CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB1149C98 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Communicated on 14 December 2011 and 14 January 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44885/06 Nikolay Nikolayevich RYAZANOV against Russia lodged on 5 September 2006   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s Statement of facts and Questions to the parties, which is available in HUDOC. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS 1.     Was the fairness of the trial undermined by the admission as evidence of the statements of Iv. (confrontation with the applicant and questioning as a suspect of 15-16 April 2005) allegedly obtained under duress (see, mutatis mutandis , Harutyunyan v.   Armenia, no.   36549/03, ECHR 2007 ‑ III, and Mindadze and Nemsitsveridze v. Georgia , no. 21571/05, §   141, 1   June 2017)? Was the applicant’s respective complaint subject to a thorough scrutiny by the courts?   2.     Did the national courts address the applicant’s arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained on 5   November 2004 and 15   April 2005? Did the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy? Was the applicant given the opportunity to challenge its authenticity and oppose its use in the domestic proceedings? Reference is made, in particular, to discrepancies regarding the actual circumstances of both test purchases, R.s flat’s search and the seizure of the banknotes in various statements of officer D. and Sh., as well as conflicting evidence concerning the time of the examination of the banknotes seized and compilation of the test purchase act of 15   April 2005. When were both test purchases recorded? When were the banknotes seized in R.’s flat actually examined? Did the courts give adequate reasons for their decisions, in particular, as regards their response to the applicant’s arguments in his defence concerning various inconsistencies in D.’s and other witnesses’ statements (see, in so far as relevant, Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan , no.   51164/07, §§   42-59, 12   November 2015, and Kobiashvili v. Georgia , no. 36416/06, §§   62-73, 14 March 2019)?