CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2022

.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 } .s241FF221 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 February 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 624/20 Kirill Anatolyevich MOTOVILOV against Russia lodged on 13 December 2019 communicated on 8 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE By a final judgment of 27   August 2019 the applicant was convicted of drug sale. Domestic courts relied, in particular, (i)   on the records of the crime ‑ scene examination ( осмотр места происшествия ) performed by the police on 29   January 2018 with the applicant’s participation in the absence of a lawyer, and (ii) on other self-incriminating statements the applicant made on that date in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer, while allegedly being in the state of drug intoxication and suffering severe withdrawal symptoms. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     Has there been a breach of Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention in so far as the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during the crime-scene examinations of 29   January 2018, while the applicant was allegedly in a state of drug intoxication and was suffering withdrawal symptoms; and in so far as the records of the crime-scene examinations were relied on by the courts for the applicant’s conviction (see Ibrahim and Others v.   the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3   others, §§   255-65, 13   September 2016, and Beuze v.   Belgium [GC], no.   71409/10, §§   120-50, 9   November 2018)?   (b)     Was the applicant given the opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence and to oppose its use? Did the national courts address his arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained between his actual apprehension and his questioning as a suspect on 29   January 2018? In particular, did they examine whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy? Reference is being made to the applicant’s allegations that he had been in a state of drug intoxication and had suffered withdrawal symptoms at the relevant time, and that the police had given him drugs in exchange to his testimony (see, in so far as relevant, Erkapić v.   Croatia , no.   51198/08, §§   77-89, 25 April 2013, and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§   89-90 and 95, 10 March 2009)?   2.     The parties are invited to submit a copy of the trial record and the appeal hearing record.