet pants and the women laughed at his discomfiture. He also had to undress down to his underwear in front of these girls as his clothes were seized as evidence. The applicant’s apartment was searched, whereupon, at about 11.00 p.m., he was taken to the District Police Station in Belgorod ( Белгородское РОВД ), where at about 2.25 a.m. the next morning the arrest record was drawn up. The Government referred to sworn statements by eye-witnesses Kh. And   B. who had described an incident immediately after the apprehension and prior to the applicant’s personal search. Despite fettered hands behind his back, the applicant reached for the money in the right pocket of his pants and threw it away. On 29 October 1999 DFOC officers Z. and O. reported to their superior that the applicant had actively resisted arrest, as a result of which force had been used: the applicant’s hands had been restrained and he had been laid down on the floor with his face down. According to the documents from the case file submitted by the Government, the applicant became acquainted with these reports on 15 May 2000. (c)     First medical examination On 29 October 1999, at 4.05 p.m., the applicant was examined in the Police Station by a forensic medical expert of the Regional Department of Forensic Medical Examination of Belgorod ( Областное бюро судмедэкспертизы г. Белгорода ) following his complaints about dizziness and a slight feeling of nausea. The expert’s report contained the following conclusions: “Skin hyperaemia is displayed on the rear of the right forearm in the area of the radiocarpal joint between the interior and the exterior condyle, 11 x 0.5   cm. A similar one is displayed in the area of the left radiocarpal joint next to the exterior condyle, 3   x 0.4 cm, and on the left side of the forehead, 1 x 0.2 cm. An abrasion is displayed on the front side of the left knee-joint, 2 x 1   cm, covered by a dry red smooth surface at skin level. A similar abrasion is displayed on the palmar surface of the lower part of the right forearm, 0.3 x 0.3 cm, surrounded by a 0.5 cm hyperaemia. A similar hyperaemia of soft tissues is displayed on the lateral surface of the proximal phalanx of the middle finger of the right hand, 0.4 x 0.2 cm. No other injuries have been detected. ... [the above injuries] were caused possibly on 28 October 1999 by hard, blunt objects which had a moderately traumatic surface and did not cause harm to health.” (d)     Subsequent medical examinations On 15 November and 22 December 2000 the applicant was examined by an outside neurologist. Having heard and examined the applicant, the doctor diagnosed him as having “after-effects of closed craniocerebral injuries” (see below). (e)     The applicant’s complaints about the events of 28-29 October 1999 On 12 January 2000 the applicant complained to the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor ( Юго-восточный транспортный прокурор ) and the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor ( Белгородский транспортный прокурор ) that, in the course of his arrest, DFOC officer Z. and another police officer, whom he would be able to identify, allegedly in the absence of any resistance on his part, deliberately twisted his hands behind his back, whereupon officer Z. did a knee-wheel as a result of which he quickly fell and hit his head against the concrete floor sustaining various injuries, including brain concussion. Allegedly, the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of these events. (f)     Written evidence given by officers Z. and O. acting as witnesses On 10 February 2000 officers Z. and O., acting as witnesses in the applicant’s criminal case and giving evidence under oath, reiterated their previous explanations of 29   October 1999 concerning the use of physical force in respect of the applicant. They submitted that, in response to the applicant’s resistance, they had forced him down onto the floor and fettered his hands. 3.     The applicant’s detention pending criminal proceedings The applicant was taken into custody on 28 October 1999. (a)     The applicant’s detention pending criminal investigation (i)     Detention order of 31 October 1999 and related proceedings On 31 October 1999 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor ( Белгородский транспортный прокурор ) authorised the applicant’s detention on remand, on the ground that: “... being at large, [the applicant] can obstruct the establishment of the truth, and also taking into account the dangerousness of the offence committed by him...” On 11 November 1999 the applicant contested the lawfulness of his detention on remand before the courts. In his application, he submitted, inter alia , that he had symptoms of brain concussion and also suffered from glaucoma which required in-patient treatment and surgery, something that could not be ensured in the remand centre and would, therefore, negatively affect his ability to defend himself effectively. He further submitted that he had a permanent place of residence in Belgorod, and that he was married and had two minor children. On 23 November 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod ( Октябрьский районный суд г. Белгорода ) found the applicant’s detention on remand to be lawful. The court stated that, as the applicant was charged with bribery involving a large sum of money, he could be detained on remand on the sole ground of the dangerousness of the offence. Furthermore, the court noted that, when deciding on the preventive measure, the investigating authority had taken into account the applicant’s personality, his occupation and age, the seriousness of the offence committed by him, and also the fact that, being at large, he could obstruct the establishment of the truth. The court further stated that it did not possess any evidence indicating that the applicant was unable to stay in the detention facility for health reasons. Despite the fact that the applicant had not admitted his guilt, the investigating authority had sufficient grounds for detaining him on remand. On 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. On 29 December 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court ( Белгородский областной суд ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, stating that the applicant was charged with a very serious offence. Furthermore, when authorising the applicant’s detention, the prosecutor had also taken into account the fact that, being at large, he could obstruct the establishment of the truth. The court further found that the applicant had failed to present any medical documents certifying his inability to stay in the remand centre for health reasons. (ii)     Detention order of 24 December 1999 and related proceedings The order of 24 December 1999 of the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the investigation and of the applicant’s detention on remand for one month until 28 January 2000. It enumerated and examined the evidence against the applicant obtained by the investigator so far. It further stated that the two months’ term of the applicant’s previously authorised detention would expire on 28 December 1999 and that the investigator needed more time to complete some further investigative actions, such as phonoscope and psychiatric forensic expert examination, to check the witness statements of individual M. The order cited the risk that the applicant could obstruct the establishment of truth and the gravity of his charges to justify further extension of his detention. On 30 December 1999 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts, using arguments similar to his previous ones. He also denied the allegations of intending in any way to interfere with the course of justice or to put pressure on witnesses. He also alleged that his state of health was deteriorating and that no medical assistance was provided to him in the remand centre. On 20 January 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod ( Федеральный суд Западного округа г.   Белгорода ) upheld the extension of the applicant’s detention on remand, having confirmed the need to carry out investigative actions mentioned in the order of 24 December 1999 and citing the gravity of the applicant’s charge and the possibility of him obstructing the establishment of the truth. On 27 January 2000, the applicant and his defence counsel lodged an appeal against this decision, raising the same arguments. On 1 March 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant and his defence counsel as groundless and upheld the order of 24   December 1999 and the decision of 20 January 2000. (iii)     Detention order of 24 January 2000 and related proceedings By order of 24 January 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention on remand for one further month until 28 February 2000. The order contained a detailed description of the evidence obtained by the prosecution so far and an extensive progress report on the course of investigation during the last month. Thus, the verification of witness statements of individual M. referred to by the investigator in the decision of 24   December 1999 led to the questioning of four more witnesses who had all given evidence against the applicant on account of the latter’s suspected participation in a bribery incident in 1998 and 1999. This incident was to be added to the list of charges brought against the applicant. The order also stated that, among other things, the expert examinations mentioned in the decision of 24 December 1999 had been ordered but not yet completed and that it was necessary to check one more episode described by the four witnesses above. Finally, in deciding to extend the applicant’s detention the investigator stated that, despite having been caught on the spot, the applicant flatly denied his involvement in the imputed crimes and that by filing his multiple complaints and requests he attempted to protract the investigation and to distort the factual circumstances of his activities. The investigator established that the applicant, if released, might obstruct the establishment of the truth. On 8 February 2000 the applicant complained about the unlawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts. It appears that he denied the allegations of intending in any way to interfere with the course of justice or to put pressure on witnesses. On 18 February 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod confirmed the extension of the applicant’s detention on remand, stating that the order of 24 January 2000 was well-motivated and that the investigator took account of all relevant circumstances, including the gravity of his charges, the applicant’s personality traits, age, state of health etc. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 March 2000. (iv)     Detention order of 28 February 2000 and related proceedings On 28 February 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention until 28   March 2000. The order reported on the progress of the investigation of the case, having noted that all necessary investigative actions in respect of episode of bribery in 1998-1999 had been completed and that the applicant would be able to acquaint himself with a finalised version of charges no later than on 2 March 2000. The investigator expected to receive the completed expert examinations referred to in the decision of 24 December 1999 no later than 10 March 2000. Having regard to the need to finalise the indictment and to allow the applicant some time to study the case file, the investigator again extended the applicant’s detention for one month. The applicant contested the decision in court. On 31 March 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected this appeal. The court upheld the order, finding that the reasons advanced by the investigator were relevant and well-founded. The applicant, with the assistance of his defence counsel, appealed against these decisions. On 26 April 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court in the final instance dismissed the appeals of the applicant and his defence counsel and upheld the previous decisions. (v)     Detention order of 21 March 2000 and related proceedings By order of 21 March 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for one more month, until 28 April 2000. The decision contained an account of the progress of the investigation and stated that the relevant expert had gone sick and was yet to complete one of the expert examinations mentioned in the previous detention orders. With reference to the need to finalise the indictment and to allow the applicant some time to study the case file, the investigator extended the applicant’s detention for one more month, having mentioned that the applicant, if released, might obstruct the investigation. On 31 March 2000 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts, using arguments similar to his previous ones. On 10 April 2000, having heard the applicant and his counsel, the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected their arguments, having stated that under the applicable domestic law the applicant’s pre-trial detention could be authorised with the sole reference to the gravity of the applicant’s charge. In any event, the court noted that the reasons for detention had been set out in the investigating authority’s order, were lawful, well-reasoned and justified, and had been approved by the prosecutor. The order of 21 March and the decision of 10 April 2000 were upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 10 May 2000. (vi)     Detention order of 21 April 2000 and the applicant’s related complaint On 21 April 2000 the Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia ( заместитель Генерального прокурора РФ ) authorised the extension of the investigation and of the applicant’s detention on remand until 28 May 2000. The relevant order counting eight pages contained a detailed description of the previous extensions of the applicant’s detention as well as the progress report on the present state of the investigation. It stated that the applicant had commenced studying the case file on 18 April 2000 and that from that date onwards he had attempted to protract the investigation by dismissing his previous counsel, refusing the new counsel found by his mother and requesting her personally to travel to Moscow to find a suitable candidate. With this in mind and having regard to the need to finalise the indictment and respond to requests that the applicant was very likely to make after the study of the case file, the investigative authority therefore decided to extend the applicant’s detention for one more month. The investigating authority did not find it acceptable to release the applicant during this period, citing the same reasons as in its previous decisions. On 25 April 2000 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts. He submitted, inter alia , that the investigation had terminated and that the dangerousness of the offence should not serve as a mandatory ground for detention. This complaint reached the District Court on 26 April 2000. On 25 May 2000 the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment, and the case was sent to the Belgorod Regional Court for trial. (b)     Detention pending court proceedings (i)     Decision of 26 May 2000 and the applicant’s related complaints On 26 May 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected the applicant’s application for release made on 25 April 2000. In doing so, the court stated that the applicant was charged with an offence for which he could be detained on the sole ground of its dangerousness. The court also added that relevant reasons and motives had been set forth in the investigating authority’s order 21 April 2000 which had been authorised by the prosecutor. On 31 May 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Regional Court. This appeal reached the Regional Court on 2 June 2000. According to the Government, it was joined to the applicant’s case file and examined by the Regional Court on 20 June 2000 (see below). Throughout the period between 2000 and 2003 the applicant complained to various public authorities about the fact that no decision had been taken on his appeal lodged on 31 May 2000. By letter of 7 July 2003 the President of the Belgorod Regional Court informed the applicant that: “Your statement that the appeal lodged against the decision