Communicated on 2 February 2021
Published on 22 February 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 38567/20
Mikhail Vadimovich FILIMONOV
against Russia
lodged on 18 August 2020
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Vadimovich Filimonov, is a Russian national, who was born in 2000 and is serving a prison sentence in Nizhniy Tagil. He is represented before the Court by Ms I. Khrunova, a lawyer practising in Kazan.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 March 2019 the applicant, a private at the time, was arrested by the police for disorderly conduct (an administrative offence under Russian law) and taken to the police station at approximately 2.10 p.m. He was searched immediately upon arrival to the police station at 3.30 p.m. without lay witnesses’ presence, and no drugs were found on him. Half an hour later, at approximately 4 p.m. the applicant was allowed to use the bathroom. He left his belongings in the room where he had been searched. When he returned, a second search was carried out. It was done in the presence of two lay witnesses. One of the police officers found white substance in the pack of cigarettes in one of the pockets of the applicant’s coat. The applicant claimed that the package with white substance did not belong to him and that the police officers had planted it. He was immediately placed under administrative detention. Subsequently the forensic test established that the white substance contained illegal drugs. The forensic expert found traces of illegal substances on the applicant’s hands.
On 28 March 2019 the administrative case against the applicant was discontinued since military servicemen were immune from administrative liability.
On 16 April 2019, after the receipt of the forensic test results, the investigator opened a criminal case against the applicant on the charges of illegal drug possession.
On 23 December 2019 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court opened a trial in the applicant’s case.
On 20 January 2020 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The court relied on the statements made by the police officers and the lay witnesses, the search record and the forensic evidence. The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that the drugs had been planted on him by the police. The applicant also claimed that the lay witnesses had been partial as they had been ex-convicts and the police had manipulated them. The court interpreted the applicant’s arguments as an attempt on his part to avoid criminal liability.
On 26 March 2020 the Southern District Military Court in Rostov‑on‑Don upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he alleges that his conviction was based on evidence planted by the police.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, §§ 42-59, 12 November 2015 and Borisov v. Russia [Committee], no. 48105/17, 9 July 2019)? In particular,
(a) What was the reason for the applicant’s arrest and subsequent search?
(b) Were the applicant’s arrest and bodily search conducted in accordance with domestic rules of criminal procedure? When was the applicant provided with legal assistance?
(c) Why was the record of the applicant’s arrest not made on the day of his arrest?
(d) Did the national courts address the applicant’s arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained during his bodily search?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy