CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 octobre 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 61018/17 Nikolay Grigoryevich GLAZOV against Russia lodged on 10 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the unfairness of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s conviction for having inflicted serious bodily injuries to his mother which resulted in her death. The applicant complains that after his initial confession statement was declared inadmissible, the Chelyabinsk Regional Court relied to a decisive extent on the results of the forensic medical examination carried out shortly after his arrest and without providing him with a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his position on a different cause of his mother’s injuries. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair trial as required by Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected? Having regard to the weight attached to the forensic medical examination by the appeal court after it excluded the applicant’s initial confession statement, did the applicant have a reasonable opportunity to present his case given his inability to put questions to the expert on whether his mother’s injuries could have been caused by her fall and the subsequent refusal by the domestic courts to order an additional forensic medical examination (see Cottin v. Belgium , no. 48386/99, § 32, 2 June 2005 and compare and contrast with J.M. and Others v. Austria , nos. 61503/14 and   2   others, § 128, 1 June 2017)?