CASE OF MAKSUTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MAKSUTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 33982/17 and 28 others -

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 July 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Maksutov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 July 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 5 § 3

“3.  Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

7.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).

8.  In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  In some applications, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in its case-law (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning the use of metal cages in court hearing rooms; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012, concerning lack of the speedy review of the detention matters; and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, 25 October 2007, as regards the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  The applicants in applications nos. 33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17 raised complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.  Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court considers that the complaints are admissible but, since it has already examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications with regard to Article 5 of the Convention, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).

13.  The applicant in application no. 80092/17 also raised complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. The Court notes that on 17 March 2020 it adopted a decision in the case of Shmelev and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 41743/17 and 16 others), finding that the new compensatory remedy envisaged by the Russian Compensation Act was an effective remedy, in particular, for all cases of past pre-trial detention and some situations of correctional detention alleged in breach of domestic provisions. The Court therefore rejects the applicant’s complaints in this regard for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This part of application should thus be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

15.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

16.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, as well as the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention raised in applications nos. 33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17 admissible, and the remainder of application no. 80092/17 inadmissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 33982/17, 34627/17, 44472/17 and 45860/17;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 July 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv TigerstedtAlena Poláčková

              Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(excessive length of pre-trial detention)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Date of birth

Representative’s name and location

Period of detention

Court which issued detention order/examined appeal

Length of detention

Specific defects

Other complaints under well‑established case‑law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]   

33982/17

04/04/2017

Radmir Yusifovich MAKSUTOV

31/03/1984

04/02/2015 to

03/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic,

Privolzhskiy Military District Court

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s)

Collective detention orders;

the applicant’s detention pending the examination of the case file lasted for almost a year. The Government did not argue that the prolonged period of the applicant’s examination of the case file in the applicant’s case was due to any objective reasons (such as the volume of the case file). Neither did the domestic courts examine whether there had been any delays attributable to the investigating authorities.

There were no attempts on the part of the domestic authorities to speed up the applicant’s examination of the case file by making new arrangements. Moreover, the protracted length of that examination process evidently benefited the investigating authorities, who completed their investigation in the meantime. The trial of the applicant’s case lasted for almost a year.

Although there could have existed relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant’s detention at some stages of the proceedings, the domestic authorities failed to provide relevant and specific justification for the continued application of the measure of restraint, coupled with the lack of diligence on their part.

4,600   

34627/17

17/04/2017

Rustem Ravilevich GALLYAMOV

10/08/1981

Ablayeva Olga Valeryevna

Ufa

04/02/2015 to

03/07/2018

Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa, Supreme Court of Bashkortostan Republic,

Privolzhskiy Military District Court

3 year(s)

and

5 month(s)

The applicant in the present case was a co‑defendant in the same criminal proceedings as Mr Maksutov (application no. 33982/17 above)

The defects cited for the case of Mr Maksutov above are fully applicable to applicant in the present case

4,600   

41626/17

24/05/2017

Andrey Nikolayevich USHANEV

04/06/1975

Kamikhin Gennadiy Nikolayevich

Voronezh

23/03/2017 to

12/10/2017

Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh, Voronezh Regional Court

6 month(s) and

20 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.

1,300   

42038/17

29/05/2017

Sergey Aleksandrovich ROGOZHIN

02/05/1986

Loktev Sergey Aleksandrovich

Lipetsk

15/11/2016 to

14/11/2017

Levoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk,

Lipetsk Regional Court

1 year(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding.

1,300   

44472/17

17/05/2017

Stanislav Vladimirovich MOLKOV

07/11/1982

10/10/2014 to

30/03/2017

Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan, Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic

2 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

21 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; as the case progressed, failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re‑offending, colluding or absconding.

3,400   

45860/17

05/06/2017

Timur Narimanovich UZBEKOV

27/03/1990

14/10/2014 to

08/12/2017

Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan,

Supreme Court of Tatarstan Republic, Privolzhskiy Military District Court

3 year(s) and

1 month(s) and

25 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention, in particular taking into account the period for studying the case-file; as the case progressed, use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, such as his lack of financial resources, lack of property outside Russia, absence of travel passport, the state of his health.

4,200   

66874/17

04/09/2017

Sergey Viktorovich MESHCHANOV

18/08/1982

Ponomarev Askar Usmanovich

Kazan

28/02/2017 to

29/09/2017

Sovtskiy District Court of Kazan; Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan;

Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic

7 month(s) and 2 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint sooner than it has been done.

1,300   

69349/17

04/09/2017

Aleksey Yuryevich PARSHIN

10/03/1982

Yefremova Yekaterina Viktorovna

Moscow

18/12/2010 to

29/05/2017

Vologda Town Court;

Vologda Regional Court;

St Petersburg City Court;

Moscow City Court

6 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

12 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding, as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint, as the case progressed.

6,500   

69439/17

15/09/2017

Sergey Sergeyevich POLYANSKIY

03/04/1984

Yegazaryants Vladimir Vladimirovich

Astrakhan

04/04/2016 to

06/04/2017

Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court

1 year(s) and 3 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re‑offending, colluding or absconding;

as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

1,400 

72445/17

15/09/2017

Vasiliy Vasilyevich ZABOYEV

23/05/1983

30/05/2015 to

20/04/2017

Ukhta Town Court;

Ezhvinsk Town Court;

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 22 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding;

as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

2,700 

80092/17

13/11/2017

Sergey Dmitriyevich SHATALKIN

08/02/1963

Ivanov Aleksey Valeryevich

Krasnodar

11/10/2014 to

07/05/2018

Tuapse Town Court;

Krasnodar Regional Court;

Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 27 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding as the case progressed.

