Communicated on 4 December 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 6207/16
Anatoliy Stepanovich SENOTRUSOV
against Russia
lodged on 14 January 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Stepanovich Senotrusov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Vanino, Khabarovsk Region. He is V.’s brother-in-law.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 April 2014 the district investigative committee opened a criminal case against V. on the charges of having paid for sexual services of a minor under the age of eighteen years.
On 24 July 2014 V. committed suicide. It appears that the criminal investigation was discontinued.
On an unspecified date V.’s sister (the applicant’s wife) and mother asked the authorities to re-open the investigation in order to exonerate V. The applicant represented V.’s mother in the proceedings.
On 13 November 2014 senior investigator T. instituted criminal proceedings against V. on the charges of having sex with a minor under the age of eighteen years.
On 24 April 2015 the Vanino District Court of the Khabarovsk Region discontinued the criminal investigation against V. It discerned no exonerating circumstances and discontinued the criminal proceedings on account of V.’s death, noting as follows:
“... the court considers that the ... evidence [examined] ... is credible, admissible and sufficient in its entirety to find V. guilty of the offences he was charged with. [The court] discerns no violation of the rules of criminal procedure in the course of the investigation. In the circumstances, regard being had to the evidence, the court concludes ... that V. has committed the said crimes.”
On 23 June 2015 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 24 April 2015 on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and 7 § 1 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against V.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Is the application compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae? In particular, does the applicant have legal standing to bring a complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention in connection with the criminal proceedings against V. (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 102-03, ECHR 2014, and Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123)?
2. As regards the findings of the Vanino District Court of the Khabarovsk Region set forth in its decision of 24 April 2015 and upheld by the Khabarovsk Regional Court on appeal on 23 June 2005, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy