THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 83744/17 and 340/19
Vasiliy Nikolayevich KRAVCHENKO against Russia
and Sergey Alekseyevich ILCHENKO against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government in application no. 340/19,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Joinder of the applicationsHaving regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
Complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints about the courts having held the criminal trial against them in the absence of prosecution witnesses are inadmissible.
In particular, the Court notes that in the light of the principles established in the case-law under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see notably Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) the applicants’ criminal trial complied with the overall fairness requirement.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention
(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Final domestic decision
Charges convicted of
Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)
Summary of the nature of the witness evidence
Reasons for absence
Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence
83744/17
07/04/2018
Vasiliy Nikolayevich KRAVCHENKO
1986
Minusinsk Town Court of the Krasnodar Region, acting as the trial court, judgment on 07/03/2017; and Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on appeal on 14/12/2017
attempted aggravated drug sale
I. and Ye.
agreement with the applicant concerning the drug supply; participation in the test purchases
The applicant did not argue that the statements were sole or decisive evidence in the case against him.
According to the official version of the events, the witnesses could not be located
Examination of forensic evidence and other witnesses in court. The conviction was based on a considerable body of evidence such as other witnesses’ testimonies (including statements by his co-defendant, by police officers who had participated in the operative experiment, by other witnesses), investigation reports (including identification reports according to which several witnesses identified the applicant as their drug seller), expert assessments, the applicant’s telephone call records.
The applicant was represented by counsel and could challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution.
340/19
17/12/2018
Sergey Alekseyevich ILCHENKO
1977
Sergey Andreyevich Dotsenko
Krasnogorsk
Rostov Regional Court
17/07/2018
infliction of grievous health harm that led to the death of the victim
V.S.M.
the witness who had been told by the victim about the perpetrator shortly before the victim’s death
could not be located
The applicant was able to confront the witness during the investigation stage of the proceedings. The applicant was represented by counsel and could challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution. The conviction was based on ample evidence.