FIRST SECTION
Application no. 51122/07
Aleksandr Voldemarovich PEYET
against Russia
lodged on 5 November 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Voldemarovich Peyet, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Tver.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 5 July 2006 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion of drug trafficking in Torzhok in the Tver Region and placed in the temporary detention ward (the IVS) in Torzhok.
On the same date, 5 July 2006, the Torzhok department of the federal counter-narcotics service initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant on the suspicion of trafficking of extremely large quantities of drugs under Article 228 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code.
On 6 July 2006 the Torzhok Town Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand without providing time limits for the detention. In its decision the court referred to the gravity of charges against the applicant, the risk of absconding and exercising pressure on the witnesses.
On 14 July 2006 the applicant was transferred from the IVS to the remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver where he remained until 30 July 2007.
B. The applicant’s detention on remand
On 5 September 2006 the Zavolzhskiy District Court in Tver (the District Court) extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 12 November 2006. The court’s decision was delivered simultaneously in respect of the applicant and of his co-accused Ms O.P. The court reasoned as follows:
“... from the documents submitted it follows that each of them, the applicant and Ms O.P., are charged with the commission of a serious crime implying a custodial sentence. In addition, Ms O.P. is suspected of the commission of a particularly serious crime. Both of them have criminal tendencies and represent danger for the society as persons. In connection with this, the court believes that if at liberty, they could abscond, pressurise the witnesses, continue the criminal activity and hinder the investigation by other means. Therefore, the length of their detention on remand should be extended. In the court’s view, there are no reasons to change the restraining measure for a lenient one. In addition, the investigative authorities yet to take a large volume of investigating steps ...”
The applicant appealed the extension order and requested to be released pending investigation and trial. In particular, he stated that he had permanent place of residence and permanent job, that he was married with two kids and that he did not have a criminal record.
On 28 September 2006 the Tver Regional Court (the Regional Court) upheld the extension order.
On 8 November 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 5 January 2007 referring to same reasons as the ones given in the initial decision of 6 July 2006.
The applicant appealed the extension order and requested to be released stating that the investigation had failed to substantiate the reasons for his continued detention. In particular, there were no grounds to assume that he would re-offend or abscond. He reiterated that he had permanent job and place of residence, that he was married with two children and that the state of his health was deteriorating.
On 30 January 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 8 November 2006.
On 28 December 2006 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006. The time limit for the detention was set as 5 March 2007.
The applicant appealed the order and requested to be released. In particular, he stressed that the state of his health was deteriorating and that the information concerning his personality demonstrated that the restraining measure in respect of him could be changed for a more lenient one.
On 23 January 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 28 December 2006.
On 2 March 2007 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006 and added that the applicant’s arguments concerning the deterioration of his health were unsubstantiated. The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 April 2007.
During the hearing the applicant requested to be released. He pointed out that the investigation failed to substantiate the allegations that he would re‑offend and stressed that the extension of his detention was based essentially on the gravity of charges against him. He again referred to the state of his health and the fact that he had a wife and two minor children to support, permanent job and residence.
It is unclear whether the applicant appealed the extension order of 2 March 2007.
On 30 March 2007 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006. The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 May 2007.
The applicant appealed the extension order and requested to be released. He pointed out that the investigation failed to substantiate its allegations that he would re-offend and that the extension of his detention was based on the gravity of charges against him.
On 26 April 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 30 March 2007.
On 26 April 2007 the District Court again extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006. The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 June 2007.
The applicant appealed the order and requested to be released stating that the extension was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that he had a family to support, permanent job and residence and that his health was deteriorating.
On 17 May 2007 the Regional Court examined and upheld the extension order of 26 April 2007.
On 30 May 2007 the District Court held the directions hearing of the criminal case against the applicant. During the hearing the court decided to extend his detention on remand stating that “the reasons for the continuation of the detention on remand remain the same” and that “the length of the applicant’s detention on remand should not serve as the basis for his release pending trial”. The applicant’s detention on remand was extended until 5 July 2007.
During the hearing the applicant requested to be released referring to the same reasons as the one provided in his previous requests for release.
It is unclear whether the applicant appealed the extension order of 30 May 2007.
From the documents submitted it follows that between 5 and 24 July 2007 the applicant’s detention was not authorised by court order.
On 24 July 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention based on the same reasons as the ones provided in the order of 5 September 2006. The new time limit for the detention was set as 5 August 2007. During the hearing the court criticised the investigative authorities for lodging the request for the extension of the applicant’s detention belatedly.
From the documents submitted it follows that on 30 July 2007 the applicant was released pending trial.
C. Conditions of the applicant’s detention on remand
Between 14 July 2006 and 30 July 2007 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver.
According to the applicant’s submission, each cell in which he was detained was overcrowded. On average, a cell measuring about 21 sq. meter contained six bank beds and housed ten inmates. The toilet pan was located in proximity from the dining table and was separated only by one metre tall partition; the ventilation and lighting did not work properly. The inmates were allowed to take one-hour walk per day. The quality of food was poor. The cells were not equipped with radios and no use the inmates’ radios was allowed.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of conditions of his detention in the temporary detention ward in Torzhok and in remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver. Under the same heading he complains of ill-treatment by the police on the date of his arrest.
Under Article 5 § 1 he alleges that his detention on remand was unlawful and, in particular, that between 5 and 24 July 2007 it was not based on a court order.
Under Article 5 § 2 he alleges that he was not promptly informed of the charges against him; under Article 5 § 3 he alleges that his detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that his requests for review of the detention were not speedily examined by domestic courts.
Under Article 6 § 1 he complains of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and their length. Under Article 6 § 3 (a) he complains that he was not informed of the nature and the cause of the accusations against him and Article 6 § 3 (c) that he could not defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing.
Under Article 8 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the tapping by the authorities of his telephone conversations and the disclosure of their contents during the trial violated his right to private life.
Finally, the applicant also invokes Articles 10, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS
1. The parties are requested to indicate in respect of each cell in which the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-69/1 in Tver:
(a) The cell number and the dates of the applicant’s stay;
(b) The floor surface of the cell (in square metres);
(c) The number of bunk beds and/or sleeping places that were available in the cell;
(d) The exact number of detainees actually held in the cell (supported by original documents, such as cell registers);
(e) Whether the cell was equipped with functioning mandatory ventilation;
(f) What kind of lighting was available in the cell.
(g) The placement of the toilet pan (corner, wall-mounted, etc), if any, and the distances between the pan and the dining table.
(h) The frequency and the length of outdoor exercise.
(i) The frequency and the quality of food provided to the inmates.
2. Having regard to the information provided in response to the above questions, were the conditions of the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 5 to 24 July 2007 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention during the period in question lawful and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law?
4. Was the applicant’s detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and was it compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and were the proceedings conducted with a “special diligence” (see Olstowski v. Poland, no. 34052/96, § 78, 15 November 2001, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001)?
5. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of the proceedings by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy