CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s952C702C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA04AE28A { width:35.22pt; display:inline-block } .s264C88EB { width:142.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF NEVZLIN v. RUSSIA (Application no. 26679/08)     JUDGMENT Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (a) and (b) • Fair hearing • Failure to inform applicant in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him • Applicant not afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence Art 6 § 1 (criminal) and Art 6 § 3 (d) • Fair hearing • Examination of witnesses • Lack of an effective opportunity to challenge one of the prosecution witnesses whose testimony was of decisive weight • No issues found with regard to the remaining prosecution witnesses and the defence witnesses   STRASBOURG 18 January 2022   FINAL   18/04/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nevzlin v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Dmitry Dedov,   María Elósegui,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Frédéric Krenc, judges, and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   26679/08) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Israeli and Russian national, Mr Leonid Borisovich Nevzlin (“the applicant”), on 20   May 2008; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s trial and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article   6   §   3 of the Convention that his trial in absentia was unfair. The main issues are whether his defence had adequate time and facilities for preparation for the trial and whether it had an effective opportunity to examine witnesses against the applicant and to obtain the attendance of witnesses on the applicant’s behalf. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Herzliya, Israel. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Gardner and Mr   J.   McBride, lawyers practising in London, and Mr   D.   Kharitonov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr   A.   Fedorov, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background information The applicant’s affiliation with Yukos 5.     Prior to 2003 the applicant occupied various high-ranking positions at investment holding company GML (Group Menatep Limited) and its subsidiary, oil company OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos (hereinafter “Yukos” or “Yukos Oil Company”). 6.     Between 2003 and 2004 the Russian authorities brought a series of tax liability claims against Yukos. As a result of several sets of court proceedings, the company was ordered to pay the arrears and fines. Being unable to pay, it was declared bankrupt and eventually liquidated. At about the same time, several high-ranking Yukos officials, including its owners, managers and lawyers, were arrested and subsequently convicted of fraud, tax evasion and money laundering. A more detailed description of the court proceedings against Yukos and its owners and executives can be found in OAO   Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, 20   September 2011); Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, 25   July 2013); and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (no.   2) (nos.   42757/07 and 51111/07, 14 January 2020). 7 .     The head of the Yukos security service, Mr Pichugin, was convicted of aggravated robbery, murders and attempted murders by separate judgments of 30   March 2005 and 6 August 2007. For more details concerning the criminal proceedings against Mr Pichugin, see Pichugin v.   Russia (no.   38623/03, 23 October 2012), and Pichugin v.   Russia ([Committee], no.   38958/07, 6 June 2017). 8.     On 4 July 2003 a senior investigator for particularly important cases of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office (“the investigator”) interviewed the applicant as a witness in the presence of his lawyer, Mr   Kharitonov. 9 .     On 30 July 2003 the applicant left Russia for Israel, where he acquired Israeli nationality. The applicant’s initial indictment and the Russian authorities’ requests for the applicant’s extradition 10.     On 21 July 2004 investigators indicted the applicant on charges of the murder of Mr Go. and Ms O.Go. and murder attempts on Mr Kol., Ms   O.K., and Mr Ry. The authorities declared an international search for the applicant. 11.     On 23 July 2004 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s arrest. 12.     On 10 August 2004 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Kharitonov, was notified of the decision of 21 July 2004 to indict the applicant. 13.     On 7 July 2005 the Russian authorities made several requests to other states, including Israel, seeking the applicant’s extradition, referring to the pending criminal case against him. 14.     On 28 August 2006 the Ministry of Justice of Israel informed the Russian authorities that Israel could not grant the extradition request as the evidence provided by the Russian authorities was insufficient. 15.     Other States, including Switzerland, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Lithuania and the United Kingdom, also rejected the Russian authorities’ requests for mutual legal assistance in connection with Yukos proceedings, on the grounds that the proceedings were politically motivated. 16.     In 2006 and 2007 the Russian authorities furnished Israel with additional information relating to the applicant’s criminal case. On 23   October 2007 the Israeli authorities reiterated their position that the evidence was insufficient to order the applicant’s extradition. Preparation for the trial Invitation to examine the investigation case file 17 .     On 17 December 2007 the investigator invited the applicant’s lawyer, Mr Kharitonov, in writing to appear on 20 December 2007 to study the investigation case file. On 20   December 2007 the investigator reiterated his invitation, requesting that Mr Kharitonov be present on 25   December   2007 to examine the investigation case file. 18 .     In response, on 20 and 24 December 2007 Mr Kharitonov requested that the examination be postponed. He stated that on 23 December he would be occupied with a different criminal case, and on 25 December he would be on a previously scheduled holiday. He sought to postpone the examination of the case file to any date after 11 January 2008, confirming that the applicant’s defence intended to examine the file. Access to the investigation case file Examination of the case file by a State-appointed lawyer 19 .     On 26 December 2007 the Moscow Bar Association, at the request of the investigator, appointed a lawyer, Mr A.L., to represent the applicant in his criminal case. On the same day A.L. signed a confidentiality clause concerning the preliminary investigation. According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer Mr Kharitonov were informed of this appointment. 20 .     On 26 December 2007 the investigator informed the lawyer A.L. about the completion of the investigation. On the same date, A.L. started to examine the case file, comprising eighty-four volumes (18,926 pages in total, including interview records of more than 500 witnesses, forensic reports and physical evidence and video recordings). 21.     On 31 January 2008 A.L. confirmed that he had completed his examination of the case file, and requested a preliminary hearing. He did not submit any other requests. 22.     According to the applicant, A.L. had never contacted him. Attempts by the lawyer Mr Kharitonov to access the case file 23.     On 21 and 22 January 2008 the lawyer Mr Kharitonov asked the Prosecutor General’s Office for access to the case file, and complained about the investigator’s failure to reply to his letters of 20 and 24   December   2007. 24 .     On 14 February 2008 the lawyer received letters from the investigator dated 12 and 15 January 2008. According to those letters, the lawyer’s letter of 24 December 2007 had been received by the investigator on 10   January 2008. His request to postpone the examination of the case file had been rejected, as it could not have been postponed for more than five days. The investigator considered that the lawyer had failed to fulfil his professional obligations in the case. 25 .     The stamps on the envelopes indicated that the investigator’s letters of 12 and 15 January 2008 had been dispatched on 4 and 5 February 2008 respectively. Final indictment of 14 February 2008 26 .     On 14 February 2008 the prosecution issued a final indictment. According to that indictment, the applicant had instructed Mr Pichugin to organise the murders of several people, in the interests of Yukos Oil Company. For that purpose, through Mr Pichugin the applicant had hired Go., Gor. , Sh. , Resh., Tsig., Ov., Pesh., Kor., Pop., Er., and Kab. , who had planned and carried out the murders, which the applicant had financed. 27.     On an unspecified date a criminal case against Go. and Gor. was discontinued because of their deaths. The other members of the group had been convicted of murders and attempted murders in separate sets of criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 40, 43, 45, 50 and 52 below). 28 .     According to the indictment, the applicant was accused of being the mastermind of the following six criminal episodes, committed in liaison with Mr Pichugin between 1998 and 2002: (1)     the murder of Ms V.Ko., planned and carried out by Go., Sh. and Ov.; (2)     the murder of Mr V.Pe., planned and carried out by Go., Gor., Sh., Tsig. and Resh.; (3)     the aggravated robbery of Mr Kol., planned and carried out by Go., Gor., Sh., Tsig. and Resh.; (4)     the attempted murder of Ms   O.K., carried out by Go., Pesh., Kor., Pop., Er. and Kab.; (5)     two attempted murders of Mr Ry., the murder of Mr F. and the attempted murder of Mr I. and Mr Fi., planned and carried out by Go., Gor., Sh., Tsig. and Resh.; (6)     the murder of Go. and his wife, Ms O.Go., carried out by unidentified persons. 29 .     On 14 February 2008 the applicant’s criminal case was sent to the Moscow City Court for examination. The lawyer Mr Kharitonov was not informed. 30.     On the same day a copy of the indictment was served on the lawyer A.L. A copy was not served on either the applicant or Mr Kharitonov. The applicant’s trial Summary information 31 .     On 19 March 2008 the Moscow City Court started the examination of the applicant’s criminal case. The court released the lawyer A.L. from representing the applicant, as the applicant was represented by Mr   Kharitonov. 32 .     Between 19 March and 10 June 2008, the court held thirty-six hearings and heard 104 witnesses, including victims. In particular, the court heard direct perpetrators of the crimes (see paragraphs 40-55 below) and witnesses who had worked in Yukos or its affiliated companies (see paragraphs 58-69 below). The hearings were held regularly in the mornings and afternoons. 33.     On 1 August 2008 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged (see paragraph 84 below) on the basis of evidence which is described in further detail below (see paragraphs 85-99 below). The conviction was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia (see paragraphs 100-108 below). Preliminary hearing of 4 March 2008 34.     On 4 March 2008 the Moscow City Court held a preliminary hearing. Judge Mr N. (hereinafter “the judge”) was presiding. The applicant was represented by his lawyer, Mr Kharitonov. 35.     The applicant’s lawyer complained about the prosecution’s failure to serve a copy of the final indictment on the applicant’s defence. He asked the court to refer the case back to the prosecution, complaining, among other things, about the late notification of the charges, and that the defence had had insufficient time to examine the case file. He asked the court to grant him three months to examine the file. 36 .     On 5 March 2008 the judge, having examined Mr Kharitonov’s request, granted him fourteen days to examine the case file. He dismissed the remainder of the request, noting that Mr Kharitonov had protracted the proceedings, which had made it necessary to appoint the lawyer A.L., and that, despite the applicant’s living in hiding, his rights were adequately secured by having two lawyers, A.L. and Mr Kharitonov, and, lastly, that a copy of the indictment had been properly served on the defence through notification to the lawyer A.L. 37 .     On 6 March 2008 Mr Kharitonov received a copy of the applicant’s final indictment. He reviewed ten out of eighty-four volumes of the criminal case file before the first hearing on 19 March 2008. The first hearing of 19 March 2008 38 .     On 19 March 2008 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to postpone the trial for two months in order to complete his examination of the case file. The judge dismissed his request, finding that the lawyer had been invited to examine the case file in December 2007, but had failed to do so. The judge found that the lawyer intended to delay the examination of the case, and decided that he could review the case file after each trial hearing. 39 .     On the same day the court started the examination of witnesses and victims. It heard, among others, the victim Kol. testifying about being robbed. The victim submitted, in particular, that he had known the applicant, but he had not had any disagreements with him and he did not know who could have been behind the robbery. Kol. asked the court to release him from subsequent participation in the court proceedings. The parties did not object and the court granted his request. Examination of witnesses Perpetrators of the crimes (a)    Examination of Pesh. on 10 April 2008 40 .     Pesh. had been convicted of incitement to commit the attempted murder of O.K. (the fourth criminal episode) by a separate judgment of 30   March 2005. 41 .     On 10 April 2008 during the applicant’s trial the court heard Pesh. as a witness. He reiterated his pre-trial statements that, in 1999, Go. had told him on many occasions that the instigator of the attempted murder of Ry. and O.K., and the aggravated robbery of Kol., was not only Mr Pichugin, but also the applicant, a “more powerful figure”. 42 .     The witness also submitted that, in his opinion, the death of Go. and his wife had been ‘advantageous’ for the applicant. According to him, after committing the crimes ordered by the applicant and Mr Pichugin, Go. had been fearful for his own life and that of his family. There had been a disagreement between Go. and Mr Pichugin, especially after the first attempt on Ry.’s life. On 21   November 2002 Go. had planned to meet Mr   Pichugin but by that time he had already disappeared. (b)    Examination of Sh. on 18 April 2008 43 .     Sh. had been convicted of the murder of V.Ko. (the first episode), the murder of V.Pe. (the second episode), the aggravated robbery of Kol. (the third episode) and attempted murder of Ry. (the fifth episode) by the separate judgment of 17   August 2006. 44 .     On 18 April 2008 during the applicant’s trial, the court heard Sh. as a witness. He reiterated his pre-trial statements that he had learned from Go. that Mr Pichugin had acted on the applicant’s instructions and that the applicant had financed the murders of V.Ko. and V.Pe. , the attempted murder of Ry. and the aggravated robbery of Kol., and had provided funds to Mr   Pichugin. (c)    Examination of Tsig. on 21 April 2008 45 .     Tsig. had been convicted of the murder of V.Pe. (the second episode), the aggravated robbery of Kol. (the third episode) and the attempted murder of Ry. (the fifth episode) by the separate judgment of 17 August 2006. 46 .     On 11 May 2005, during the investigation in the applicant’s criminal case, Tsig., when interviewed as a witness, stated that the crimes had been committed in the interests of Mr Pichugin and the applicant, who had organised and financed the crimes. He also stated that Go. had told him that the Yukos management was involved in these crimes. 47 .     On 21 April 2008 during the applicant’s trial, the court heard Tsig. as a witness. He retracted his pre-trial statements and stated that at the time of the events in question he had not known who had ordered the crimes. He stated that the investigators in charge had asked him to name the applicant and Mr Pichugin as the instigators of the crimes, in exchange for a reduction of his own prison sentence. He also submitted that before the hearing of 21   April 2008 an investigator had visited him in a remand prison and had asked him to reiterate his initial statement. 48.     The prosecutor asked the court to enquire of the remand prison administration whether the witness had had any visits before the hearing. 49 .     On 22 April 2008 the court received a reply from the prison administration that during Tsig.’s stay in the facility he had had no visitors. (d)    Examination of Resh. on 21 April 2008 50 .     Resh. had been convicted of the murder of V.Pe. (the second episode), the aggravated robbery of Kol. (the third episode) and the attempted murder of Ry. (the fifth episode) by the separate judgment of 17   August 2006. 51 .     On 21 April 2008 during the applicant’s trial, the court heard Resh. as a witness. He reiterated his pre-trial statements that at the time of the first attempt on Ry.’s life he had not known the names of the instigators of that crime. On the day of the second attempt on Ry.’s life, witness Resh. had seen Gor. meeting the applicant and Mr Pichugin. The witness had then learned from Gor. that they were dissatisfied that the attempted murder had not been successful. Gor. and Sh. had later told him that the applicant and Mr Pichugin had been the instigators of the aggravated robbery of Kol., the murder of V.Pe. and the attempted murder of Ry. (e)    Other perpetrators 52 .     Kor., Pop., Kab. and Er. had been convicted of the attempt on O.K.’s life by the separate judgment of 28 June 2000. 53 .     Between 18 and 22 April 2008 during the applicant’s trial, Pop., Kab. and Er. testified as witnesses. They submitted that they had learned from Kor. that Mr Pichugin had been the instigator of the crime in question. 54 .     On 24 April 2008 Kor., questioned as a witness, submitted that Go. had shown him the applicant’s photograph and had told him that the applicant had been the person who had ordered the murder of O.K. Then Go. had asked him to remember the applicant’s face and had told him that if something were to happen to him, such as murder or an accident, the only person to blame would be Mr Pichugin. 55 .     When the applicant’s lawyer questioned Kor. about the applicant’s role in the crime, the witness refused to reply to his questions about the applicant, relying on the privilege against self-incrimination, and stated that if something bad were to happen to him or his relatives, the applicant would be to blame. Other witnesses (a)    Examination of victim Ry. on 20 March 2008 56 .     On 20 March 2008 the court heard victim Ry. At the trial he reiterated his pre-trial statements that, in his opinion, his murder had been ordered directly by the applicant because of a dispute over a debt owed by Yukos to his company, and because Ry. had complained to the authorities about financial irregularities at Yukos. 57 .     After the examination of Ry., the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to grant him five days to examine the case file. The court refused on the ground that it had already examined his similar requests and dismissed them. (b)    Examination of Mr Gol. on 25 March 2008 58 .     On 25 March 2008 the court heard Gol., one of the former shareholders of Yukos. The applicant’s lawyer was granted an hour to study the record of Gol.’s interview as a witness during the investigation. 59 .     The witness reiterated his pre-trial statements that the applicant had supervised all conflict situations in the company. He submitted that after the murder of V.Pe. in June 1998, the applicant had told him that the Yukos official account in relation to the murder was that V.Pe.’s wife had had a dispute with local criminals over control of a local market. 60 .     As regards the attempted murder of Ry., the witness testified that the issue of debts owed by Yukos to Ry.’s company had been discussed at various meetings between Yukos managers, including the applicant. At one of the meetings, on 29 January 1999, the applicant had reported that he needed two months “to resolve the problem of Ry.”. Gol. had realised that the applicant had been responsible for the crime after the first attempt on Ry.’s life. The applicant had held individual meetings with Yukos employees before they were questioned by the authorities regarding the attempted murder. The applicant had once told Gol. that there should be no concern about the investigation, as the investigative authority was “under his control”. After the second murder attempt on Ry., Gol. had been assigned to negotiate with Ry. regarding the buyout of his company’s shares. According to the witness, Ry. had been too frightened of the applicant and had been prepared to negotiate only with those people who had not exerted pressure on him. 61 .     The witness also submitted that following the opening of criminal cases against the Yukos managers, the applicant had threatened him not to disclose information about Yukos’s illegal activities. (c)    Examination of Mr Kov. and Mr Dob. on 27 March 2008 62 .     On 27 March 2008 the court heard witnesses Kov. and Dob. The applicant’s lawyer did not object to their examination. He requested additional time to study the records of their pre-trial statements. The lawyer was granted one hour in total to do so. 63 .     Witness Kov., who had been a colleague of the late victim V.Ko., submitted that her death had been beneficial only to Menatep bank, because she had not agreed with their offer to buy out her shop premises, and she had feared for her life. 64 .     Witness Dob. reiterated his pre-trial statements that he had represented Ry.’s company as a lawyer in court proceedings against Yukos. In September 2000 the applicant had called him, insulting and threatening Ry. and himself, demanding that they stop their actions against Yukos. In his opinion, it was the applicant who had ordered Ry.’s murder. (d)    Examination of Mr Pichugin on 23 April 2008 65 .     On 23 April 2008 the court questioned Mr Pichugin. He insisted on his own innocence and refused to testify, relying on the privilege against self ‑ incrimination. (e)    Other relevant information 66.     On 27 May 2008 the court heard Ms Ol. , who at the time of the events in question had worked in Yukos’s subsidiary company, Yuganskneftegaz, as a deputy manager. She submitted that at the time of V.Pe.’s murder there had been no debts or non-payment of taxes on the part of Yuganskneftegaz. 67 .     At the request of the prosecutor, the court read out Ms Ol.’s pre-trial statement, in which she had submitted that the tax authorities had audited the subsidiary company and had found failures to comply with tax requirements, and that V.Pe. had demanded that the company pay its taxes. 68 .     On 28 May 2008 the court granted the defence’s request to summon victim Kol. for questioning on 5 June 2008. 69 .     On 30 May 2008 the court heard witness Kon. The judge questioned him about the motives for Mr Pichugin’s involvement in the murder of V.Pe. Reading out the perpetrators’ pre-trial statements and the applicant’s lawyer’s attempts to obtain the ir attendance 70.     On 7 July 2008 at the request of the prosecutor, the court read out the record of Resh.’s pre-trial interview as a witness, and watched a video recording of Mr Sh.’s pre-trial interview. 71 .     On 8 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to summon Sh. again, arguing that although there were no contradictions in his statements, Sh. had given further details during the investigation and the defence would like to question him. 72.     The court dismissed the lawyer’s request as unfounded since the contents of the testimony given by Sh. at the trial were the same as those given during the investigation. 73 .     On 9 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer sought to have Resh. summoned again, arguing that the defence had not questioned him after his pre-trial statements had been read out. The court dismissed his request. 74.     The applicant’s lawyer requested that the court grant him three weeks to examine the case file. The court granted him five days. Defence’s requests to summon witnesses on behalf of the defence and to have documents admitted as evidence 75 .     On 14 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer sought to have summoned, among others, the following witnesses: Fil., Kl., As., Kop., Bu., Mur., An., Lu., Sha. and Ts. He submitted, in particular, that Lu., Ts. and Sha. “may have information relevant to the case of [the attempted murder of] O.K.”. The defence submitted that Fil., the governor of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region at the time, had not been included in the prosecutor’s list of witnesses to be called. As to other witnesses, the defence submitted that they had represented Yukos in meetings with V.Pe., just before his murder. 76 .     The prosecutor objected to the lawyer’s request and stated that witnesses Kl., As., Kop., Bu., Mur., An. and Ts. had been summoned, but the witnesses had either not lived at the addresses known to the prosecution, or had refused to accept the summons. As to Lu., Sha. and Fil., the prosecutor suggested that the defence could have sought their attendance on its own. 77 .     Following the prosecutor’s objections, the court refused to summon the above-mentioned witnesses. 78 .     The defence also requested that the court admit as evidence, among other things, the written witness statement of Mr Lit., who had died in 2006, arguing that that witness had been a former officer of the Federal Security Service and that, according to his witness statement, the murder of V.Pe. had been a special operation carried out by State officials. 79.     The court granted the request in part, admitting several documents, but refusing to admit the witness statement of Lit. , finding it to be irrelevant. 80 .     On 14 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer sought to have victims Ry. and Kol. summoned for questioning, arguing that the defence had not had sufficient time at the beginning of the trial to prepare for examination of the victims. He pointed out that Kol. had failed to appear before the court on 5   June 2008 (see paragraph 68 above). The court dismissed his request, noting that the victims had been questioned at the trial and that the lawyer had had an opportunity to question them. Reading out statements of absent witnesses 81 .     On 15 July 2008 the prosecutor asked the court for permission to read out the witness statements of, among others, Shi., Zol., Pi., Ko., T.Sh., Par., Bel., Bazh., Kal., Sa. and An. , who had failed to appear before the court. 82 .     The defence objected, arguing that it had not had an opportunity to examine those witnesses or to verify their statements at the trial. The prosecutor stated that summonses had been sent to those witnesses, but the individuals concerned had either not picked them up or the witnesses had not resided at their known addresses. The court allowed the above ‑ mentioned statements to be read out. 83 .     On 16 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to order the compulsory summoning of Shi., Zol., Pi., Bazh., Kal. and Sa. for questioning. The defence did not ask for the compulsory summoning of any other witnesses. The court dismissed the request of the applicant’s lawyer, noting that those witnesses had already been summoned but had not appeared. The applicant’s conviction 84 .     On 1 August 2008 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant as charged (see paragraph 28 above) and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying on the following evidence. Murder of Ms V.Ko. on 21 January 1998 85 .     According to the conviction judgment, V.Ko. had been the owner of a shop in Moscow. Following the applicant’s instructions, Go. had negotiated with her about a buyout of her shop premises by the Menatep bank. When V.Ko. refused and the negotiations failed, the applicant had instructed Mr   Pichugin to organise her murder. Mr Pichugin had asked Go. to hire hit men to carry it out. Go. had hired Ov. and Sh., who shot the victim on 21   January 1998. 86 .     The applicant’s conviction for the murder of V.Ko. was based, among other evidence, on the following: -     witness statements given by Sh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 44 above); -     witness statements given by Ov. at the trial, stating that Go. had told him that the applicant had financed the murder; -     witness statements given by Mr Sm. , an acquaintance of Go. He submitted at the trial that he had learned from Go. that the murder had been ordered by Mr Pichugin, because V.Ko. had refused to sell her shop premises; -     witness statements given by Mr D.Ko., the victim’s husband, at the trial, stating that Menatep bank representatives had insistently suggested that his wife sell the premises, and that she had feared for her safety; -     witness statements given by Kov. (see paragraph 63 above), Sid. , Shid., Chi., and Ba k., the victim’s colleagues who testified in court about the disagreement between V.Ko. and the Menatep bank, and submitted that her murder could have been advantageous to the bank. Murder of Mr V.Pe. on 26 June 1998 87 .     According to the conviction judgment, V.Pe. had been a mayor of Nefteyugansk in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region. He had demanded that Yukos’s subsidiary company, Yuganskneftegaz, pay taxes into the local budget. V.Pe. had publicly exposed the subsidiary company for non-payment of taxes and had initiated financial enquiries into it, which ran counter to Yukos’s interests. The applicant had instructed Mr Pichugin to organise the murder of V.Pe. Mr Pichugin had hired Go., who had instructed Sh. and Gor. to commit the murder. They had agreed to do so and, in their turn, had hired their acquaintances Resh. and Tsig. to kill V.Pe. The victim was killed on 26   June 1998. 88 .     The applicant’s conviction for the murder of V.Pe. was based, among other evidence, on the following: -     witness statements given by Sh. during the investigation, and reiterated in court (see paragraph 44 above); -     pre-trial witness statements given by Tsig. (see paragraph 46 above). As regards the trial testimony of Tsig., in which he had retracted his initial statements (see paragraph 47 above), the court referred to the remand prison’s reply to the court’s enquiry (see paragraph 49 above) and found his testimony to have been inconsistent and unreliable; -     witness statements given by Resh. during the investigation and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 51 above); -     pre-trial witness statements given by Pi., who had worked in Yukos at the time of the events. He had testified that in June 1998, following the applicant’s instructions, he had gone to Nefteyugansk in order to analyse the situation regarding the disagreement with V.Pe., which had concerned the tax payments. On the day of the murder, the applicant had asked Pi. to inform the public and the investigators that V.Pe.’s wife had been involved in the murder of V.Pe. Similar instructions had been given to other Yukos employees. -     witness statements given by Gol. during the investigation and at the trial (see paragraph 59 above); -     pre-trial witness statements given by Ol. (see paragraph 67 above). The court found that her trial testimony was unreliable and had been refuted by other evidence in the case; -     pre-trial witness statements given by An., an eyewitness to the murder who had called the police immediately after the crime had been committed; -     pre-trial witness statements of Ko., T.Sh., Par. and Bel. about Yukos activities. Aggravated robbery of Mr Kol. on 5 October 1998 89.     According to the conviction judgment, Kol. was an executive officer of the company ZAO Rosprom at the relevant time, and the growth of his business had conflicted with some of the interests of the Yukos management. The applicant had ordered Mr Pichugin to organise the aggravated robbery of Kol. Mr Pichugin had instructed Go. to commit the crime. In order to do so, Go. had hired Sh. and Gor. They in turn had hired Resh. and Tsig., who had robbed Kol. on 5   October 1998. 90 .     The applicant’s conviction for the aggravated robbery of Kol. was based, among other evidence, on the following: -     witness statements given by Pesh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 41 above); -     pre-trial witness statements given by Tsig. (see paragraph 46 above). As regards the trial testimony of Tsig., in which he had retracted his initial statements (see paragraph 47 above), the court referred to the remand prison’s reply to the court’s enquiry (see paragraph 49 above) and found his testimony to have been inconsistent and unreliable; -     witness statements given by Resh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 51 above); -     witness statements given by Sh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 44 above). Attempted murder of Ms O.K. on 28 November 1998 91.     According to the conviction judgment, O.K. worked in the Moscow mayor’s office, having previously worked for Yukos. The attempted murder was committed because O.K.’s actions at the mayor’s office had conflicted with the interests of the Yukos management. The applicant had instructed Mr   Pichugin to find hit men. Mr Pichugin had hired Go., who had suggested Pesh. to commit the murder. Pesh. had hired his acquaintances Kor., Pop., Kab. and Er., who had exploded a device in front of O.K.’s flat on 28   November 1998. No one was injured. 92 .     The applicant’s conviction for the attempted murder of O.K. was based, among other evidence, on the following: -     statements of victim O.K. given during the investigation and reiterated in court, stating that in 1992 the applicant had hired her to work in Group Menatep, where she had met her future husband. Their relationship had resulted in conflict between O.K.’s future husband and the applicant. O.K. had left Group Menatep for a new position in the Moscow mayor’s office. The applicant had told her that regardless of where she worked, her work should benefit him. As she had refused to cooperate, relations between her husband, who was still working in Yukos, and the applicant, had worsened, and the applicant had started to put pressure on her. After the murder attempt, she had left her job. The applicant had then “offered his friendship” and made suggestions of who might have been behind the attempt. O.K. had assumed that the applicant could have been behind the murder attempt as his revenge for her refusal to cooperate. -     witness statements given by Pesh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 41 above); -     witness statements given by Kor. at the trial (see paragraph 54 above). Attempted murder of Mr Ry. on 24 November 1998 and 5 March 1999 93 .     According to the conviction judgment, Ry. was a chief executive of East Petroleum Company, who had initiated several court proceedings against Yukos concerning the damage allegedly caused to his company by Yukos’s activity in the development of oil fields. The applicant had ordered Mr   Pichugin to organise the murder of Ry. Mr Pichugin had instructed Go. to find hit men, who had suggested Sh. and Gor. to commit the murder. They had hired their acquaintances Resh. and Tsig., who had attempted to kill Ry. on 24 November 1998, but had failed. 94.     According to the conviction judgment, in order to carry out the applicant’s order, on 5 March 1999 Resh. and Tsig. had set up an explosive device along the route to be taken by Ry.’s car. As the car had approached, Tsig. had initiated an explosion and Resh. had thrown a grenade at the car. After that they had both shot the car with assault rifles. As a result, Ry.’s bodyguard, F., had died owing to multiple injuries caused by the explosion, and his bodyguards I. and Fi. were injured. Ry. was not in the car and was unaffected by the assault. 95 .     The applicant’s conviction for the attempted murder of Ry. on two occasions, as well as for the murder of Mr F. and the attempted murder of Mr   I. and Mr Fi. was based, among other evidence, on the following: -     statements of victim Ry. given at the trial (see paragraph 56 above); -     witness statements given by Dob. during the investigation, and reiterated in court (see paragraph 64 above); -     witness statements given by Pesh., Sh. and Resh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraphs 41, 44 and 51 above); -     pre-trial witness statements given by Tsig. (see paragraph 46 above). As regards the trial testimony of Tsig.,in which he had retracted his initial statements (see paragraph 47 above), the court referred to the remand prison’s reply to the court’s enquiry (see paragraph 49 above) and found his testimony to have been inconsistent and unreliable; -     pre-trial witness statements given by Bazh. and Shi., who were business partners of the victim, stating that, in their opinion, Yukos managers were behind the attempted murder of Ry.; -     pre-trial witness statements given by Zol., who testified about the applicant’s role in Yukos and his character. Murder of Mr Go. and Ms O.Go. on 20 November 2002 96.     According to the court’s judgment, in 1999 the relationship between Mr Pichugin and Go., one of the perpetrators of the relevant criminal offences, had deteriorated and the applicant had known that Go. and his wife, O.Go., had possessed information about the applicant’s involvement in the above ‑ mentioned crimes, and that Go. had intended to disclose that information. The applicant and Mr Pichugin had organised the murder of Go. and his wife in order to conceal the crimes that had been committed. At the applicant’s instruction, Mr Pichugin had hired unidentified individuals who had carried out the murder. On 20 November 2002 a group of unidentified persons had broken into Go.’s house, locked his children in a bathroom, and kidnapped him and his wife. Their bodies had not been found. The court presumed that they had been killed. 97 .     The applicant’s conviction for the murder of Go. and O.Go. was based, among other evidence, on the following: -     witness statements given by Pesh. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 42 above); -     witness statements given by Sm. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial, stating that he had known Go., who had told him that he had been “solving [the applicant’s] issues”. On 21 November 2002 Sm. and Go. had planned to go to Moscow to meet Mr Pichugin, but by that time Go. had already disappeared; -     witness statements given by Kor. during the investigation, and reiterated at the trial (see paragraph 54 above). Other witness statements relied on for the conviction 98 .     When convicting the applicant, the court relied, among other things, on witness statements given by the following witnesses: Sim., Net., Is., Kos., G., Gr., Av., Gal., Fili., Ye., She., Iv. and De. Those witnesses were examined by the court on various dates during the hearings and they reiterated their pre ‑ trial statements given during the investigation. 99 .     The court also relied on pre-trial witness statements given by Shi., Zol., Pi., Bazh., An., Ko., T.Sh., Par. and Bel., who had not been questioned in court owing to their failure to appear. Appeal proceedings The applicant’s appeal 100.     On 19 January 2009 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment of 1 August 2008. His arguments can be summarised as follows. 101.     The applicant’s lawyer argued, among other things, that the applicant’s defence had been deprived of sufficient time to prepare for the trial with the assistance of a lawyer of the applicant’s choice, before and during the court proceedings, and that the defence had not properly examined the case file because the time allowed by the court had been insufficient. 102.     He argued that the court had not ensured the attendance of victims Ry. and Kol., and had failed to provide him with an opportunity to cross ‑ examine, among others, prosecution witnesses Sh. and Resh., to present evidence and to question witnesses on the applicant’s behalf. 103.     Lastly, he argued that the judgment had been based on evidence that had not been examined by the court and that it had failed to assess all the evidence, and that the pre-trial statements of several witnesses had been read out in court in breach of criminal procedure. The appeal judgment of 27 January 2009 104.     On 27 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Moscow City Court’s judgment of 1   August 2008. 105.     The Supreme Court found, among other things, that the applicant’s conviction had been based on a wide range of evidence examined in court and set out in the judgment, and that the applicant’s arguments