4,800 

2115/18

25/12/2017

Sergey Petrovich POYMANOV

15/02/1972

Zhukov Kirill Sergeyevich

Moscow

22/05/2017 to

21/11/2017

Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow,

Moscow City Court

6 month(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed,

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

1,300 

3758/18

20/12/2017

Andrey Alekseyevich LYSHCHIK

10/10/1966

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

29/05/2017

to

15/11/2019

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov‑on‑Don;

Rostov Regional Court

More than 3 year(s) and

6 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

3,400 

5964/18

15/01/2018

Vyacheslav Viktorovich KAZANTSEV

13/08/1966

Belov Dmitriy Olegovich

Moscow

17/02/2016

To 10/07/2019

Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow,

Moscow City Court

More than 4 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

18 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

4,600 

6078/18

22/01/2018

Alzhanbek Kazbekovich GIMBATOV

04/04/1996

Panfilov Dmitriy Vladimirovich

Moscow

15/06/2016

pending

Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow; Taganskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

More than 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and

20 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal complaint against extension order of 24/07/2017 was examined by the Moscow City Court on 09/10/2017

(77 days); appeal against extension on 01/11/2017 was examined by the Moscow City Court on 22/11/2017

(20 days);

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant was placed in a metal cage on numerous occasions since 08/02/2017 during the hearings before the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow.

9,750 

6151/18

23/01/2018

Mikhail Innokentyevich CHERNYSHEV

18/03/1990

Luneva Natalya Dmitriyevna

Noginsk

09/08/2014 to

22/11/2017

Tverskoy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court

3 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

14 day(s)

failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

4,400 

7332/18

11/01/2018

Shamil Magomedovich GAMIDOV

07/09/1981

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

03/06/2016

to 19/02/2020

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov‑on‑Don,

Rostov Regional Court

More than 4 year(s) and

1 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

5,100 

8813/18

07/02/2018

Anton Vladimirovich BORDOVSKIY

28/01/1966

Osherov Mikhail Aleksandrovich

Moscow

05/06/2015 to

21/11/2018

Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow;

3 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

17 day(s)

Collective detention orders; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - appeal decision of 28/11/2017 upheld the detention order of 26/10/2017, with the examination thus having taken almost a month;

Art. 5 (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - in conjunction with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

6,100 

11688/18

27/02/2018

Sergey Aleksandrovich LYSENKO

19/06/1962

Lysenko Yekaterina Sergeyevna

Kaliningrad

04/10/2017

pending

Guryevskiy District Court of Kaliningrad;

Kaliningrad Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and

8 month(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,600 

11976/18

26/02/2018

Anatoliy Ivanovich SKOROVAROV

18/10/1956

Nazarov Ivan Nikolayevich

Rostov-on-Don

28/04/2017

pending

Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don;

Rostov Regional Court

More than 3 year(s) and

1 month(s) and

7 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

4,200 

13288/18

03/03/2018

Sevak Lenyayevich VARDANYAN

01/09/1986

Dolgoborodova Galina Nikolayevna

St Petersburg

19/08/2015 to

26/01/2018

Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg;

St Petersburg City Court

2 year(s) and

5 month(s) and

8 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,400 

13715/18

12/03/2018

Yuriy Sergeyevich RESHETNIKOV

08/04/1986

Zhelonkina Yelena Nikolayevna

Penza

28/11/2017

pending

Military Court of 235th Garrison; Moscow Circuit Military Court

More than 2 year(s) and

6 month(s) and

5 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,500 

14480/18

12/03/2018

Dmitriy Nikolayevich CHEKMAREV

01/08/1989

Alekseyenko Dmitriy Andreyevich

Nizhniy Novgorod

23/03/2017

to

03/08/2018

Moskovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod; Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod;

Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court

1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime;

failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

2,000 

29950/18

24/05/2018

Aleksandr Sergeyevich SIDORETS

29/08/1976

01/03/2012 to

29/10/2018

Supreme Court of the Komi Republic

6 year(s) and

7 month(s) and

29 day(s)

Collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice as the case progressed; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

6,500 

40558/18

19/11/2018

Yevgeniy Andreyevich IBETOV

24/01/1991

28/02/2018

pending

Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and

3 month(s) and

7 day(s)

Failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;

failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

3,100 

45663/18

10/09/2018

Aleksey Ivanovich LOBOV

25/11/1980

Podoplelova Olga Germanovna

Moscow

15/02/2018 to

15/02/2019

Presnensky District Court of Moscow;

Moscow City Court

1 year(s) and

1 day(s)

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white-collar crime; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

1,400 

55018/18

09/11/2018

Dmitriy Viktorovich SAZONOV

16/10/1971

Taraborin Dmitriy Alekseyevich

Samara

25/07/2018

pending

Samara District Court of Samara; Samara Regional Court

More than 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and

10 day(s)

fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint.

2,700 

12258/19

04/02/2019

Igor Viktorovich BAZHIN

10/06/1977

01/09/2017 to

25/10/2018

Manskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Leninskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk; Krasnoyarsk Regional Court

1 year(s) and

1 month(s) and

25 day(s)

Failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; as the case progressed, failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice.

1,600 

17245/19

18/03/2019

Marks-Agness Vladimirovna KALASHNIK-SAVELCHENKO

09/09/1990

Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna

Rostov-on-Don

27/11/2017

pending

Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region; Rostov Regional Court

More than 2 year(s) and

6 month(s) and

8 day(s)

Use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention.

3,500

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy