CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sB08485A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#212121 } .sB9541D82 { font-family:Arial; color:#212121 } Communicated on 16 April 2020 Published on 25 May 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6851/19 Vyacheslav Anatolyevich PARUSHENKOV against Russia lodged on 12 December 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vyacheslav Anatolyevich Parushenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is serving a prison sentence in Koryazhma, Arkhangelsk Region. He was represented before the Court by Ms M.A. Belinskaya, a lawyer practising in St   Petersburg. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 31 May 2016 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of several counts of robbery and firearms trafficking, involvement in a criminal gang, and endangering the life of a police officer. Between 6 December 2016 and 16 February 2018 the applicant stood jury trial on the above charges. Throughout the proceedings, the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, Ms M.A. Belinskaya. Throughout the trial, which consisted of thirty-five hearings, the applicant was held in an enclosed dock with glass walls (“glass cabin”), which was commonly known as an “aquarium”. Inside the glass cabin there was no desk or horizontal surface allowing the applicant the possibility of perusing documents and taking notes. The glass cabin was surrounded by convoy officers, which, according to the applicant, rendered any confidential communication with his lawyer impossible. Any exchanges with his lawyer could only take place if authorised by the court and only in the presence of State officials (prosecution, court and police).The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 16 February 2018 the St Petersburg City Court acquitted the applicant of one count of firearms trafficking, convicted him on the remaining charges and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. On 14 June 2018 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal. Relevant domestic law Prohibition of degrading treatment Article 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation reads in so far as relevant, as follows: “1. Human dignity shall be protected by the State. Nothing may serve as a basis for derogation therefrom. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture, violence or other severe or degrading treatment or punishment ...” Article 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits, inter alia , the degrading treatment of participants in criminal proceedings. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that throughout the trial he had been kept in a glass cabin in the courtroom, which amounted to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. He complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his confinement in the glass cabin throughout the trial had prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury and had therefore breached the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicant also challenged, under the same head, the trial judge’s decision not to acquit him on the charge of endangering the life of a police officer. The applicant further complained, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, that the courtroom arrangement with the glass cabin had affected his right to a fair trial in that the glass cabin had not been equipped with a desk to allow him to peruse documents and take notes and had made it impossible to communicate confidentially with his counsel. Lastly, he complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the absence of an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONSTO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s placement in a glass cabin during the trial amount to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the circumstances of the applicant’s confinement in the glass cabin, taken as a whole, cause him distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia , no.   38004/12, § 143, 17 July 2018, and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §   125, 4   October 2016)? Was the applicant’s placement in the glass cabin during the trial warranted by valid security considerations other than the fact itself of his being detained on remand pending the trial (see Svinarenko and   Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 117 and 135, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) ?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and   (c) of the Convention? In particular, taking into account the conditions in which the applicant was held during the trial (glass cabin): (i)     Was he afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Was he provided with a desk or equivalent facilities to peruse documents and to take notes (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos.   2653/13 and 60980/14, §§   151-53, 4   October 2016)? (ii)     Was the applicant able to defend himself in person or through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? What were the arrangements for the applicant’s consultations with counsel? Was the applicant able to confer privately with counsel during the trial (see Yaroslav Belousov, cited above, §§   151-53, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v.   Russia , nos.   11082/06 and 13772/05, §§   642-48, 25 July 2013)?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?