CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 20 septembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   606 20.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING KONONOV v. LATVIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today 20 September 2007 at 9 a.m. (local time), in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg, on the admissibility and merits in the case of Kononov v. Latvia (application no. 36376/04).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site http://www.echr.coe.int .     The applicant   Vasiliy Kononov, was a Latvian national until 12 April 2000, when he was granted Russian nationality. He was born in 1923 and currently lives in Riga.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns proceedings brought against him for alleged war crimes committed in 1944. At the time the territory of Latvia was under German occupation.   In 1942 the applicant was called up as a soldier in the Soviet Army. In 1943 he was parachuted into Belarus territory (then under German occupation) near the Latvian border, where he joined a Soviet commando unit, composed of members of the “Red Partisans”.   According to the public prosecutor’s office and the Latvian courts, the applicant led a platoon responsible for an attack on the village of Mazie Bati (in the district of Ludza) on 27 May 1944 which led the deaths of six men and three women. Another man was savagely wounded and the women concerned (one nine-months’ pregnant) burnt alive.   According to the applicant, the victims of the attack were collaborators who had delivered a group of partisans (including two women and a small child) into the hands of the Germans. The applicant said that his platoon were supposed to have captured those responsible so that they could be brought to trial. He had not personally led the mission or gone into the village.   In January 1998 the Documentation Centre on the Consequences of Totalitarianism (Totalitārisma seku dokumentēšanas centrs) launched a criminal investigation into the events of 27 May 1944. It considered that the applicant could have committed war crimes under Article 68-3 of the former Criminal Code, as amended by a law of 6 April 1993. Article 68-3 stipulated that those found guilty of war crimes would be liable to between three and 15 years’ imprisonment or life imprisonment. Article 6-1 allowed criminal law to be applied with retrospective effect to war crimes and Article 45-1 provided that no limitation period attached to the prosecution of such crimes.   On 2 August 1998 the applicant was charged with war crimes and, on 10 October 1998, placed in pre-trial detention. He appealed unsuccessfully. He also pleaded not guilty.   Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty under Article 68-3 and imposed an immediate six-year custodial sentence. The court found, among other things, that the applicant was a member of the Soviet Army and therefore a “combatant” within the meaning of the relevant instruments of international humanitarian law. The court concluded that the applicant had perpetrated acts that were prohibited by the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Nuremberg, the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention.   That judgment was quashed however, on 25 April 2000, on the ground that various points were undecided, including whether Mazie Bati had in fact been within “occupied territory” and whether the applicant and his victims could be classified as “combatants” and “non-combatants” respectively. The applicant was released from detention.   On 17 May 2001 the prosecution again charged the applicant with an offence under Article   68-3.   On 3 October 2003 the applicant was acquitted of war crimes, but found guilty of banditry. The court accepted that the deaths of the men from Mazie Bati could be regarded as necessary and justified in military terms, but that there was no justification for the killing of the three women or the burning down of the village buildings. As the commanding officer, the applicant was responsible for the acts committed. However, the time limit for a prosecution for banditry had expired.   The Criminal Affairs Division allowed an appeal from the prosecution and quashed that judgment, again finding the applicant guilty under Article 68-3. Noting that he was aged, infirm and harmless, it imposed an immediate custodial sentence of one year and eight months. Since the applicant had already spent that entire period in pre-trial detention, he was deemed to have served his sentence.   He appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   Complaints   The applicant complained about the retrospective application of a criminal statute against him. He further argued that the characterisation of his acts by the Latvian courts was based on an erroneous assumption that Latvia was at the time occupied by the USSR and that he was a representative of the occupation forces. The Hague and Geneva Conventions applied only to “combatants”, and he did not come within that definition at the material time. He also complained about the length and unfairness of his trial and that his detention pending trial from 10 October 1998 to 25 April 2000 amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment”, given his state of health.   He relied on Article 7 (no punishment without law), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 18 (limitation on use of restriction on rights), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 15 (derogation in time of emergency) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 August 2004.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), substitute judge , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Inga Reine , Agent ,   Emīls Plaksins , Counsel ;   Applicant :   Mikaïl Ioffe , Counsel ,   Marina Zakharina , Yuriy Larin , Advisers .   Russian Government (Third Party)   Veronika Milinchuk , Agent ,   Alexander Kovalev , Maria Molodtsova , Advisers.       ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date [1] .   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.