CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 31 January 2007   FIRST SECTION Application no. 88/05 Valentin Vladimirovich DANILOV against Russia lodged on 11 December 2004     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS     1.     The Government are requested to submit the following documents:   -     a copy of the first-instance judgment of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dated 24 November 2004 in the applicant’s criminal case; -     the trial records; -     the relevant expert reports assessing the level of confidentiality of the information divulged by the applicant; -     the “Detailed list of information to be classified within the system headed by the Ministry of General and Professional Education of Russia”, approved by the Ministry of General and Professional Education of Russia on 16   April 1998.   Those documents could be abridged in order to take into account the Government’s confidentiality concerns.   2.     As head of the Thermo-Physics Centre at the Krasnoyarsk State Technical University, did the applicant have security clearance and what was the exact scope of his security engagement?   3.     Had the applicant been familiarised with the “Detailed list of information to be classified within the system headed by the Ministry of General and Professional Education of Russia” approved by the Ministry of General and Professional Education of Russia on 16 April 1998 prior to the events of March 1998 and March 1999, which led to his criminal conviction for high treason?   4.     Was the jury in the applicant’s trial independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are requested to comment on the applicant’s allegation that four out of seven jurors had had security clearance and that some jurors had withheld certain information which could have cast doubts on their impartiality.   5.     Did the appeal court in the applicant’s case comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, the Government are requested to comment on the applicant’s allegation Judge K. was personally predisposed against him.