CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sD526A578 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s786E59B9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } FIFTH SECTION Application no. 19017/06 Vyacheslav Viktorovich KOROBOV against Ukraine lodged on 27 April 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vyacheslav Viktorovich Korobov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1966 and currently serves his prison sentence at the Correctional Colony in Sympheropol. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 6 July 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of murder. The applicant remained in detention for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was tried by the Sympheropol Court, which on 7 October 2004 found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction was based principally on his statements, in which he had admitted having injured the victim though had contended that he had done so without the intention to kill, the statements of the applicant’s mother who had witnessed a part of the conflict between the applicant and the victim, and the results of the autopsy noting numerous injuries on the victim’s body. The applicant appealed to the higher courts, disagreeing essentially with the first-instance court’s qualification of his actions as intentional murder. His principle arguments were that he had had no intention to kill the victim and that he had injured her because he had been drunk and had had psychological problems. The applicant also argued that the investigators and the trial judge had not been objective and had not taken into account all the circumstances of the case, including those capable of mitigating the applicant’s sentence. The applicant states that in his cassation appeal he also argued that he had not been given the opportunity to study the criminal law and procedural regulations so that he could have defended his rights effectively during the proceedings. By decisions of 23 November 2004 and 1 December 2005, the Crimea Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, rejected the applicant’s appeals as unsubstantiated. In order to substantiate his application, in particular as regards the complaints of unfair trial, the applicant submitted a number of requests to the authorities, including the Sympheropol Court, to give him access to his criminal case file and to provide him with the possibility of obtaining copies of various procedural documents. The applicant’s requests were refused as not based on the law. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 34 of the Convention that the authorities have refused, for a considerable period of time, to provide him with the possibility to obtain copies of documents he needed for substantiation of the application. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of petition, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have the opportunity to obtain copies of the documents from his case file and to send them to the Court in order to pursue the application?