of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod of 26 May 2000 was left without consideration is unconvincing. By the date when the court received this appeal, i.e. 2 June 2000, the criminal case against you was already put before the Regional Court and was no longer being processed by the investigating authority and the prosecutor whose decisions on detention you were contesting. Taking this into account, your appeal was included in the case file ... as the arguments raised in it could be examined only at the stage of scheduling the date of [the first] court hearing. Having decided to schedule a hearing and refused to change the preventive measure imposed on you, the judge accordingly found your pre-trial detention to be lawful.” (ii)     Decision of 20 June 2000 and the applicant’s related complaints On 30 May 2000, following the transmission of the case to the court, the applicant lodged a motion with the Regional Court requesting that he be released because of his glaucoma. On 20 June 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion and scheduled a hearing for 26 June 2000. In refusing to release the applicant, the court examined the lawfulness of the applicant’s on-going detention on remand. In particular, it found that the preventive measure in the form of detention had been imposed in accordance with the type and degree of dangerousness for society of the offences with which the applicant was charged and that no substantial violations of the requirements of the domestic law had occurred. It then decided to reject his request for release as groundless. On 21 June 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision, arguing for his release and raising a number of other arguments. On 13 September 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia, presided by judge G., dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 20 June 2000, finding this decision to be lawful and well-founded. (iii)     The applicant’s release from custody On 6 September 2002 the applicant was released on parole. 4.     Conditions of detention in remand centre IZ-26/1 (a) Alleged lack of adequate medical assistance On 5 November 1999 the applicant was placed in remand centre IZ-26/1. On 11 November 1999 the applicant applied in writing to the head of the remand centre. He submitted that he had suffered brain concussion as a result of a blow against a concrete floor in the course of his arrest. He further submitted that he had been previously twice treated for brain concussion and now he was experiencing the same symptoms: dizziness, lack of appetite, nausea, asthenia and a strong headache. On 15 November 1999, upon invitation by his relatives, the applicant was examined by an outside neurologist. The doctor, having heard the applicant’s description of his symptoms, diagnosed him as having the “after-effects of closed craniocerebral injuries”. He was prescribed injections of aminophylline, pyracetam and vitamin B6, and nootropil and vinpocetine in pill form. The applicant submitted that these drugs had been given to him by his wife, as they were not available in the remand centre. On 23 November 1999 the applicant applied to the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor, requesting a meeting with his wife to receive a delivery of medicaments. He indicated that no medical assistance was provided to him by the remand centre and the supply of medication in the centre was inadequate. On 1 and 14 December 1999 the applicant applied to the head of the remand centre, stating that, despite the medication delivered to him by his wife, his health had significantly deteriorated, he was suffering from strong asthenia, his memory deteriorated and he did not have a clear mind. He requested that measures be taken. It does not appear that he specified them. On 22 December 1999 the applicant was again examined by an outside neurologist whose report, prepared two days later, contained the following conclusions: “[The applicant] has [previously] been examined by a neurologist and diagnosed as having after-effects of repeated closed craniocerebral injuries. He has received a full course of therapy. On 22 December 1999 [the applicant] was again examined by a neurologist and diagnosed as having after-effects of closed craniocerebral injuries coupled with the asthenovegetative syndrome and disseminated neurological symptomatology. Treatment has been prescribed and a visit by an oculist recommended. Currently I find [the applicant’s] general state of health to be satisfactory. He receives treatment and is under constant medical observation.” From the extracts from the applicant’s prison medical file submitted by the Government, it appears that the entry into the file dated 22   December 1999 stated that the applicant’s state of health had improved considerably following the administration of the course of medication. The doctor prescribed him a treatment of ten days in this respect. On 2 February 2000 the applicant again applied to the head of the remand centre. He submitted that, despite the course of treatment prescribed by the neurologist in connection with the brain concussion, he was not getting better and still feeling very bad. Moreover, he started suffering from unbearable pain in the eyes. He requested that he be examined by a neurologist and an oculist. On 14 March 2000 the applicant was examined in the remand centre by an oculist invited at his wife’s expense from a local clinic. The oculist’s report contained the following conclusions: “... [the applicant] suffers from myopia of medium degree, retinal angiopathy and secondary glaucoma (essential hypertension). Recommendations: (a) instillation of [eye drops], at a dose of 0.25%, into the right eye before going to bed and into the left eye – twice a day; (b) an in-patient examination using special equipment; (c) surgical treatment in order to retain optic functions, as glaucoma causes atrophy of optic nerves which leads to loss of eyesight to the point of blindness. The post-surgery period must include two-three weeks in a hospital, followed by medical observation during 1 to 1.5 months. It is desirable to wait six months before operating the second eye; (d) regular check-ups by an oculist not less than once every three months.” According to the applicant, the oculist did not prescribe any specific treatment against the pain in his eyes as this could be relieved only by means of surgery and warned the applicant that a delay in undergoing surgery might lead to blindness. On 16 March 2000 the applicant complained to the Head of the Criminal Execution Department of the Ministry of Justice ( начальник Управления исполнения наказаний МЮ РФ по Белгородской области ) and the head of the remand centre that the administration of the detention facility was not providing any surgical treatment for glaucoma. On 17 March 2000 the head of the medical unit of the detention facility, upon an inquiry by the applicant’s counsel, provided a medical certificate which indicated that the applicant was undergoing regular check-ups in the medical unit in connection with his head trauma. It further repeated the recent findings of the oculist, stating that the applicant was suffering from retinal angiopathy of a first degree and glaucoma of both eyes, and needed surgical treatment in order to retain his eyesight. It was noted that the applicant was currently undergoing conservative therapy. On 15 and 17 March 2000 the applicant allegedly discussed his health condition with the head of the medical unit who told him that medical assistance was provided only to those patients who were in extreme need, the applicant not being one of them. He further said that he was not able to relieve the applicant’s pain in the eyes, to call an oculist or to perform surgery in the detention facility. He had the authority to transfer the applicant for surgery to the hospital for detainees in Voronezh, but only after the judgment against the applicant would became final. This could not be done before then, as there was no corresponding instruction from the prosecutor or the court. On 27 and 28 March 2000 the applicant repeated his complaints of 16   March 2000, indicating that, despite the diagnosis of glaucoma recently confirmed by the oculist, he received no treatment for this illness. He further indicated that his complaints about the unbearable pain in his eyes, from which he had been suffering for the past months, were being ignored, and requested that surgery, to which he did not object, be performed. These complaints apparently led to another discussion with the head of the medical unit who again refused to arrange for surgery. On 28 March 2000 the applicant declared a hunger strike in protest against, inter alia , the lack of medical assistance. He was placed in solitary confinement where he stayed 14 days, refusing to eat. The applicant’s prison medical file has an entry on 31 March 2000 according to which the applicant was examined by the doctor in connection with his hunger strike. The conclusion was that the applicant’s general condition was satisfactory, the consciousness was clear and the hemodynamic indices were within the normal limits. On 12 April 2000 the applicant was taken, upon the investigating authority’s order, for a medical examination by a psychiatrist, a neurologist and an oculist in policlinic No. 1 in Belgorod. The applicant alleged that the oculist diagnosed him as having “atrophy of the optic nerves of both eyes”, which could progressively deteriorate and result in blindness. There is however no documentary proof of that conclusion. The applicant submitted that from April to 16 December 2000 (i.e. the date when he had been transferred to another remand centre) the head of the medical unit of remand centre IZ-26/1 had not been following the recommendation of the oculist made on 14 March 2000 to have the applicant examined at least once every three months, had not provided any treatment, had not taken any measures to relieve the applicant’s pain in his eyes and had not ordered surgery. The necessary medication was provided for the applicant by his wife. An entry of 16 May 2001 in the applicant’s medical file states that the applicant was examined by the doctor who performed some tests and authorised his transportation. Following his conviction, on 7 June 2001 the applicant was transferred to the transit point of penitentiary facility ZhKh-385/18 in the Republic of Mordoviya. It appears that after his transfer to correction institutions the applicant was exempt from works on health grounds. On that date the prison doctor examined him and concluded that the applicant complained about the pain in the eyes. Upon the outcome of the tests, the doctor decided that the applicant’s heart, lungs, his urine and blood tests all were in normal condition. Thereafter the applicant was transported to facility ZhKh-385/5. He arrived there on 8 June 2001. During the examination the doctor diagnosed the applicant wi