22 September 2010
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 5826/03
by Timur Said-Magomedovich IDALOV
against Russia
lodged on 6 February 2003
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Timur Said-Magomedovich Idalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and is currently in a detention facility in Mozhaysk, in the Moscow Region.
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 11 June 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abduction. On 18 June 1999 he was charged.
On 13 July 2001 his case was submitted to the Khamovnichevskiy District Court of Moscow for trial.
On 17 September 2003 the trial court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. At this hearing the applicant was removed from the courtroom for contempt of court.
On 23 September, 4, 30 and 31 October, and 3 November 2003 the court examined witnesses and studied documents in the case file. After the examination of evidence was finished and the prosecutor and the applicant's representative made their pleadings, the applicant was admitted to the courtroom to make his final statement.
On 24 November 2003, the District Court delivered its judgment by which it convicted the applicant of abduction, extortion, illegal acquisition and storage of firearms and illegal acquisition and storage of drugs and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. By an appeal judgment of 18 May 2004, the Moscow City Court excluded the charge of illegal acquisition and storage of drugs for lack of evidence. It upheld in substance the conviction in respect of the other charges and reduced the sentence to ten years' imprisonment.
B. The applicant's detention
By a decision of 29 October 2002, upheld on appeal on 22 January 2003, the trial court authorised the applicant's detention pending trial.
By court's decision of 24 April 2002, upheld 16 June 2003, his detention was extended for a further three months.
On 19 June 2003 the trial court decided to extend his detention yet again for a further three months and to carry out his psychiatric examination. On 6 August 2003 the appeal court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the trial court for the examination on the merits.
By decisions of 13 August 2003 and 28 October 2003, upheld on appeal on 2 October 2003 and 12 February 2004 respectively, the trial court further extended the applicant's detention.
C. Detention conditions in Moscow remand prison IZ-77/2
The applicant was detained in Moscow remand centre IZ-77/2 from 29 October 2002 to 20 December 2003. He was transferred between cells on many occasions.
He was detained in eleven different cells:
- from 29 October to 1 November 2002 in cell no. 140 measuring 56.4 square metres and accommodating fourteen inmates;
- from 1 to 26 November 2002 in cell no. 50 measuring 12 square metres and accommodating three inmates;
- from 26 November to 16 December 2002 in cell no. 134 measuring 13.5 square metres and accommodating three inmates;
- from 16 December 2002 to 5 January 2003 in cell no. 36 measuring 12.2 square metres and accommodating three inmates;
- from 5 to 15 January 2003 in cell no. 43 measuring 8.5 square metres and accommodating two inmates;
- from 15 January to 18 February 2003 in cell no. 52 measuring 25.4 square metres and accommodating six inmates;
- from 18 February to 23 April 2003 in cell no. 159 measuring 55.4 square metres and accommodating 13 inmates;
- from 23 to 25 April 2003 in cell no. 160 measuring 56.9 square metres and accommodating fourteen inmates;
- from 25 April to 15 August 2003 again in cell no. 159 measuring 55.4 square metres and accommodating thirteen inmates;
- from 15 August to 18 September 2003 in cell no. 298 measuring 12 square metres and accommodating three inmates;
- from 18 September to 1 November 2003 in cell no. 141 measuring 56.9 square metres and accommodating fourteen inmates;
- from 1 to 13 November 2003 in cell no. 155 measuring 55.4 square metres and accommodating thirteen inmates;
- and from 13 November to 20 December 2003 again in cell no. 141 measuring 56.9 square metres and accommodating fourteen inmates.
According to the applicant, the cells were stuffy, dirty, noisy, infested and severely overcrowded.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police and that the conditions of his detention and transport were appalling.
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 and 4 about the length and unlawfulness of his detention on remand.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case were excessively long, and that the district court relied on inadmissible evidence in giving its judgment. The applicant also complains under the same Article that the District Court which heard his case did not have territorial jurisdiction to do so, and that a sole judge heard his case, allegedly in violation of Russian law.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 about publishing statements on his guilt in the course of the preliminary investigation by a number of Moscow newspapers.
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) that, being removed from the courtroom before the bill of indictment was pronounced, he was deprived of the right to defend himself in person.
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) that the court did not call in the hearing a number of witnesses and read out their statements given in the court of the preliminary investigation.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 that the police stole his personal belongings while searching his flat and that national authorities did not return the amount of the bail for about two years.
The applicant also complains under Articles 8 and 34 that his correspondence with the Court was viewed by the administration of facility OD-1/6 of the Vladimir Region.
The applicant invokes Article 14 of the Convention in respect of the above articles, claiming that he was subjected to discrimination on the ground of his national origin.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant afforded an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearings of 22 January, 16 June, 6 August, 2 October 2003 and 12 February 2004?
2. Having regard to the fact that the applicant was not present during the taking of evidence at trial, was that situation compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d)?
3. Was the applicant transported from the remand prison to the courthouse on 23 September and on 4, 30 and 31 October 2003?
4. The Government are requested to produce copies of original documents, such as cell registers (покамерные карточки) or statistical data, in respect of each cell in which the applicant was held in Moscow remand prison IZ-77/2.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy