CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 8 juillet 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 110 July 2008 Sutyagin v. Russia - 30024/02 Decision 8.7.2008 [Section I] Article 6 Article 6-3-d Examination of witnesses Refusal to hear witnesses allegedly crucial for the applicant’s defence: admissible   Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to impart information Conviction for imparting information which the applicant alleged was not from a classified source: admissible   The applicant was the head of the Military-Technical and Military-Economic Policy Department at the Institute of the United States and Canada at the Russian Academy of Science. In 1999 the authorities arrested and charged him with high treason by way of espionage committed through the collecting and handing over to foreign organisations of military-related information allegedly containing State secrets damaging to Russia’s national security. The applicant’s numerous requests for release from pre-trial detention were dismissed mainly because of the gravity of the charges against him. During the trial, the applicant complained of serious procedural breaches, including unexplained changes in the composition of the court and the selection of jurors from an unpublished list. The competent court also refused to hear two witnesses whom the applicant wished to call and whose evidence would, in his opinion, have been fundamental for his defence. Moreover, the applicant claimed that any information he had exchanged or reported on had been from open sources and the prosecution had failed to identify any classified information. In 2004 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. His appeals against the first-instance judgment were dismissed. Admissible under Articles 5   §   3, 6   §§   1 and 3   (d), Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes