Communicated on 27 January 2021
Published on 15 February 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 43387/09
Yuriy Yevgenyevich STROGOV and Andrey Nikolayevich KIRICHENKO
against Russia
lodged on 5 June 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Between 2007 and 2009 the applicants were prosecuted for and subsequently convicted of drug-related criminal offences. The application concerns allegations of unfairness of criminal proceedings on account of the use of evidence planted to the applicants by officers of the Federal Drug Control Service (FSKN) and statements of a third party (a “test purchaser”) extracted under coercion, as well as denied access to a legal counsel from the moment of their arrest.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against them in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taking into account their allegations that their conviction was based on planted evidence (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-50, 15 December 2005; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 89-90, 10 March 2009; and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, §§ 52-59, 12 November 2015)? In particular:
(a) What was the reason for the applicants’ arrest and subsequent seizure of banknotes from their pockets?
(b) Was the applicants’ arrest, seizure from their pockets, seizure from the first applicant’s car, search in the first applicant’s flat conducted in accordance with applicable rules of criminal procedure? If yes, what were these applicable rules?
(c) Why were the mentioned seizures performed at the FSKN office several hours after their arrest, but not immediately at the time of their arrest in the mentioned car?
(d) Did the national courts address the applicants’ arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained during the operational and search measures, in particular, whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy? Did they appoint relevant expert examination, in order to check the applicants’ allegations that the drugs had not belonged to them?
(e) Was the applicants’ conviction based, solely or to a decisive extent, on the evidence which was obtained as a result of police actions?
2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taking into account their allegations that the evidence had been extracted under coercion in violation of Article 3 in respect of the “test purchaser” Mr N. (witness statement of 3 October 2007 and the “test purchase” documents) (see Urazbayev v. Russia, no. 13128/06, §§ 61-74, 3 September 2019, with further references)?
3. Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the alleged violations of the applicants’ right to legal assistance after their arrest on 2 October 2007 (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 50-62, ECHR 2008; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, §§ 93-97, 6 October 2015, with further references)? In particular:
(a) When were the applicants first informed of their right to legal assistance? What was the exact scope of this right at the relevant stage of proceedings? What was the exact wording by which such information was conveyed to the applicants?
(b) When did the applicants first talk to their counsel?
(c) Was a counsel present during the body search of the applicants, searches in the first applicant’s car and the first applicant’s flat?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy