CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74B60DCE { margin-left:42.72pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEF7F6163 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1A890A28 { margin-left:1.65pt; text-indent:-1.65pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s62E02B8F { width:5.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8415FEE4 { margin-left:1.65pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4849110A { width:3.68pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4CE191FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDD1D56D4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:1.65pt; font-size:12pt } .s8F4A3314 { margin-left:1.65pt; text-indent:-1.65pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB8452C27 { text-indent:1.65pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4676502B { margin-left:1.65pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4704ABFF { font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sA5E4FE20 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2C2C2821 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:12.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-12.3pt; font-size:12pt } .s61CD7D88 { margin-left:1.7pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s3D65517D { margin-left:1.7pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .sB17BD252 { width:3.63pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D1DDBBB { margin-left:1.7pt; text-indent:0pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s6578C066 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA4DBE312 { margin-left:1.7pt; text-indent:-1.7pt; text-align:justify; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s8AFB7CDB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:1.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8DC66855 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt } .s9793CA21 { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9A7AEBE3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s3C262E9E { margin-top:5pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify } .s98259008 { margin-top:10pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:justify } .s58245AB { margin-top:10pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:41pt; text-align:justify } .s45128115 { margin-top:41pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s132D428C { width:18.68pt; display:inline-block } .s1E0D05ED { width:166.6pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 51445/09 Pavel Mikhaylovich ZHEREBIN against Russia and 9 other applications (see the “Facts” part of the decision) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 13   November 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the attached tables, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND COMPLAINTS A.     Common facts and complaints 1.     All the applicants listed in Section C below were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. All of them were arrested and detained pending investigation and trial (hereinafter referred to as “detention on remand”). Their detention on remand was ordered and extended by the courts. In all cases the courts refused to release the applicants or replace detention on remand with a non-custodial preventive measure. The reasons for extending the applicants’ detention are reproduced in Section C in the tables concerning each application. Some of the applicants were conditionally released pending trial. The detention on remand of the majority of the applicants ended with a judgment imposing a prison sentence. The durations of the applicants’ detention (in increasing order of length) were the following: 6 months and 4 days (application no. 24746/06) 6 months and 16 days (application no. 61068/10) 7 months and 20 days (application no. 51445/09) 8 months and 29 days (application no . 21420/11) 1 year, 1 month and 15 days (application no. 30975/11) 1 year and 6 months (application no. 31349/09) 2 years, 1 month and 8 days (application no. 14565/09) 2 years, 1 month and 29 days (application no. 53902/09) 2 years, 10 months and 10 days (application no. 24702/08) 3 years and 13 days (application no. 53346/10). 2.     All the applicants complain, at least in essence, that their detention on remand was not justified and/or was excessively long, and thus contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Some of them, referring to the same facts, relied on other Convention provisions, in particular on Article 5 § 1 (c). B. Explanatory note to the tables 3.     The tables in Section C below reflect the domestic courts’ reasoning as to why it was necessary to detain the applicants. In almost all cases the detention orders of the first-instance courts were composed of three parts: the first specified the charges against the defendant and the history of previous detention orders, the second summarised the parties’ arguments and the third set out the court’s own reasoning justifying detention. The information in the tables is based primarily on the third part of the domestic detention orders, setting out the courts’ own arguments. Submissions by the parties in the remand proceedings are mentioned only where they were reproduced or expressly referred to in the courts’ own reasoning. 4.     Decisions of the second-instance courts were usually shorter; the higher court often limiting itself to confirming that the lower court had not erred in its application of the material and procedural law. Where the higher court amended or supplemented the reasoning of the lower court in any noteworthy manner, it is mentioned in the table. 5.     The detention orders are reproduced in Section C so as to reflect the five main elements which are of relevance for the Court’s analysis: (a) any security risks posed by the applicant (risk of absconding, re-offending, and so on), (b) specific factual circumstances of the case which confirm the existence of such risks (previous convictions for similar crimes, threats to witnesses, absence of permanent job or residence, for example), (c) the conduct of the proceedings (need to question an additional witness, to obtain an expert opinion, to hold a face-to-face confrontation with another defendant, etc.), (d) consideration of alternative preventive measures (bail, house arrest, electronic surveillance, personal sureties, etc.), and (e) other factual circumstances and legal arguments relied on by the domestic courts. 6.     The security risks posed by the applicants (point (a) above) were formulated by the domestic courts in different ways; however, they could always be reduced to three main risks: absconding, interfering with the course of justice (for example by tampering with evidence, or putting pressure on witnesses), or re-offending. They are reproduced in the tables accordingly. 7.     The courts’ reasoning on points (b), (c) and (d) was often non-specific; the courts regularly used standard phrases such as “the circumstances have not changed since the last extension of detention on remand” (insofar as point (b) is concerned), “the extension is needed in order to complete the investigation/trial” or “to take certain additional investigative measures” (insofar as point (c) is concerned), and “it was not possible to apply a milder preventive measure” (insofar as point (d) is concerned). The tables indicate the courts’ reasoning only where the detention orders give specific details relevant to the analysis of these aspects of the situation, and not simply the standard wording. 8.     The “Other aspects” of the case most often relate to the court’s assessment of the defendant’s medical condition and needs, and of the substance of the case against him or her. 9.     The overall length of the detention indicated in Section C is based on the last information received from the applicant; it may prove to have been longer. Similarly, the places of detention indicated in section   C below mostly refer to the remand prisons (“ IZ ” in Russian) where the applicants were detained pending investigation and trial, or to the penal colony where they were serving their sentence (“ IK ” in Russian). C. Facts and complaints specific to each application 1. Application no. 51445/09 10.     The application was lodged on 22 September 2009 by Pavel Mikhaylovich Zherebin, a Russian national born in 1983. The applicant was detained in IZ 77/2, Moscow. He was prosecuted for having participated in a fight in which several people were injured. The fight was caused by politically-driven animosity between two groups of youths. It appears that the applicant had connections with the National-Bolshevik Party, a political group banned in 2007 for “extremist activities”. The criminal case was opened on 15 December 2008. On 9 March 2009 the investigating authorities formally charged the applicant with crimes punished under    112, 116, 213 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism, beatings, causing of medium-gravity injury to another person). On 28 October 2009 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The overall length of the applicant’s detention on remand amounted to seven months and twenty days. The facts concerning his detention on remand are summarised in the table below.   Decisions 1 st instance court 2 nd instance court 1 st detention order 10.03.2009 Taganskiy District Court (Moscow) 30.03.2009 Moscow City Court Reasons Risks :     Absconding;     interfering with the course of justice by putting pressure on witnesses. Specific factual circumstances :    gravity and nature of the crimes;    no permanent residence in Moscow or in the Moscow region where the applicant was registered (the applicant lived at a friend’s home);    the applicant had taken two years’ sabbatical leave from the university where he studied;    the applicant had no job, the sources of his income and that of his family were unknown;    the applicant had previously been incurred several administrative penalties for public disturbances;    the crime was committed late in the evening by a group of people using objects as weapons. Conduct of the proceedings: no information Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that it was not its task to examine whether the applicant had been implicated in the crimes concerned. It also noted that the applicant’s wife was pregnant. 2 nd detention order 27.04.2009 Taganskiy District Court (Moscow) 18.05.2009 Moscow City Court Reasons Risks : absconding; interfering with the course of justice by putting pressure on witnesses; reoffending. Specific factual circumstances :    gravity and nature of the crimes concerned;    no permanent residence in Moscow;    did not live at his officially registered address in the Moscow region;    had no job;    the crime was committed by a group of people, some of whom had not been identified or were still at large;    information on his character was referred to by the investigator. Conduct of the proceedings: no information Alternative preventive measures : The defence produced personal sureties by several public figures. The court dismissed those sureties as unreliable, however, because they did not comply with the formal requirements of the law; in particular, the signatures on some of them were not “properly certified”. Other aspects : the court noted that the defendant had failed to submit any evidence showing that he did not present the security risks identified above. From the court’s decision it is unclear what information on the “applicant’s character” the court referred to. The investigator described the applicant as a member of “an informal organisation that threatened the foundations of the State in the eyes of law-abiding society”, who refused to cooperate with the investigating authorities and had been repeatedly sanctioned for participating in “unlawful demonstrations”.           3 rd detention order (trial stage) 29.05.2009 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court (Moscow) 22.07.2009 Moscow City Court Reasons Risks: not specified Specific factual circumstances:    gravity and nature of the crimes;    the character of the applicant and two co-accused;    no permanent place of residence or registration in Moscow or the Moscow Region;    the applicant and another co-accused did not live at their officially registered addresses;    the applicant and another co-accused had no work. Conduct of the proceedings: no information Alternative preventive measures : not mentioned Other aspects : the court noted that the completion of the investigation did not mean that the reasons for the applicant’s detention on remand had ceased to exist. The formula used was “the circumstances have not changed”. Decision dismissing an application for release 24.06.2009 Zamoskvoretskiy District Court (Moscow) 21.09.2009 Moscow City Court (no decision produced by the applicant) Reasons Risks: not specified Specific factual circumstances:     gravity and nature of the crimes;     the character of the applicant and two co-accused;     no permanent place of residence or registration in Moscow or the Moscow Region;     the applicant did not live at his officially registered address. Alternative preventive measures : not mentioned Conduct of the proceedings: no information Other aspects : the court noted that the fact that the applicant had become father in the meantime did not justify his conditional release. The formula used was “the circumstances have not changed”.   11.     The applicant also maintains that his conviction was based on the written testimony of several witnesses who did not appear in person before the court, that some other witnesses who had identified the applicant on a photo had been briefed by the police about the identity of the perpetrators, that the court did not discontinue the proceedings in respect of one of the counts despite a request by one of the victims for it to do so. The applicant also complained about the severity of the sentence. He relied on Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention. 2. Application no. 24746/06 12.     The application was lodged on 30 May 2006 by Khamed Kadyrbechevich Turk, a Russian national born in 1964. The applicant was detained in IZ 23/1, Krasnodar. He was prosecuted for unlawful possession of a handgun and ammunition, a crime punishable under Article 221 of the Criminal Code. The case was opened on 19 January 2006 and the applicant was formally charged on the same day. The overall length of the applicant’s detention on remand was six months and four days. The facts concerning his detention on remand are summarised in the table below.   Decisions 1 st instance court 2 nd instance court 1 st detention order 23.01.2006, Severskiy District Court (Krasnodar Region) 01.03.2006, Krasnodar Regional Court Reasons Risks : risk of absconding (mentioned only in the second- instance court decision). Specific factual circumstances : Charges are related to unlawful traffic of firearms in the Krasnodar border region. Conduct of the proceedings: no information Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : the second-instance court noted that it was not its task to examine whether there was evidence that the firearms belonged to the applicant. 2 nd detention order 17.03.2006, Severskiy District Court (Krasnodar Region) 22.03.2006, Krasnodar Regional Court Reasons Risks : absconding Specific factual circumstances : nature of the crime, the applicant’s personality. Conduct of the proceedings: not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The defence offered bail of 30,000 Roubles. The court noted that “the term of detention on remand must be sufficient to allow the court to decide whether further detention pending trial was necessary”.           3 rd detention order (trial stage) 25.04.2006, Severskiy District Court (Krasnodar Region) 31.05.2006. Krasnodar Regional Court Reasons Risks : not specified Specific factual circumstances : a crime of medium gravity Conduct of the proceedings : the court referred to the need to subject the applicant to psychiatric examination and commissioned an in-house examination of his mental health; the court referred to incidents and the applicant’s behaviour; it appears that the court implied that the applicant showed signs of mental disorder. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : not specified   13.     The applicant can be understood as complaining that he was unable to challenge the Severskiy District Court’s decision of 25 April 2006 ordering his in-house psychiatric examination. He also indicates that he did not participate in the appeal hearing of 31 May 2006. He refers to Articles   5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention in this regard. 3. Application no. 14565/09 14.     The application was lodged on 18 February 2009 by Ivan Nikolayevich Kalosha, a Russian national born in 1983. The applicant was detained in IZ 36/1, Voronezh. He was prosecuted for having used counterfeit money for payment, a crime punished under Article 186 of the Criminal Code. The criminal case was opened on 18 January 2007 and the applicant was charged on 27 September 2007. The overall length of the applicant’s detention on remand amounted to two years, one month and eight days. The applicant was convicted by the Kominternovskiy District Court on 15 July 2010 and sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. The facts concerning his detention on remand are summarised in the table below.   Decisions 1 st instance court 2 nd instance court Conditional release 24.10.2007, Leninskiy District Court (Voronezh) 6.12.2007, Voronezh Regional Court Reasons Detention refused for the following reasons: no previous convictions; permanent residence in Voronezh; permanent job in Voronezh; no sign of any intention to interfere with the course of justice, destroy evidence or abscond; previously always submitted himself to questioning by the investigator; testimony of witness Mr B. that the applicant had put pressure on him was not concrete evidence. Decision of 24.10.2007 quashed and case referred back to the first-instance court for the following reasons: gravity of the charges; no official registration in Voronezh; the applicant tried to put pressure on Mr   B. 1 st detention order 21.12.2007, Leninskiy District Court, (Voronezh) 17.01.2008, Voronezh Regional Court Reasons Risks : putting pressure on the witness. Specific factual circumstances :   gravity of the crime;   no official registration in Voronezh;   attempt to put pressure on witnesses, as shown by the testimony of Mr B. Conduct of the proceedings: not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : the text of the decision did not specify what sort of threats the applicant had made in respect of Mr B. The court noted that the investigation in the case was over. 2 nd detention order (trial stage) 17.01.2008, Voronezh Regional Court No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   putting pressure on victims and witnesses. Specific factual circumstances :   gravity of the charges in respect of the four co-defendants;   character of the four co-defendants. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : the court did not specify whether all four co-defendants were inclined to put pressure on the witnesses and victims, and did not identify those witnesses or victims.       3 rd detention order 28.05.2008, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : need to question witnesses who had not appeared and examine materials of the criminal case. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted no change in the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants since the last extension. 4 th detention order 9.10.2008, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : need to question witnesses who had not appeared, and co-defendants, and examine materials of the criminal case. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted no change in the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants since the last extension. 5 th detention order 24.12.2008, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) 26.02.2009, Voronezh Regional Court Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : need to question co-defendants and examine materials of the criminal case. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants had not changed since the last extension. The applicant sought release on bail or undertaking not to leave the town.     6 th detention order 02.04.2009, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted no change in the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants since the last extension. 7 th detention order 09.06.2009, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted no change in the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants since the last extension. 8 th detention order 14.09.2009, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) 13.10.2009, Voronezh Regional Court   Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted no change in the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants since the last extension. Conviction 11.11.2009, Kominternovskiy District Court (Voronezh) sentenced the applicant to 9 years’ imprisonment.       9 th detention order 29.04.2010, Voronezh Regional Court Reasons The conviction was quashed , the case was referred back to the first-instance court and the detention on remand extended for the following reasons: Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : preventive measure applied in respect of four co-defendants.   15.     The applicant also complains that the Kominternovskiy District Court’s decision of 28 May 2005 (see above) to extend his detention until 10   October 2008 was unlawful and thus contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 4. Application no. 24702/08 16.     The application was lodged on 31 March 2008 by Mikhail Dmitriyevich Andryanov, a Russian national born in 1956. The applicant was detained in FBU IK 6, Astrakhan. He was prosecuted under Article 228 of the Criminal Code for five counts of drug trafficking. The evidence against him was obtained mostly through several consecutive “test purchases” involving police undercover agents. The applicant procured or agreed to purchase different amounts of opium for the undercover agents, ranging from less than one gram to almost 10 grams. The criminal case was opened on 21   April 2005. The applicant was arrested on 29 April 2005. The overall length of his detention on remand amounted to two years, ten months and ten days. On 11 December 2007 judge Ye., who had been examining the applicant’s case, resigned, and the case was transferred to another judge, Ch., who started the trial from the beginning. The applicant was convicted by the Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan on 11   March 2008 and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment. The court excluded two of the offences imputed to him but found him guilty of the other three counts of drug-trafficking. The conviction was upheld by the Astrakhan Regional Court on 15 May 2008. The facts concerning his detention on remand are summarised in the table below.       Decisions 1 st instance court 2 nd instance court 1 st detention order 30.04.2005, Kirovskiy District Court (Astrakhan) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     nature of the offences (drug-trafficking);     character (previous convictions for similar crimes);     no permanent place of work or source of income. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : none 2 nd detention order (trial stage) 17.10.2005, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) No information Reasons Copy of the detention order is missing 3 rd detention order 10.04.2006, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) No information Reasons Copy of the detention order is missing 4 th detention order 13.07.2006, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) 17.08.2006 Astrakhan Regional Court Reasons Risks : to prevent collusion; to prevent the co-defendants putting pressure on witnesses. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : thorough examination of the case, questioning of witnesses. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : detention extended in respect of seven co-defendants; the court held that it was not its task to assess evidence. It also held that “no evidence that a milder preventive measure could be applied had been submitted”. The court noted that the reasons for detaining the four co-defendants had not changed since the last extension. Risks : the need to secure the execution of a conviction, to prevent him putting pressure on witnesses. 5 th detention order 12.10.2006, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) No information Reasons Risks : to prevent collusion and putting pressure on witnesses Specific factual circumstances : gravity of charges Conduct of the proceedings : thorough examination of the case Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : detention extended in respect of six co-defendants; the court held that it was not its task to assess evidence. It also held that “no evidence that a milder preventive measure could be applied had been submitted”. The court noted that the reasons for detaining six of the co-defendants had not changed since the last extension (the seventh was conditionally released). The court held that it had assessed the co-defendants’ medical condition. 6 th detention order 11.01.2007, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) No information Reasons Risks : to prevent collusion and putting pressure on witnesses Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges; character of the co-defendants. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : detention extended in respect of six co-defendants; the court held that it was not its task to assess evidence. It also held that “no evidence that a milder preventive measure could be applied had been submitted”. The court noted that the reasons for detaining the six co-defendants had not changed since the last extension, and stated that it had assessed the co-defendants’ medical condition, family situation and financial means.             7 th detention order 12.04.2007, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) 21.06.2007, Astrakhan Regional Court Reasons Risks : to prevent collusion and putting pressure on witnesses Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges; character of the co-defendants. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified (second-instance court mentioned the need to examine witnesses and an expert) Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : detention extended in respect of six co-defendants; the court held that it was not its task to assess evidence. It also held that “no evidence that a milder preventive measure could be applied had been submitted”. The court noted that the reasons for detaining the six co-defendants had not changed since the last extension, and stated that it had assessed the co-defendants’ medical condition, family situation and financial means. 8 th detention order 04.07.2007, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) 06.09.2007, Astrakhan Regional Court Reasons Risks : not specified Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges; character of the co-defendants. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : detention extended in respect of five co-defendants. The court also held that “no evidence that a milder preventive measure could be applied had been submitted”, and noted that the reasons for detaining the five co-defendants had not changed since the last extension. 9 th detention order 08.10.2007, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) No information Reasons Copy of the detention order is missing 10 th detention order 26.12.2007, Leninskiy District Court (Astrakhan) 14.03.2008, Astrakhan Regional Court Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges; character of the imputed crimes; repetitive character of the crimes imputed to the co-defendants. The second-instance court added reference to “five episodes”, “ten co-defendants” and “dangerous character” (most likely referring to the crimes imputed to the applicant). Conduct of the proceedings : not specified in the decision of the first-instance court. The second-instance court referred to the transfer of the case from one judge to another. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : detention extended in respect of six co-defendants. The court held that “no evidence that a milder preventive measure could be applied had been submitted”. It noted that the reasons for detaining the six co-defendants had not changed since the last extension. It took note of the co-defendants’ medical condition and of their complaints about harsh conditions of detention. The court further noted that “given the lengthy period of the co-defendants’ [pre-trial detention] there was no need to return the case to the investigating authorities”.   17.     According to the applicant, after his arrest he was beaten by officers from the Astrakhan anti-drug police ( FSKN ); he complains under Article 3 that the officers put pressure on him in order to extract a confession and obtain evidence against his co-defendants. He also alleges that his conviction was based on falsified evidence, that he did not commit the crimes imputed to him, and that he was a victim of police provocation. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention in this regard. 5. Application no. 53902/09 18.     The application was lodged on 9 September 2009 by Andrey Olegovich Cheremnykh, a Russian national born in 1969. The applicant was detained in penal colony OIK 38, Minusinsk, Krasnoyarsk Region. He was prosecuted under Article 228 of the Criminal Code for two counts of drug trafficking. He was accused of selling 3.8 and 1.74 grams of heroin to an undercover agent. The applicant was arrested on 9 July 2007 and the criminal case against him was opened on 10 July 2007. The overall length of the applicant’s detention on remand amounted to two years, one month and twenty-nine days. The applicant was convicted by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 7 September 2009   and sentenced to thirteen years and six months’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 8 July 2010 and the sentence reduced to ten years. The facts concerning the applicant’s detention on remand are summarised in the table below.     Decisions 1 st instance court 2 nd instance court 1 st detention order 11.07.2007, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     character. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : the court noted that the prosecution had gathered sufficient evidence to charge the applicant with the imputed crimes. The applicant argued that he had young children, a permanent place of residence and a job. In the opinion of the court, however, those factors were not sufficient to justify a different preventive measure. The court also noted that the applicant had failed to produce documents in support of his claims, and that the applicant’s health condition was compatible with his detention. 2 nd detention order 06.09.2007, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     character. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not mentioned Other aspects : The applicant argued that he had young children, a permanent place of residence and a job, and that he did not intend to flee. However, in the opinion of the court those factors were not sufficient to justify a different preventive measure. The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the first detention order. It mentioned the need to perform “the above-mentioned investigative activities”. This can be understood as referring to the submissions of the prosecution that the investigating authorities needed “to question all those who had taken part in the operative and search activities, to examine the material evidence and transmit it for storage, to complement the charges against [the applicant and another co-defendant], to sever the case against the person who had purportedly supplied heroin to the applicant, to obtain personal details about the defendants, to conduct a psychiatric examination of the applicant, to familiarise him with the expert reports, to prepare the bill of indictment and to get the prosecutor’s approval for it”. 3 rd detention order 09.11.2007, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     character. Conduct of the proceedings : “need to conduct several investigative actions”. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the last extension. It also noted that it had not received any evidence in support of the applicant’s claim that he needed a surgical intervention and that his further detention was incompatible with conditions in the remand prison. 4 th detention order 26.12.2007, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) 06.03.2008, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court Reasons Risks :   interfering with the course of justice;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     character;     the second-instance court noted that “although the applicant had a permanent place of residence he was likely to abscond”. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified (“need to conduct several investigative actions”). The second-instance court noted that the investigator had referred to the “large volume of materials in the case file”. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the last extension. It further noted that the applicant’s health condition was irrelevant to the extension of his detention as the applicant was receiving medical aid in the remand prison. It also referred to the need to conduct “the investigative actions mentioned by the investigator” (which were “to commission an in-house psychiatric examination, to draw up a bill of indictment, and to obtain the prosecutor’s approval for it”). 5 th detention order (trial stage) 07.04.2008, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     nature of the imputed crimes (drug-dealing);     character. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : none 6 th detention order 10.09.2008, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) No information Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     nature of the imputed crimes (drug-dealing);     character. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : the court extended the preventive measure “irrespective of the applicant’s illness”. 7 th detention order 13.11.2008, Oktyabrskiy District Court 30.12.2009, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court   Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     nature of the imputed crimes (drug-dealing). Conduct of the proceedings : need to return the case to the investigating authorities. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : the court returned the case to the investigating authorities because the applicant’s lawyer had a conflict of interests and had to be replaced, and certain investigative measures had to be taken again. 8 th detention order 20.03.2009, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnoyarsk) 30.04.2009, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court Reasons Risks : not specified Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges Conduct of the proceedings : not specified Alternative preventive measures : not mentioned Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the last extension. Risks : The second-instance court indicated that “the first-instance court had taken into account the risks of re-offending and absconding”. Specific factual circumstances : The second-instance court indicated that the first-instance court had taken into account the nature of the crimes imputed to the applicant, and followed the reasoning of the first-instance court for the remainder. 9 th detention order 19(?).06.2009, Oktyabrskiy District Court (Krasnodar) Note: the date on the detention order is not legible No information Reasons Risks : not specified Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges     nature of the imputed crimes. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified (“need to verify the applicant’s allegations of innocence”). Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the last extension; the applicant’s health condition was irrelevant since he could receive medical treatment in the remand prison.   19.     The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated at the time of his arrest and sustained a knee injury, that the police stole his property, that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to him had a conflict of interests and that the search of his flat was unlawful. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 6. Application no. 61068/10 20.     The application was lodged on 24 December 2010 by Stanislav Anatolyevich Polyakov, a Russian national born in 1977. The applicant was detained in remand prison IZ 3/1, Ufa, Bashkortostan. He was arrested on 1   May 2010 and prosecuted for drug trafficking under Article 228 of the Criminal Code. The overall length of the applicant’s detention on remand amounted to six months and sixteen days (at the time of the latest extension of his detention). The facts concerning his detention on remand are summarised in the table below.   Decisions 1 st instance court 2 nd instance court 1 st detention order 02.05.2010, Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) No information Reasons Detention order is missing 2 nd detention order 28.06.2010, Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) No information Reasons Detention order is missing 3 rd detention order 12.08.20010, Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) 02.09.2010, Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances :     gravity of the charges;     the applicant was a drug addict. Conduct of the proceedings : “need to examine items seized during the operative and search activities, question witnesses, perform other investigative actions and procedural formalities ..., and draw up a bill of indictment.” Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the last extension.   The second-instance court noted that the first-instance court had “assessed the defendant’s character – he had no previous convictions, was positively regarded [by those around him], had a family, a job and an income, and his father had a second-degree disability. However, [those factors] did not prevent his detention on remand but would be taken into account during the examination [of the criminal case against the applicant] on the merits”. 4 th detention order 29.09.2010, Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) 21.10.2010, the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Reasons Risks :   re-offending;   absconding;   interfering with the course of justice. Specific factual circumstances : gravity of the charges. Conduct of the proceedings : not specified; the second-instance court noted that a bill of indictment was to be drawn up and forwarded to the court. Alternative preventive measures : not analysed Other aspects : The court noted that the reasons for detaining the applicant had not changed since the last extension, and that the applicant’s state of health was compatible with his detention on remand. 7. Application no . 21420/11 21.     The application was lodged on 5 March 2011 by Mikhail Borisovich Shelesnov, a Russian national born in 1956. The applicant was detained in remand pr