CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 août 2021

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2649E78A { height:13.1pt } .s1E159F52 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.58pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#add8e6 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7E3D2812 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.58pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#add8e6 } .s89A72471 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.58pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#add8e6 } .s9D0D4F89 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding:1.58pt; vertical-align:top } .s2004225A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.58pt; vertical-align:top } .sE41FE5D3 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding:1.58pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 166/15 Aleksey Igorevich VALIKOV and Leonid Sergeyevich DRAT against Russia lodged on 10 December 2014 communicated on 31 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the use for their criminal conviction of a surrender and confession statement made by the second applicant in detention and in the absence of a lawyer ( Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§ 119-50, 9   November 2018, and Turbylev v. Russia , no. 4722/09, §§ 92-98, 6   October 2015). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the fact that the second applicant was not assisted by a lawyer when he made the impugned statements to the deputy head of the correctional colony where he was serving his sentence and to the principles adopted by the Grand Chamber in the cases of Ibrahim and   Others v.   the   United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§   255 ‑ 74, 13   September 2016), and Beuze , cited above, §§   119 ‑ 50), has there been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?   APPENDIX Application No. Case Title Introduction Date Applicants’ conviction   Appeal Surrender and confession statement (circumstances) Second applicant’s situation when making a surrender and confession statement Motion for inadmissibility denied (reasons) 166/15   Valikov and Drat v.   Russia   10/12/2014   Syktyvkar Town Court Komi Republic   23/12/2013   of intentional damage of property by fire (penitentiary colony premises),     Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   11/06/2014   Record of the statement of surrender and confession given by Mr Drat on 14/02/2011 (incriminating Mr Drat and Mr Valikov) at IK-25 Komi Republic ( ФКУ ИК-25 ГУФСИН РФ по РК ) contains a reference to Article   51 of the Constitution that no one is obliged to incriminate oneself, and the second applicant’s signature detained at IK-25 of the Komi Republic ( ФКУ ИК-25 ГУФСИН РФ по РК )   in accordance with his conviction on 11/06/2010 by the Syktyvdinskiy District Court of the Komi Republic   Mr Drat gave a statement of surrender and confession voluntarily after he had been informed of his right not to incriminate himself, receiving and drawing up of the statement of surrender and confession was done in accordance with applicable legislation, the fact that the statement of surrender and confession was given to the deputy head of the correctional colony, and that the latter drew it up in the absence of a lawyer and while Mr Drat had been in the disciplinary ward, did not contravene the law.