CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 2023

.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 } Published on 8 January 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47934/17 Yuriy Alekseyevich DMITRIYEV against Russia lodged on 29 June 2017 communicated on 15 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns criminal proceedings against the former head of the Karelia Regional Branch of NGO Memorial who was convicted for sexually assaulting a minor. The applicant is a renowned researcher who uncovered and documented mass graves of victims from Stalin’s Great Terror in Karelia. On 13   December 2016, following an anonymous report, the police carried out a search at the applicant’s flat and found a folder containing photos of his adopted underage daughter on his computer. Some of these photos showed her partially or fully unclothed. On the same day the applicant was arrested and charged with production of child pornography and offenses relating to licentious acts and illegal possession of a firearm. On 15 December 2016 the Petrozavodsk City Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, which continued until 27 December 2017, when he was released under the undertaking not to leave his place of residence. On 5 April 2018 the Petrozavodsk City Court acquitted the applicant of charges relating to production of child pornography and licentious acts. Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the appeal court reversed the acquittal and ordered a re-examination of the case. On 28 June 2018 the applicant was charged with sexual assault against a minor and was subsequently placed back in pre-trial detention. On 22 July 2020, during the second round of proceedings, the applicant was convicted of sexual assault only and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. In the appeal proceedings, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia overturned the initial judgment, sentencing the applicant to thirteen years’ imprisonment and one and a half years’ restriction of liberty for sexual assault. The remaining charges were remitted to the Petrozavodsk City Court for retrial. The conviction for sexual assault was later upheld by the cassation courts, culminating in a final decision by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12 October 2021. In the third round of proceedings, the Petrozavodsk City Court convicted Mr Dmitriyev of the remaining charges on 27 December 2021 and imposed a cumulative sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by both the appellate and cassation courts, on 15 March 2022 and 17   January 2023 respectively. The applicant alleges a violation of his rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention pertaining to his pre-trial detention and to the second round of criminal proceedings. Additionally, he argues that his pre-trial detention and prosecution were politically motivated due to his work and affiliation with International Memorial, asserting this constitutes a violation of Article 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention in compliance with the guarantees of Article   5 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, did he have access to effective legal assistance of his own choosing during the appeal hearing before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia in 2020? Was the applicant able to participate effectively in the hearing and to challenge the evidence presented?   3.     Were the restrictions allegedly imposed on the applicant by the State, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?