Communicated on 1 July 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 45013/09
Elchin Ikhtiyarovich GUSEYNOV
against Russia
lodged on 25 July 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Elchin Ikhtiyarovich Guseynov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in St Petersburg.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s detention on remand
On 4 June 2009 the applicant was detained upon arrival at the premises of the investigating department of the Investigating Committee with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in St Petersburg. On the following day the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg remanded the applicant in custody. It set out several grounds therefor: the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence; he could abscond, intimidate witnesses and victims, destroy evidence or interfere with the course of justice; the victim’s property could not be located; the applicant could continue his criminal activities and get in contact with some of his unidentified accomplices who were still at large. The District Court also took into account that at the material time the applicant had been employed by the police and disregarded that the applicant had permanent residence in St. Petersburg, stable way of life, dependent parents, and no criminal record.
On 8 June 2009 the applicant appealed, and on 2 July the St Petersburg City Court held an appeal hearing, quashed the detention order as not being based on evidence and remitted the case to a first instance for a fresh examination. The court decision did not indicate whether the applicant was to be released.
On 13 July 2009 the Primorskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on the same grounds as before. The court did not consider a possibility of releasing the applicant on bail. On 3 August the St Petersburg City Court upheld the detention order.
On 3 and 21 August, 21 October, 23 December 2009 and 17 March 2010 the Primorskiy District Court extended the detention referring substantially to the same grounds as before. The applicant did not appeal against the extension orders.
The applicant remained in custody until 6 October 2010 when the Primorskiy District Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to a suspended prison term.
During the hearings, the applicant was placed in a metal cage in the courtroom.
2. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
From 5 June until at least 25 July 2009 the applicant was held in detention facility no. 47/1 of St Petersburg.
The applicant and other four inmates were held in a cell measuring 6.5 square metres. The cell had poor ventilation, insects, no hot water, no partition between the lavatory and the living area, and the quality of food was poor.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention on remand amounted to inhuman treatment.
2. He further complains that he appeared in a courtroom before the first instance court in a metal cage and was seen by his relatives “as a criminal”, which allegedly amounts to degrading and inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
3. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention between 2 and 13 July 2009 was unlawful.
4. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. He complains that the decisions of the domestic courts authorising his detention were poorly reasoned.
5. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the courts failed to pronounce “speedily” on the lawfulness of his detention on 5 June 2009.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the hearings before the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant’s detention between 2 and 13 July 2009 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
5. 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 lawfulness of the detention order of 5 June 2009 decided “speedily” in the course of the appeal proceedings?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy