Communicated on 5 June 2019
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 6492/14
Valentin RIMSCHI and BALACHIN
against the Republic of Moldova
lodged on 12 December 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns entrapment to commit a crime. The alleged agent provocateur, while being under house arrest for fabricating counterfeit money, was allegedly able to obtain equipment and materials necessary for fabricating counterfeit money and deliver all of this to one of the 17 co-accused in order to fabricate counterfeit money (US Dollars and Russian Roubles). He and other infiltrated persons subsequently bought counterfeit money produced by the co-accused, including the applicants, under police supervision. The money was of a very poor quality, bearing the text: “This tissue is super tender for all dogs, public and private”. It appears that, aside from infiltrated persons, nobody else bought any of it.
The first-instance court excluded from evidence several instances where it found that infiltrated agents had given counterfeit money to some co-accused in order for them to further it to other persons, who themselves turned out to be infiltrated agents. However, the court did not reach the same conclusion in respect of the applicants.
Some of the alleged agents provoctateurs, witnesses and experts were not heard in court despite the applicants’ requests.
The applicants were held in detention pending trial for 44 months, longer than the maximum 12 months allowed by the Constitution.
The application raises issues under Articles 5 § 1 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Do the facts of the case reveal a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ detention pending trial beyond the initial 12 months lawful, within the meaning of that provision (see Savca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 17963/08, §§ 43-54, 15 March 2016)?
2. Has there been a breach of 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, were the applicants victims of entrapment to commit an offence and did the domestic courts properly examine their arguments in this respect (see, for instance, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 49-74, ECHR 2008)?
3. Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 3(d) of the Convention as a result of the refusal of the domestic courts to hear witnesses and experts as requested by the applicants (see Murtazaliyeva v. Russia [GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 139-149, 18 December 2018)?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Birth date
Nationality
Place of residence
1
Valentin RIMSCHI
24/08/1952
Moldovan
Chișinău
2
Alexandr BALACHIN
11/09/1962
Moldovan
Chişinău
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy