CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s2ECC6C88 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sA5E96E4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s4C0F7460 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sF4B4A434 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:72pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-40.25pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s980129B0 { width:190.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sC6915D6D { width:5.27pt; display:inline-block } .s83D6A973 { width:11.95pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION   CASE OF RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 75734/12 and 2 others - see appended list)   JUDGMENT   Art 1 • Jurisdiction of States Arts 3 and 5 § 1 • Positive obligations • Respondent States’ failure to investigate allegations of cross-border abduction and ill-treatment involving State agents Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Co-defendant admitted as witness against the accused after conviction in disjoined plea-bargaining procedure without prior adversarial scrutiny • Art 6 § 3 (b) • Adequate facilities • Unnecessary confinement of accused in glass cabin at court hearings over a number of months • Applicant’s ineffective participation in his trial due to excessively intensive court hearing schedule coupled with lengthy prison transfers Art 8 • Family life • Detainee not allowed to visit ill mother or to attend her funeral later • Detainee’s transfer to a remote prison Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Conviction for organising “mass disorder” on account of clashes during demonstration, without sufficient scrutiny of event organiser’s own acts and intentions Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Unlawful continued application of attachment order in respect of applicant’s assets after the end of criminal proceedings   STRASBOURG   19 November 2019   FINAL   19/02/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Razvozzhayev v. Russia and Ukraine and Udaltsov v.   Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Ganna Yudkivska,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 October 2019, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in one application against the Russian Federation and Ukraine (no.   75734/12) and two applications against the Russian Federation (nos. 2695/15 and 55325/15) lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr   Leonid Razvozzhayev (“the first applicant”) and Mr Sergey Udaltsov (“the second applicant”; collectively “the applicants”), on 28   November 2012, 13 January 2015 and 10 September 2015 respectively. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr D.V. Agranovskiy, a lawyer practising in Elektrostal. The second applicant was also represented by Ms   V.   Volkova, a lawyer practising in Elektrostal. The Russian Government were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. The Ukrainian Government were represented by their then Acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk 3.     The first applicant alleged, in particular, that Russia and Ukraine had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and inhuman and degrading treatment. In respect of Russia the applicants complained that insufficient reasons had been given for both applicants’ pre-trial detention, that they had not had a fair hearing in their criminal case, that there had been a breach of their right to freedom of assembly, that there had been a breach of the first applicant’s right to family life and that the attachment of the second applicant’s property had been unlawful. 4.     Between 7 July 2014 and 27 April 2016 the Russian and Ukrainian Governments were given notice of the applications, which were granted priority under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants were born in 1973 and 1977 respectively and live in Moscow. 6.     The first applicant is a political activist. At the time of events he worked as an assistant to a State Duma Deputy. The second applicant is a political activist and a member of an opposition movement, “Levyy Front”. In 2012 he organised a political rally held on 6   May 2012 at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, following which both applicants were convicted of conspiracy to organise mass disorder and were sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment. 7.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Dispersal of a public event at Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012 8.     The background facts relating to the planning, conduct and dispersal of the assembly at Bolotnaya Square are set out in the judgment in the case of Frumkin v.   Russia (no. 74568/12, §§   7-65, 5   January 2016). The parties’ submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below. 9.     On 23 April 2012 five individuals (Mr I.   Bakirov, Mr S.   Davidis, Ms   Y.   Lukyanova, Ms N.   Mityushkina and the second applicant) submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow. The aim of the demonstration was “to protest against abuses and falsifications in the course of the elections to the State Duma and of the President of the Russian Federation, and to demand fair elections and respect for human rights, the rule of law and the international obligations of the Russian Federation”. 10.     On 3 May 2012 the Moscow Department of Regional Security approved the route from Kaluzhskaya Square, down Bolshaya Yakimanka Street and Bolshaya Polyanka Street, followed by a meeting at Bolotnaya Square, noting that the organisers had provided a detailed plan of the proposed events. The march was to begin at 4 p.m., and the meeting had to finish by 7.30 p.m. The number of participants was indicated as 5,000. 11.     On 4 May 2012 the First Deputy Head of the Moscow Department of Regional Security held a working meeting with the organisers of the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square, at which they discussed the security issues. The organisers and the authorities agreed that the assembly layout and the security arrangements would be identical to the previous public event organised by the same group of opposition activists on 4 February 2012. On that occasion, the venue of the meeting had included the park at Bolotnaya Square and the Bolotnaya embankment. 12.     On 5 May 2012 the Moscow Department of Regional Security asked the Moscow city prosecutor’s office to issue a warning to the organisers against exceeding the notified number of participants and against erecting tents at the meeting venue, an intention that had allegedly been indicated by the demonstration organisers who had attended the working meeting. The Moscow Department of Regional Security also referred to information found on the Internet indicating that the demonstrators would go to Manezhnaya Square after the meeting. On the same day the Tsentralnyy District Prosecutor’s Office issued a warning to two of the organisers, Mr   Davidis and the second applicant, against exceeding the notified number of participants and against erecting camping tents at the meeting venue, an intention allegedly expressed by the organisers at the working meeting. 13.     On the same day the Moscow Department of the Interior published on its website the official information about the forthcoming demonstration on 6 May 2012, including a map. The map indicated the route of the march, the traffic restrictions and an access plan to Bolotnaya Square; it delineated the area allotted to the meeting, which included the park at Bolotnaya Square. Access to the meeting was marked through the park. 14 .     On the same day the Police Chief of the Moscow Department of the Interior adopted a plan for safeguarding public order in Moscow on 6 May 2012 (the “security plan”). In view of the forthcoming authorised demonstration at Bolotnaya Square and anticipated attempts by other opposition groups to hold unauthorised public gatherings, it provided for security measures in Moscow city centre and set up operational headquarters to implement them. The police units assigned to police the march and the meeting included 2,400 riot police officers, of whom 1,158 were on duty at Bolotnaya Square. They were instructed, in particular, to search the demonstrators to prevent them from taking tents to the site of the meeting and to obstruct access to Bolshoy Kamenyy bridge, diverting the marchers to Bolotnaya embankment, the place of the meeting. The adjacent park at Bolotnaya Square had to be cordoned off. 15.     At about 1.30 p.m. on 6 May 2012 the organisers were allowed access to the meeting venue to set up their stage and sound equipment. The police searched the vehicles delivering the equipment and seized three tents found amid the gear. They arrested several people for bringing the tents. 16.     At the beginning of the march, Police Colonel A. Makhonin met the organisers at Kaluzhskaya Square to clarify any outstanding organisational matters and to have them sign the undertaking to ensure public order during the demonstration. He specifically asked the second applicant to ensure that no tents were placed on Bolotnaya Square and that the participants complied with the limits on the place and time allocated for the assembly. The organisers gave their assurances on those issues and signed the undertaking. 17.     The march began at 4.30 p.m. at Kaluzhskaya Square. It went down Yakimanka Street peacefully and without disruption. The turnout exceeded expectations, but there is no consensus as to the exact numbers. The official estimate was that there were 8,000 participants, whereas the organisers considered that there were about 25,000. The media reported different numbers, some significantly exceeding the above estimates. 18.     At about 5 p.m. the march approached Bolotnaya Square. The leaders found that the layout of the meeting and the placement of the police cordon did not correspond to what they had anticipated. Unlike on 4   February 2012, the park at Bolotnaya Square was excluded from the meeting venue, which was limited to Bolotnaya embankment. 19.     Faced with the police cordon and unable to access the park, the leaders of the march – the second applicant, Mr A. Navalnyy, Mr   B.   Nemtsov and Mr I. Yashin – stopped and demanded that the police open access to the park. According to the protesters, they were taken aback by the alteration of the expected layout and were unwilling to turn towards Bolotnaya embankment; they therefore demanded that the police officers at the cordon move the cordon back to allow sufficient space for the protesters to pass and to assemble for the meeting. According to the official version, the protesters were not interested in proceeding to the meeting venue; they stopped because they had either intended to break the cordon in order to proceed towards Bolshoy Kamennyy bridge and then to the Kremlin, or to stir up the crowd to incite disorder. After about fifteen minutes of attempting to engage with the cordon officers, who did not enter into any discussion and with no senior officer delegated to negotiate, at 5.16 p.m. the four leaders announced that they were going on a “sit-down strike” and sat on the ground. The people behind them stopped, although some people continued to go past them towards the stage. The leaders of the sit-in called on other demonstrators to follow their example and sit down, but only a few of their entourage did so (between approximately twenty and fifty people in total). 20.     Between 5.20 p.m. and 5.45 p.m. two State Duma deputies, Mr   G.   Gudkov and Mr D. Gudkov, contacted unidentified senior police officers to negotiate the enlargement of the restricted area by moving the police cordon behind the park along the lines expected by the organisers. At the same time Mr V. Lukin, the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation, at the request of Police Colonel Biryukov, attempted to convince the leaders of the sit-in to resume the procession and to head towards the meeting venue at Bolotnaya embankment, where the stage had been set up. During that time no senior police officers or municipal officials came to the site of the sit ‑ down protest, and there was no direct communication between the authorities and the leaders of the sit-in. 21.     At 5.40 p.m. one of the meeting participants announced from the stage that the leaders were calling on the demonstrators to support their protest. Some people waiting in front of the stage headed back to Malyy Kamennyy bridge, either to support the sit-down protest or to leave the meeting. The area in front of the stage almost emptied. 22.     At 5.43 p.m. the media reported that the second applicant had demanded that the protesters be given airtime on Russia’s main television channels, that the presidential inauguration of Mr Putin be cancelled and that new elections be called. 23.     At 5.50 p.m. the crowd around the sit-down protest built up, which caused some congestion, and the leaders abandoned the protest and headed towards the stage, followed by the crowd. 24 .     At 5.55 p.m. the media reported that the police authorities were regarding the strike as incitement of mass disorder and were considering prosecuting those responsible for it. 25.     At the same time a commotion arose near the police cordon at the place vacated by the sit-down protest, and the police cordon was broken in several places. A crowd of about 100 people spilled over to the empty space beyond the cordon. Within seconds the police restored the cordon, which was reinforced by an additional riot police force. Those who found themselves outside the cordon wandered around, uncertain what to do next. Several people were apprehended, others were pushed back inside the cordon, and some continued to loiter outside or walked towards the park. The police cordon began to push the crowd into the restricted area and advanced by several metres, pressing it inwards. 26.     At 6 p.m. Police Colonel Makhonin told Ms Mityushkina to make an announcement from the stage that the meeting was closed. She did so, but apparently her message was not heard by most of the demonstrators or the media reporters broadcasting from the spot. The live television footage provided by the parties contained no mention of her announcement. 27.     At the same time a Molotov cocktail was launched from the crowd at the corner of Malyy Kamenny bridge over the restored police cordon. It landed outside the cordon and the trousers of a passer-by caught fire. The fire was promptly extinguished by the police. 28.     At 6.15 p.m. at the same corner of Malyy Kamenny bridge the riot police began breaking into the demonstration to split the crowd. Running in tight formations, they pushed the crowd apart, arrested some people, confronted others and formed new cordons to isolate sections of the crowd. Some protesters held up metal barriers and aligned them so as to resist the police, threw various objects at the police, shouted and chanted “Shame!” and other slogans, and whenever the police apprehended anyone from among the protesters they attempted to pull them back. The police applied combat techniques and used truncheons. 29.     At 6.20 p.m. the second applicant climbed onto the stage at the opposite end of the square to address the meeting. At that time many people were assembled in front of the stage, but, as it turned out, the sound equipment had been disconnected. The second applicant took a loudspeaker and shouted: “Dear friends! Unfortunately we have no proper sound, but we will carry on our action, we are not going away because our comrades have been arrested, because tomorrow is the coronation of an illegitimate president. We shall begin an indefinite protest action. You agree? We shall not leave until our comrades are released, until the inauguration is cancelled and until we are given airtime on the central television channels. You agree? We are power here! Dear friends, [if] we came out in December [2011] and in March [2012], it was not to put up with the stolen elections, ... it was not to see the chief crook and thief on the throne. Today we have no choice – stay here or give the country to crooks and thieves for another six years. I consider that we shall not leave today. We shall not leave!” 30.     At this point, at 6.21 p.m., several police officers arrested the second applicant and took him away. Mr Navalnyy and Mr Nemtsov were also arrested as they were attempting to address people from the stage. 31.     Meanwhile, at the Malyy Kamenny bridge the police continued dividing the crowd and began pushing some sections away from the venue. Through the loudspeakers they requested the participants to leave for the metro station. The dispersal continued for at least another hour until the venue was fully cleared of all protesters. B.     Investigation of the “mass disorder” case 32.     On 6 May 2012 the first deputy head of the Moscow Department of Regional Security drew up a report summarising the security measures taken on that day in Moscow and stating that 656 protesters had been detained. The report stated that it was the second applicant, among others, who had provoked the stand-off and the breaking of the police cordon and that he had called on the demonstrators to stay at the meeting venue to take part in an indefinite protest action. 33.     On the same day the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mass disorder and violent acts against the police (offences under Article 212 § 2 and Article 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 34.     On 28 May 2012 an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorder (offences under Article 212 §   1 of the Criminal Code). The two criminal cases were joined on the same day. 35.     On 5 October 2012 the NTV television channel showed a film, Anatomy of Protest, Part Two , which featured the applicants and their fellow activist Mr   L., discussing with Mr T. the plans for opposition events and financing options involving sponsorship by Mr T. C.     The second applicant’s house arrest during the investigation 36.     On 10 October 2012 the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation questioned the second applicant on the basis of the allegations made in the film Anatomy of Protest, Part Two . 37.     On 16 October 2012 the Investigation Committee opened a criminal investigation into suspected conspiracy to organise mass disorder in various Russian regions by the applicants and other persons (Article 30 § 1 and Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The applicants, Mr L. and some other unidentified individuals were suspected of having conspired to organise acts of mass disorder, and in particular of having planned riots in Moscow, Kaliningrad, Vladivostok and other regions of Russia, as well as in penal institutions, and of having planned other actions such as blocking railway lines and counteracting the police responsible for securing public order. It was indicated that the riots in question had been planned for autumn 2012. The applicants and their accomplices had allegedly discussed ways of raising funds for these offences, in particular from abroad, and had allegedly planned to recruit activists from across the country to be trained in special training camps. 38.     On the following day, charges were brought against the second applicant. As a preventive measure, he gave an undertaking not to leave Moscow without the investigator’s or the court’s permission, and to display proper behaviour. On the same day the first applicant was put on a “wanted” list on the grounds that he was absent from his home address. 39.     On 23 October 2012 the investigator issued a statement that on that day he could not contact the second applicant at his home address or by telephone to summon him to receive the indictment on 26 October 2012. 40.     On 26 October 2012 the second applicant attended the investigator’s office and received the indictment. He was given the status of an accused in the criminal case instituted on 28 May 2012. 41.     On 6 December 2012 the justice of the peace of the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow convicted the second applicant of an administrative offence for having organised and participated in an unauthorised public event on 27 October 2012, under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It was established, in particular, that some fifty people had held a series of stationary demonstrations to protest against crackdowns, followed by a march which, according to the judgment, had caused a certain amount of disruption to traffic. 42.     On 1 January 2013 the Investigation Committee joined the second applicant’s criminal case file to the criminal case opened on 28 May 2012. 43.     On 9 February 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow examined a request by the investigator to place the second applicant under house arrest pending the completion of the criminal investigation. The request referred to the applicant’s regular absence from his place of residence, allegedly because he was travelling to other regions and abroad; his possession of a travel passport; the fact that his wife and children were temporarily living in Ukraine; his extensive contacts in Russia and abroad; the investigator’s difficulties in contacting the applicant to ensure his attendance at the investigator’s office; and his conviction for the administrative offence of having taken part in an unauthorised stationary demonstration on 27 October 2012, his subsequent participation in an opposition rally on 15 December 2012 and the alleged attempt to burn some symbolic merchandise during a public event on 13   January 2013 while calling for protest actions. The applicant contested that he had breached the undertaking and stated that the circumstances existing at the time of choosing the original preventive measure had not changed. He claimed that he had not left Moscow while the preventive measure was in place; that he had attended the investigator’s office in due time; that he had requested the investigator’s permission to travel to Ukraine but his request had been refused; that his travel passport had not been seized by the investigator; and that his undertaking did not prevent him from participating in public events. He denied having breached the procedure for holding public events, contended that his administrative conviction as a result of the demonstration on 27   October 2012 had been unlawful and pointed out that the allegations of breaches on two other occasions were unsubstantiated. Moreover, he alleged that his undertaking did not contain a prohibition on the commission of administrative offences in the relevant period and had no connection with the pending proceedings. 44 .     On the same day the court granted the investigator’s request and ordered the second applicant’s house arrest for two months. It considered it established that the second applicant had demonstrated that he posed risks of absconding, continuing criminal activity, interfering with witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings, destroying evidence and otherwise obstructing the course of justice. It referred to the gravity of the charges, the administrative offences committed by the applicant, his criminal record, his lengthy absence from his registered address and the investigator’s difficulties in contacting him, and concluded that he had breached the undertaking. It imposed a number of conditions on the applicant for the period of his house arrest, in particular: “-     [a prohibition] on leaving the [home address] without authorisation by the investigating authority ...; -     on communicating with anyone, except for immediate family, as defined by law, legal counsel representing him in the criminal case and [investigating officials]; -     on receiving or sending any postal or telegraphic correspondence; -     on using any means of communication or the Internet telecommunications network.” 45.     On 6 March 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the order for the second applicant’s house arrest. 46 .     On an unspecified date an attachment order was imposed on a car owned by the second applicant and his wife, and the sum of 142,000   Russian roubles (RUB). According to the second applicant, these assets were attached as exhibits (material evidence). 47.     On 1 April 2013 the Basmannyy District Court extended the second applicant’s house arrest by four months, until 6 August 2013, with reference to the same grounds as those given in the original order. That decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 29 April 2013. 48.     On 25 April 2013 the Moscow City Court examined a case against Mr L. in accelerated proceedings on the basis that he had previously entered into a plea-bargaining agreement. It convicted him of organising mass disorder and imposed a suspended prison sentence of two and a half years. 49.     On 19 June 2013 charges were brought against the second applicant. 50.     On 1 August 2013 the Basmannyy District Court extended the second applicant’s house arrest by two months, until 6 October 2013, with reference to the same grounds as those given in the original order. It dismissed a request by the second applicant for bail and refused to allow him to leave his place of residence for walks, exercise or medical appointments, on the grounds that granting leave fell within the discretion of the investigating authority. That decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 26   August 2013. 51.     On an unspecified date the investigator decided to bar the first applicant’s legal counsel, Mr F., from participating in the proceedings because he was to be examined as a witness. Subsequently the court disallowed Mr F.’s participation as a witness in the case (see paragraph 130 below). 52.     On 2 October 2013 the Basmannyy District Court extended the second applicant’s house arrest by four months, until 6 February 2014, with reference to the same grounds as given in the original order. It dismissed a request by the second applicant for bail. That decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 6 November 2013. D.     The first applicant’s alleged abduction and pre-trial detention 1.     Events in Kyiv 53.     On 14 October 2012 the first applicant left Moscow. On 16 October 2012 he entered Ukraine and arrived in Kyiv. 54.     On 19 October 2012 at about 10 a.m. the first applicant arrived at the Kyiv office of HIAS, the partner organisation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), to apply for asylum. He filled in the application forms and left the HIAS office to go for lunch while his belongings remained at the office. According to the applicant, he was abducted outside the office by unidentified persons, who forced him into a minibus and drove him to Russia. Mr S., an HIAS officer who had received the first applicant, described in a written statement what he had perceived as the applicant’s abduction. He stated, in particular, that he had heard cries for help, looked out of the window and saw two men pulling another man towards a black minibus; despite his resistance they had forced him into the minibus and driven away fast. The HIAS officers had tried phoning the first applicant but he had not responded and his telephone had then been deactivated. 55.     At about 4 p.m. Ms B., a UNHCR officer working at the   HIAS   office who had received the first applicant on that day, informed the Solomenskiy Department of the Interior in Kyiv about his suspected abduction and requested that it be investigated in criminal proceedings. 56.     At about 9 p.m. on the same day the first applicant left Ukraine and crossed the Russian border by car. The first applicant’s passport was stamped by the Ukrainian border control but not by the Russian authorities. 57.     According to the first applicant’s detailed account, he was blindfolded, handcuffed, tied up with adhesive tape and driven for about four hours to an unknown location, where he was handed over to another group of unidentified people; the latter drove him for another four to five hours to an unknown location, possibly in the Bryansk Region of Russia, where he was kept for about twenty hours in a cellar. According to the first applicant’s account, the unidentified people wearing masks handcuffed him and threatened to give him an injection to make him talk if he did not confess voluntarily. The version suggested by the first applicant did not satisfy them and they forced him to make a statement that he and other persons had been plotting political unrest and violence, and he ultimately wrote the confession as he was told to do. 2.     The first applicant’s detention and his requests to investigate the abduction 58.     On 21 October 2012 the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation questioned the first applicant as a suspect and produced a written statement in which he confessed to having committed preparatory steps for organising acts of mass disorder. According to the first applicant, his abductors took him to the premises of the Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation. According to the Government, the first applicant went to the Chief Investigation Directorate of the Investigation Committee to surrender and confess and was then questioned as a suspect, in the presence of a lawyer. 59.     On the same day the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow examined the request to detain the first applicant pending the criminal investigation and granted it. It noted that the first applicant had been arrested earlier the same day and that he had been questioned as a suspect in a criminal case in the presence of his defence counsel, although the applicant pointed out that he had been deprived of his liberty since 19   October 2012. 60.     The first applicant was represented in those proceedings by a court-appointed lawyer because, according to him, he was not given access to legal counsel of his choosing. He requested the court not to detain him pending trial and to choose a different preventive measure. He contended that he had not absconded from the investigation, and that he had a fixed place of residence and his family in Moscow. He contested the charges and denied having conducted any criminal activity. The court ordered the first applicant’s pre-trial detention until 16 December 2012. It found that there had been sufficient reasons to believe that the first applicant was likely to abscond and to obstruct the course of justice by destroying evidence and influencing witnesses. In so deciding, the court took into account his strong connections with NGOs and human rights organisations in Russia and abroad, his connections within the State authorities in Russia, and the fact that he had been regularly travelling abroad, had a travel passport, had no fixed place of work, and had not been living at his registered address in Irkutsk. The court also considered that the first applicant was likely to continue his criminal activity because he had been intercepted at the stage of preparing the crime. It took into account the police reports stating that the applicant had been hiding from the investigation and had been placed on the “wanted” list. 61 .     According to the Russian Government, while in detention the first applicant was examined on 21, 22 and 25 October by a doctor, who did not note any injuries. 62.     On 23 October 2012 the first applicant’s counsel sent a complaint to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, requesting an investigation into the first applicant’s abduction in Kyiv and his allegations of torture. He also enquired whether the first applicant’s removal from Ukraine had been agreed upon by the Ukrainian authorities. 63.     On 24 October 2012 five members of a public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited the detention facility to meet the first applicant and to inspect the conditions of his detention. The commission’s report stated that the management of the detention facility had hindered their access to the first applicant for several hours but had eventually let them meet him. The first applicant had given them a detailed account of his abduction, torture and the ensuing proceedings; he had also complained of his difficulties in contacting his lawyer in order to file complaints. The commission noted the first applicant’s exhausted and subdued state and his fear of torture and prison violence. 64.     On 29 October 2012 the office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine informed the first applicant’s counsel, in reply to an enquiry from him, that the Ukrainian authorities had received no extradition request from a foreign State concerning the first applicant. 65.     On 1 November 2012 the investigating authorities reviewed another, unrelated criminal case against the first applicant. In that case, dating back to 1997, an investigation into a robbery by an unidentified perpetrator had been suspended in 1998 and terminated in 2008 as time-barred and the file had been destroyed in June 2012. The investigating authorities decided that the case had been closed wrongfully and resumed its investigation. 66.     On 7 November 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the first applicant’s detention order of 21 October 2012. 67.     On an unidentified date the first applicant filed a complaint with the Investigation Committee of Russia concerning his abduction, forceful removal from Ukraine and torture. On 8 November 2012 he submitted additional documents, including statements from the HIAS officers in Kyiv, which he requested to have included in the file. On 12   November 2012 this request was refused; the witness statements were rejected on the grounds that the copies of the statements had been addressed to the Ukrainian authorities and their content could not be verified by the Russian authorities. 68 .     On 21 November 2012 the Investigation Committee refused to open a criminal investigation following the first applicant’s complaint of abduction, forceful removal and torture. It considered the first applicant’s allegations unsubstantiated and stated that he had left Kyiv voluntarily, by taxi, and returned to Moscow; he had then come to the Investigation Committee on 21   October 2012 to file his confession to criminal offences, which he had done voluntarily, out of patriotic sentiment. The first applicant challenged this refusal before the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, which dismissed his complaint on 1 April 2013. The appellate court upheld the refusal on 20   May 2013. 69.     On the same date, 21 November 2012, the first applicant was charged as a suspect in the 1997 robbery case that had been reopened on 1   November 2012. 70.     On 22 November 2012 the Solomenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv registered the first applicant’s complaint of abduction and referred it for further investigation. 71.     On 28 November 2012 the Investigation Committee decided to join the 1997 robbery case to the first applicant’s case concerning mass disorder. 72.     On 3 December 2012 the first applicant was charged with unlawful crossing of the Russian-Ukrainian border. 73.     On 4 December 2012 the limitation period in the first applicant’s robbery case expired. 74.     On 7 December 2012 the Solomenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kyiv refused to open a criminal investigation into the first applicant’s abduction on the basis that there was no case to answer. According to the Ukrainian Government, despite the prompt reaction of the authorities to the report of the first applicant’s alleged abduction, no proof of his abduction had been found. The investigating authority had inspected the place of the alleged abduction immediately after the report, and had questioned Ms B., who had submitted the report, Mr S., who had witnessed someone being pushed into a black van, and their colleague Ms R., who had not seen or heard anything noteworthy and had only learned about the incident from Mr   R.; it had also questioned residents of the neighbourhood, who had said that they had not seen anyone being pushed into a car; the investigating authority had also made enquiries with the Ministry of the Interior in Kyiv, the Security Service of Ukraine and the State Border Guard Service to establish the first applicant’s whereabouts. The State Border Guard Service had reported that the applicant had crossed the border on the same day in a normal way, his passage had been recorded in the official database, he had presented his passport and he had not made any complaints of abduction to the border guards. The investigating authority had also made an enquiry with Interpol and learned that on 21 October 2012 the first applicant had been detained in Moscow. As to the alleged absence of a border-crossing record at the Russian checkpoint, the Ukrainian authorities were not able to comment as this related to matters that would have taken place in Russian territory and under the authority of the Russian Federation. In conclusion, they considered that this complaint was in any event manifestly ill-founded. That decision was confirmed on 26 February 2013 by the same body. 75.     On 12 December 2012 the Basmannyy District Court examined the request to extend the term of the first applicant’s detention. The request indicated, in particular, that the extension was necessary to investigate the robbery case, for which the first applicant would have to be transferred to Irkutsk. The applicant objected and requested the court to select another preventive measure, having offered a personal guarantee from a State Duma deputy, bail or house arrest. The court extended the first applicant’s detention until 1 April 2013, referring to the “mass disorder” case and citing essentially the same reasons for the extension as those given in the initial order. 76.     On 18 December 2012 the first applicant was transferred to Irkutsk on the grounds that he had to be questioned as a suspect in a 1997 criminal case. The first applicant had previously been informed that the limitation period in that case had expired. The transfer to Irkutsk included a twenty ‑ two-day stopover in a detention facility in Chelyabinsk. On 9   January 2013 he arrived in Irkutsk, where he was detained until 12 March 2013. During this time he was questioned on criminal charges and was allegedly intimidated and ill-treated by his cellmates and pressured into signing self ‑ incriminating statements. 77.     In the meantime, on 21 December 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order of 12 December 2012 in respect of the first applicant. 78.     On 10 January 2013 the Investigation Committee rejected the first applicant’s allegations that his transfer to the Irkutsk Region had been unlawful and that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. 79.     On 17 January 2013 the first applicant was charged with bringing false accusations, a criminal offence under Article 306 of the Criminal Code, apparently in relation to the complaints he had filed against the investigators. The charge was updated on 21 March 2013. 80.     On 21 January 2013 the charges against the first applicant in the robbery case were dropped on account of the expiry of the limitation period. 81.     On 29 March 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow granted a further extension of the term of the first applicant’s detention, until 6   August 2013. The decision referred to the conspiracy to organise mass disorder and the organisation of mass disorder during the demonstration on Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012 as two separate sets of charges, and to a further offence of unlawful crossing of the Russian-Ukrainian border. The court found the first applicant’s continued detention necessary in view of the risk of his absconding, continuing criminal activity and obstructing the instigation by other means; these risks were inferred from the gravity of the charges and the information that the first applicant had previously tried to flee. It rejected the alternative preventive measures proposed by the first applicant, in particular bail and the personal guarantees from the State Duma deputy. 82.     On 5 April 2013 the Solomenskiy District Court of Kyiv refused to examine the first applicant’s complaint against the decision not to investigate his abduction in criminal proceedings on the grounds that the lawyer who had submitted it lacked authority. That decision was upheld on appeal on 22 April 2013. It appears that in 2014 another lawyer attempted to challenge the same decision before the prosecuting authority but not before a court. According to the Ukrainian Government, she requested the investigative measures which had in fact already been completed at the preliminary inquiry and had served as a basis for the decision of 7   December 2012. 83.     On 10 April 2013 the investigator refused a request by the first applicant for a full medical assessment of his health. 84.     On 24 April 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order of 29 March 2013 in respect of the first applicant. 85.     On 30 July 2013 the investigator refused the first applicant’s request for release on health grounds. 86.     On 2 August 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow granted a further extension of the term of the first applicant’s detention, until 6   October 2013, essentially on the same grounds as before. 87.     On 4 September 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order of 2 August 2013 in respect of the first applicant. 88.     On an unidentified date the first applicant was given access to the criminal case file for the first time. The charges included an attempt to organise acts of mass disorder (Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code) and unlawful crossing of the State border (Article 322 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 89.     On 30 September 2013 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow granted a further extension of the term of the first applicant’s detention, until 21 October 2013, having rejected his request to replace the detention with house arrest at his wife’s address, or bail. The reasons for the continued detention were the risk of fleeing, influencing witnesses, destroying evidence, continuing criminal activity and obstructing the criminal proceedings by other means. The court considered that these risks were still present because of the gravity of the charges, and because the first applicant did not have employment or a permanent income, was not resident at his registered address and had previously been charged with other criminal offences. 90.     On 7 October 2013 the Moscow City Court granted a further extension of the term of the first applicant’s detention, until 6 February 2014. It stated that the extension was necessary for giving the first applicant access to the voluminous case file, and because the risks indicated earlier were still present. It rejected his request to replace his detention with house arrest or personal guarantees from a State Duma deputy, on the grounds that the first applicant did not live at his registered address in Irkutsk and was not registered at his de facto address in Moscow. 91.     On 30 October 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order of 30 September 2013, and on 7 November 2013 it upheld the extension order of 7 October 2013. 92.     On 15 November 2013 the case file was taken away from the first applicant and was remitted to the Moscow City Court for judicial examination. 93.     On 20 December 2013 the Moscow City Court scheduled the preliminary hearing for 26 December 2013. 94.     On 26 December 2013 the Moscow City Court remitted the case to the Prosecutor General with an indication of the case-processing flaws to be rectified. The order for the first applicant’s pre-trial detention was maintained. 95.     On 16 January 2014 the case was remitted to the Moscow City Court and the preliminary hearing resumed. 96.     On 4 February 2014 the Moscow City Court examined the request for a further extension of the term of the first applicant’s detention. The first applicant reiterated the request for an alternative preventive measure, including a fresh personal guarantee from a State Du