FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39439/04
by Aleksandr Berey-Oolovich SYRAT
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 September 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Berey-Oolovich Syrat, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in the town of Kyzyl, the Republic of Tyva. He currently serves a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment ITK of the Ministry of Justice in Kyzyl.
The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr Sedin-Ool I. Damdyn, a lawyer practising in Kyzyl. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
At the relevant time the applicant lived as a homeless person in an underground floor of a residence building in the town of Kyzyl. It appears that he dated one D., an orphan and also a homeless person, who intermittently resided with the applicant.
On 30 April 2003 D. died in the mentioned underground premises. The death was caused by heavy injuries inflicted with a blunt object by an unspecified person some time earlier.
It appears that shortly thereafter the applicant was arrested and questioned in connection with the death of D.
On 20 April 2004 the Kyzyl Town Court tried and convicted the applicant to nine years of imprisonment for having inflicted lethal injuries on D. The following pieces of evidence could be regarded as having laid principal basis of the conviction: the pre-trial statements of one Se. who essentially eye-witnessed the incident and openly accused the applicant of having inflicted the fatal blows on D., the pre-trial statement of one Do. who had heard Se. accusing the applicant of D.'s death, and the autopsy report of D.'s corpse. The court repeatedly summoned Se. to appear in court and to give evidence, but Se. could not be located as he was also a homeless person. It does not appear that the applicant was able to cross-examine Se. at the pre-trial stage of proceedings. It appears that the summons were sent with couriers to the underground floor of the residence building in question and that the court also contacted the address bureau of the local police and special facilities providing shelter to homeless persons, but in vain. The court did summon and question Do. who failed to confirm her earlier statements and this time claimed that she was heavily drunk and could not remember anything.
On 9 June 2004 the first instance judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Republic of Tyva on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings in his case were unfair in that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine Se., the only eye-witness in the case.
THE LAW
On 9 March 2009 the President of the Court gave notice of the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case on 3 July 2009.
By letter of 7 July 2009 the applicant was requested to submit, by 7 October 2009, his comments on the Government's observations.
As the applicant had not replied, by letter of 27 January 2010, sent by registered mail, his attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court can strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application.
The Court notes that, despite the Court's letters of 7 July 2009 and 27 January 2010, the applicant has not submitted his observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor has he made any other submissions to the Court.
Against this background, the Court considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning respect for human rights warranting the further examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy