Communicated on 10 November 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 47557/12
Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Russian nationals.
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Application no. 47557/12 was lodged on 18 June 2012 by Nikolay Nikolayevich Mikhaylov who was born on 7 May 1989 and who is currently serving a prison term in the Perm Region.
A. Facts
On 15 May 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
On 2 June 2009 charges were brought against him.
The applicant sought to be tried by a jury, but his request was dismissed: several of his co-defendants had been charged, inter alia, with terrorism and could not therefore be tried by a jury, and having them tried in separate proceedings ran contrary to the interests of justice.
On 11 July 2011 the Moscow Circuit Military Court convicted the applicant on fifteen counts of murder, committed as part of an organised group and motivated by racial and national hatred; several counts of attempted murder, also committed as part of an organised group and motivated by racial and national hatred; of participation in an extremist group; and several counts of organised robbery. It sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On 15 August 2011 the record of the trial, 2025 pages long, was completed.
On 7 September 2011 the applicant started reading the record of the trial and materials added in the course of the trial in order to prepare his appeal.
While studying the record of the trial and trial materials on 7 September, 8 September, 20 September, 21 September, 27 September and 6 October 2011 in the courtroom of the Moscow Circuit Military Court the applicant, confined in a metal cage, was handcuffed with both hands in front of him, which caused him discomfort and made it impossible to take any notes. On 10 October 2011 the applicant studied the trial record and materials in the holding cells area of the Moscow Circuit Military Court. One hand was handcuffed. The applicant was later allowed to continue studying the trial record and materials in the cage in the Moscow Circuit Military Court’s courtroom without being handcuffed.
In reply to complaints by the applicant about being handcuffed the Moscow Circuit Military Court sought information from the Security and Convoy Department of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior for Moscow. It found that the handcuffing had been necessary because of the failure of the applicant and his co-defendants to obey the lawful demands of prisoner transport officers and owing to a breach of prison rules. Those facts gave grounds to believe that they might commit unlawful acts during the studying of the trial record and materials.
On 21 October 2011 the applicant was provided with a copy of the trial record.
On 17 November 2011 the Moscow Circuit Military Court took a decision to limit the time provided to the applicant for studying the trial record and trial materials and gave him until 28 November 2011 to finish it.
On 15 March 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the above decision on appeal.
On 9 April 2012 the Supreme Court modified the classification of the attempted murders committed by the applicant and upheld the rest of the conviction and sentence on appeal.
During the examination of the case on appeal, in which the applicant participated by means of a videolink from the detention facility, the applicant was confined in a metal cage. Five other co-defendants were held with him. The cage measured 233 x 96 cm. It was equipped with a table measuring 180 x 30 cm and two chairs.
Because of the allegedly poor quality of the videolink, the applicant was not able to participate effectively in the appeal hearing.
B. Complaints
The applicant complained that being confined in a metal cage at the appeal hearing, in which he had participated by means of a videolink from the detention facility, had amounted to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention.
The applicant complained that his being handcuffed during the studying of the record of the trial and the trial materials and his having a time-limit for doing so had amounted to a breach of Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention.
He further complained that being confined in a small metal cage with five other defendants during the hearing of his case on appeal had had an impact on the exercise of his right to participate effectively in the proceedings, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.
2. Application no. 8229/15 was lodged on 26 January 2015 by Mikhail Aleksandrovich Timofeyev who was born on 4 November 1966 and is currently serving a prison term in the Khabarovsk Region.
A. Facts
On 27 September 2013 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Khabarovsk convicted the applicant of extortion committed as part of an organised group and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment and a fine.
During the trial the applicant was confined in a metal cage. The only furniture in the cage was a wooden bench. The applicant could not take any notes during the hearing. Prisoner escort officers stood close to the cage at all times. Such an arrangement prevented the applicant from having free and confidential exchanges with his lawyer.
In finding the applicant guilty the court relied, among other evidence, on statements by a witness, K., whom the applicant had not had an opportunity to cross-examine at any stage of the proceedings.
On 1 August 2014 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. In reply to the applicant’s argument that he had not been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine K., the Regional Court held that K.’s statements had been supported by evidence from other witnesses and the applicant’s co-defendant.
During the examination of the case on appeal, in which the applicant participated by means of a videolink from the detention facility, the applicant was also confined in a metal cage.
B. Complaints
The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him had amounted to treatment proscribed by Article 3 and had been incompatible with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
He further complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that while detained in the metal cage in the courtroom he had been unable to handle documents, take notes and confer confidentially with his lawyer.
3. Application no. 55766/15 was lodged on 2 November 2015 by Ilnar Klimovich Gilyazetdinov who was born on 1 August 1976 and who is currently serving a prison term in the Republic of Tatarstan.
A. Facts
On 24 February 2014 the Privolzhskiy District Court of Kazan convicted the applicant on four counts of fraud and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant was taken into custody in the courtroom.
On 8 April 2014 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan modified the applicant’s conviction to three counts of fraud and reduced the sentence to three years and three months’ imprisonment.
On 12 November 2014 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant.
On 5 March 2015 the Supreme Court of Russia granted a further cassation appeal by the applicant, set aside the decisions of 8 April and 12 November 2014 and remitted the case for fresh examination on appeal by a different bench of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan.
On 19 May 2015 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan modified the applicant’s conviction and upheld his sentence on appeal.
At appeal hearings on 8 April 2014 and 19 May 2015 the applicant was confined in a metal cage while participating in the hearings by means of a videolink.
B. Complaints
The applicant complained that his confinement in a metal cage at the appeal hearings on 8 April 2014 and 19 May 2015, in which he participated by means of a videolink from the detention facility, had amounted to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention and that he had not been afforded an effective domestic remedy against the above violation, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
He further complained that his confinement in the metal cage had tainted the presumption of innocence in his favour, in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
4. Application no. 5440/16 was lodged on 14 January 2016 by Khalid Adamovich Azmatgiriyev who was born on 8 October 1983 and who is currently serving a prison term in the Republic of Mordoviya.
A. Facts
On 12 October 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted after a certain K. sustained serious bodily injuries.
On 9 June 2014 the applicant was arrested in connection with the above criminal case. He was questioned as a witness and participated in a formal confrontation with K.
On 10 June 2014 a report on the applicant’s arrest was drawn up.
On 20 October 2014 an investigator took a decision to appoint a forensic medical expert to look into K.’s case. The forensic expert was asked to determine the nature and seriousness of K.’s injuries.
Between 29 October and 19 November 2014 the expert carried out his examination on the basis of K.’s medical file and described the injuries as having caused serious health damage.
On 12 January 2015 a bill of indictment was prepared, charging the applicant with attempted murder.
On 14 January 2015 the case was submitted to the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) for trial.
On 13 April 2015 the District Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant was confined in a glass cabin throughout the trial in the courtroom.
On 13 August 2015 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. The hearing was held by means of video-conferencing. During the video-conference the applicant was confined in a metal cage.
B. Complaints
The applicant complained, among other things, under Articles 3 and 6 § 2 of the Convention that his confinement in a glass cabin during the trial and in a metal cage during the examination of his case on appeal, in which he participated by means of a video-link from the detention facility, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and had undermined the presumption of innocence in his case.
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international material and practice see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 53-76, ECHR 2014 (extracts).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Were the applicants subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against them (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?
2. The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cages used to confine the applicants.
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Application no. 47557/12
Having regard to the applicant’s specific allegations in respect of the criminal proceedings, did he receive a fair trial in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence at the appeal stage? Were there any unjustified limitations on the applicant’s ability to study the record of the trial and trial materials between 7 September and 28 November 2011? Was the applicant able to take notes? Reference is made to the applicant being handcuffed for a considerable part of the above period.
(b) Did the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage at the examination of his case on appeal have an impact on the exercise of his right to participate effectively in the proceedings? Reference is made to the specific allegations as regards the size of the cell, its furnishings and the number of persons confined there together with the applicant.
Application no. 8229/15
1. Did the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial and his placement in a metal cage at the appeal hearing in which he participated by means of a video link from the detention facility constitute a “continuing situation” (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, § 86)?
2. Did the applicant’s placement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in view of the fact that the applicant was confined in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him?
(b) Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? What were the furnishings of the metal cage in the courtroom? Was the applicant provided with a desk like other parties to the proceedings? Was he afforded adequate facilities to take notes during the trial?
(c) Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? What were the arrangements for the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer in the courtroom? Was the applicant able to speak to his lawyer in private during the hearing (compare Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 741-44, 25 July 2013)?
Application no. 55766/15
1. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention regarding his confinement in the metal cage, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, § 87)?
2. Was the applicant’s confinement in the metal cage during the appeal hearings before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, in which the applicant participated by means of a video link, compatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?
Application no. 5440/16
Was the applicant’s confinement in the metal cage during the appeal hearing before the Moscow City Court, in which he participated by means of a video link, compatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
47557/12
18/06/2012
Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV
07/05/1989
8229/15
26/01/2015
Mikhail Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV
04/11/1966
55766/15
02/11/2015
Ilnar Klimovich GILYAZETDINOV
01/08/1976
5440/16
14/01/2016
Khalid Adamovich AZMATGIRIYEV
08/10/1983
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy