CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF5B27E79 { width:130.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12166/19 and 41 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 7 March 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zhdanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Lətif Hüseynov , President ,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 8 February 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES   3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally about their confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against them or during the administrative proceedings to which they were a party. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. Some applicants also complained that they had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article   3, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention. 8.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in a metal cage in the courtroom in the context of their trial. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article   3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia , no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018). 9.     The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia , no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom). 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during the criminal proceedings against them and/or the administrative proceedings to which they were a party amounted to degrading treatment. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 12.     Having regard to its finding above, the Court does not consider it necessary to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article   13 of the Convention (see Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26   March 2019). OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 13.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 14.     Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Sergey Babushkin v. Russia , no. 5993/08, §§   31-58, 28   November 2013, concerning inadequate conditions of detention after conviction and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; S.P. and Others v. Russia , nos.   36463/11 and 10 others, §§   65-109, 2 May 2023, concerning inhuman and degrading treatment of “outcast” inmates in the informal prisoner hierarchy in the Russian penal facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-08, 22 May 2012, and Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-142, 9   April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport; Butkevich v.   Russia , no.   5865/07, §§   63-65, 13   February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§   115-31, 10   April 2018, and Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Dirdizov v. Russia , no.   41461/10, §§   108-11, 27   November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Idalov , cited above, §§ 154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20   September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences; Gorlov and Others v. Russia , nos.   27057/06 and 2 others, §§ 58-110, 2 July 2019, concerning permanent video surveillance of detainees and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; and Pavlova v. Russia , no.   8578/12, §§   21-33, 18   February 2020, concerning restrictions on   family visits   in pre-trial detention facilities and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 15.     Some applicants also raised additional complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal issues raised in the present applications and thus does not find it necessary to examine the remaining complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 16.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia (just satisfaction), no. 5993/08, 16 October 2014; and S.P. and Others, cited above, §§   111-15), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention raised by the applicants in respect of their placement in a metal cage in courtrooms and lack of an effective remedy in that regard, as well as other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints lodged by some of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ placement in a metal cage and/or a glass cabin before the court during their participation in criminal or administrative proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about placement in a metal cage and/or glass cabin during court hearings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Lətif Hüseynov   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the court Date of the relevant judgment Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     12166/19 07/02/2019 Roman Sergeyevich ZHDANOV 1977     Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 25/02/2019 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport: train; 17/06/2019-18/06/2019; 0.35 sq. m of personal space, lack of or poor quality of bedding and bed linen, lack of privacy for toilet, overcrowding, insufficient number of sleeping places,   Art. 3 - inhuman and degrading treatment of “outcast” inmates as a result of segregation, humiliating practices and abuse in their daily life while in detention, heightened risk of inter-prisoner violence (prison hierarchy) The applicant belongs to a “middle cast” – “the red” (technical staff) since 2007 when serving his sentence in penal facilities of the Krasnoyarsk Region (IZ-1, LIU-37, IK-42, IK-5) between 27/12/2019 and 24/09/2021. He complains about his prison status and hardships he had to endure in everyday life, discriminative attitude on the ground of his degrading status and a reluctance of the penal facilities’ administration to change the existing order and their active support of the existing system of informal hierarchy   26,000     33267/19 19/06/2019 Islombek Dilshatbekovich KAMALOV 1997 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow Military Appeal Court (video link) 08/10/2020 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful pre-trial detention - On 27/12/2018 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect’s identity,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings   9,750     37791/19 11/07/2019 Murad Fayzudinovich SAFARKULIYEV 1986 Sommer Ulrich Köln Georgiyevsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region, Stavropol Regional Court (video link) 22/01/2019   7,500     43022/19 08/08/2019 Natalya Nikolayevna RUSETSKAYA 1980 Kuzmichev Konstantin Nikolayevich Chelyabinsk Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Video link from SIZO ‑ 3, Chelyabinsk Region 13/02/2019   7,500     4140/21 22/12/2020 Petr Nikolayevich CHERKAS 1986 Gaynutdinova Yuliya Sergeyevna Kazan Ivdel Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region 02/10/2020   Amursk Town Court of the Khabarovsk Region 21/12/2020 Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention: IK-6 Khabarovsk Region; from 17/11/2017 – pending as of 16/09/2022; lack of fresh air, overcrowding, constant electric light, lack of or insufficient outdoor exercise, natural light, 2 sq. m. of personal space,   Art. 8 (1) - permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities - IK-6 Khabarovsk Region, since 17/11/2017, detention in different cells with video surveillance, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room, opposite-sex operators,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of permanent video surveillance in detention facilities and inadequate conditions of detention after conviction   13,300     7647/21 22/12/2020 Magomed Akhmedovich ALIBEKOV 1989 Petrov Roman Nikolayevich Cheboksary Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala, Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan 23/06/2020     7,500     10002/21 26/01/2021 Ildar Foatovich AKHMETZYANOV 1977 Pavlov Sergey Eduardovich Cheboksary Military Appeal Court 27/07/2020   7,500     10883/21 28/05/2021 Yuriy Vladimirovich PUZANOV 1991 Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk 4th Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 30/11/2020   7,500     13010/21 21/02/2021 Vadim Vadimovich MOLYAKOV 1962 Tsarenkov Mikhail Maisovich Irkutsk Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk, Irkutsk Regional Court 29/12/2020   6,550   15164/21 17/02/2021 Genrik Vazgenovich MARGARYAN 1984 Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich Krasnoyarsk Balakhtinskiy District Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region (proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   15173/21 20/02/2021 Denis Maksimovich TYURIN 1995 Isayev Ayndi Khamzatovich Krasnoyarsk Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 27/01/2021   7,500   15828/21 03/03/2021 Marina Borisovna LUKASHEVICH 1975 Karakasiyan Artem Vaniyanovich Moskva Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court) Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - 03/07/2020-17/12/2021: detention was based on typical assumptions; the courts made no reference to any evidence of real risks of the applicant’s absconding or obstructing justice   9,750   20156/21 12/03/2021 Igor Vladimirovich MUNSKIY 1967 Munskiy Nikolay Vladimirovich Krasnoyarsk Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 17/11/2020   7,500   22048/21 05/04/2021 Yevgeniy Nikolayevich ANDREYEV 1977 Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 14/10/2020   7,500   22468/21 05/04/2021 Sergey Aleksandrovich SHALAGIN 1989 Fedotova Yuliya Yekaterinburg Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary, Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia 14/10/2020   7,500   22892/21 28/05/2021 Ildar Railovich GABBYASOV 1985 Dunayeva Alla Igorevna Chelyabinsk Fourth Appellate Court of General Jurisdiction 30/11/2020   7,500   25847/21 23/04/2021 Pavel Olegovich FROLOV 1992 Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich Astrakhan Astrakhan Regional Court (video link); Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan 23/10/2020   7,500   26442/21 21/04/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich KALASHNIKOV 1988 Cherkasova Antonina Nikolayevna Kaliningrad Svetliy Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region, Kaliningrad Regional Court 12/02/2021   7,500   28612/21 20/04/2021 Yuriy Vyacheslavovich BESHCHENTSEV 1990       Tosno Town Court of the Leningrad Region 20/10/2020   7,500   28812/21 11/05/2021 Aleksandr Sergeyevich SELIVANOV 1986     Isakogorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Regional Court (video link) 11/02/2021   7,500   28860/21 13/05/2021 Andrey Sergeyevich ZHIGULSKIY       Krasnoyarsk Regional Court (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   29973/21 11/05/2021 Aleksey Aleksandrovich MELNIKOV 1977     Moshkovskiy Ditrict Court of the Novosibirsk Region 26/11/2020   7,500   30568/21 23/05/2021 Sergey Viktorovich DENISOV 1991     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza 29/12/2020   7,500   30994/21 30/12/2021 Aleksandr Igorevich NOVOSELOV 1992     Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   31148/21 10/05/2021 Andrey Vladimirovich NOVOSPASSKIY 1982 Sheykina Marina Sergeyevna Chita Zabaykalskiy Regional Court (video link) 11/11/2020   7,500   31185/21 25/05/2021 Anatoliy Petrovich MONAKHOV 1978 Nazarov Ilya Yulyevich Moscow Istra Town Court of the Moscow Region 26/11/2020   7,500   31275/21 27/05/2021 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich REUT 1990     Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk 25/06/2021 Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - on 28/07/2021 the Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk refused the applicant’s request for phone calls with his relatives, in the absence of any possibility of visits from them,   Art. 13 - lack of an effective remedy against refusals of short-term family visits and in respect of the prohibition of the phone calls with family members in a remand prison 9,750   37791/21 29/12/2021 Andrey Borisovich TYULNIKOV 1977     Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 24/09/2021   7,500   38362/21 12/07/2021 Vuacheslav Vyacheslavovich YARMOLYUK 1990 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd, Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   39523/21 12/06/2021 Mikhail Alekseyevich YERSHOV 1984     Petrovsk-Zabaykalskiy Town Court of the Zabaykalskiy Region 24/02/2021   7,500   39718/21 09/07/2021 Marat Iskanderovich GALIASKAROV 1986     Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan 06/12/2021   5,200   41185/21 15/07/2021 Ivan Vasilyevich ATAMANYUK 1985     Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan 19/03/2021   7,500   41255/21 14/07/2021 Sergey Nikolayevich BOKAREV 1978     Knyazhpogostskiy District Court of the Republic of Komi 21/05/2021   7,500   41589/21 27/07/2021 Vladimir Aleksandrovich PYRKOV 1981 Zyuzina Yevgeniya Mikhaylovna Voronezh Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh, Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Ramonskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region 27/04/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention: 12/09/2018 - 27/04/2021; Ramonskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region; Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh; Voronezh Regional Court; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders   9,750   41653/21 13/09/2021 Ivan Aleksandrovich MOISEYEV 1985     Zheleznogorsk Town Court of the Kranoyarsk Region 18/06/2021   7,500   41755/21 29/07/2021 Olga Vladimirovna STRUCHKOVA 1965 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of Volgograd 17/03/2021   7,500   42545/21 05/08/2021 Oleg Pavlovich PETUKHOV 1981     Ukhta Town Court of the Republic of Komi (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)   7,500   42710/21 05/08/2021 Maksim Igorevich MARCHENKO 1996 Sidorenko Boris Vladimirovich Pyatigorsk Predgorniy District Court of the Stavropol Region 09/09/2021   7,500   42745/21 08/08/2021 Igor Aleksandrovich KRUPSKIKH 1974 Polonskiy Aleksandr Viktorovich Volgograd Krasnooktyabrskiy Disctrict Court of Volgograd, Volgograd Regional Court (video link) 24/06/2021   7,500   44375/21 22/12/2021 Artysh Aleksandrovich SALCHAK 1992     Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk 22/09/2021 Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention: 06/03/2020-22/09/2021; Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint,   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – detention order by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk on 22/07/2021, was reviewed by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 17/08/2021 9,750   26765/22 26/04/2022 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich DUBOVOY 1976     Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Sverdlovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)         7,500   56144/22 15/11/2022 Anton Nikolayevich DEMIN 1986 Andreyev Ashot Aleksandrovich Syktyvkar Syktyvkar Town Court, Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi, Second Appellate Court (video link) (Proceedings pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court)     7,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.