CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 septembre 2016

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 28 January 2016 and 26 September 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61097/13 Yevgeniy Viktorovich ZARETSKIY against Russia lodged on 29 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Viktorovich Zaretskiy, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and is currently service a prison sentence in the Leningrad Region. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 June 2013 the Vyborg District Court of St Petersburg convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. Throughout the trial the applicant was confined in a metal cage. On 14 November 2013 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. During the examination of the case on appeal, in which the applicant participated by means of a video link from the detention facility, the applicant was also confined in a metal cage. The applicant’s attempts to have his conviction reviewed in cassation procedure were unsuccessful. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material and practice see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   53-76, ECHR 2014 (extracts). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained, among other matters , that his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him had amounted to treatment proscribed by Article   3 and had been incompatible with his presumption of innocence as guaranteed by Article   6   §   2 of the Convention. He further complained under Article   6   §§   1 and 3 of the Convention that, while detained in a metal cage in the courtroom, he had been unable to handle documents or take notes and to confer confidentially with his lawyer. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v.   Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§   113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cages used to confine the applicant.   2.     Did the applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in view of the fact that the applicant was confined in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him?   (b)     Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? What was the furnishing of the metal cage in the courtroom? Was the applicant provided with a desk like other parties to the proceedings? Was he afforded adequate facilities to take notes during the trial?   (c)     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? What were the arrangements for the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer in the courtroom? Was the applicant able to speak to his lawyer in private during the hearing (compare, Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   741-44, 25 July 2013)?