THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12020/07
Artur Anatolyevich TERYAN
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 December 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having regard to the decision to give notice to the Ukrainian Government of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicants’ complaints (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court), of which they did not avail themselves,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Artur Anatolyevich Teryan, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1972 and is detained in Simferepol. He was represented before the Court by Ms Y.V. Zayikina and Mr V.M. Yavorskyy, lawyers practising in Kharkiv and Kyiv.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.The applicant’s arrest and confession
4. On 21 March 2005 at around 4 p.m. the applicant and his friend K. were escorted to a police station in Gus-Khrustalnyy, the Vladimir region. Apparently, they were brought there in the framework of criminal proceedings into the murder of four persons, which took place in a house in Kurlovo.
5. Between 0.35 a.m. and 2.15 a.m. on 22 March 2005 the applicant was questioned as a witness. The record of his interview indicated that prior to that questioning he had been informed of his procedural rights, including the right to a lawyer, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self‑incrimination. According to the interview record, the applicant indicated at the end that he was ready to confess.
6. At 3.05 a.m. the applicant confessed to a murder of one of the victims. The confession was made in the presence of counsel G. Counsel G., as well as other applicant’s subsequent counsels mentioned below, was appointed by the authorities.
7. Later on that day the applicant signed the record of his confession drawn up by the investigator M. Counsel G. also signed it .
8. At 6 a.m. on the same day the applicant refused to be assisted by counsel G. and requested investigator M. to provide him with a different counsel. Later on that day the applicant was provided with counsel R.
9. On 23 March 2005 the Gus-Khrustalnyy Town Court of the Vladimir Region ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. At that hearing the applicant was assisted by counsel R.
10. On 7 April 2005 the applicant refused to be assisted by counsel R. and again requested investigator M. to provide him with another lawyer. He was then provided with counsel N., who assisted him until his conviction by the first-instance court.The applicant’s trial and conviction
11. At trial, the applicant pleaded not guilty to all charges. The applicant’s co-defendant K., in his turn, pleaded guilty for two of the four murders and submitted that the applicant had committed the two other murders.
12. At trial the applicant stated that his counsel G. was present at the moment of his confession on 22 March 2005. The relevant part of the trial records reads as follows:
“Prosecutor: Was a lawyer present during the confession?
Accused Teryan A.A.: Yes, he was present from the very beginning.”
13. On 30 November 2005 the Vladimir Regional Court found the applicant guilty of two murders and robbery and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. The court did not examine the record of the applicant’s questioning as a witness and it was not used for the conviction.
14. On an unspecified date the applicant, assisted by counsel B., appealed this decision. He notably complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his questioning as a witness on 22 March 2005.
15. On 19 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction.
16. On an unspecified date in 2010, following an agreement between the Russian and Ukrainian authorities, the applicant was transferred to serve his sentence at a correctional colony in Simferopol.
COMPLAINTS
17. The applicant essentially complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about shortcomings relating to his right to legal assistance. He also complained about a number of other violations of Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
THE LAWAlleged violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention
18. The applicant complained about the lack of legal assistance in particular during his questioning as a witness and when he made his confession on 22 March 2009. He referred to Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ...
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require ...”The parties’ submissions
19. The Government submitted that the trial court did not examine the record of the applicant’s questioning as a witness and that the applicant was assisted by a lawyer during his confession.
20. The applicant submitted that counsel G. was not present at the beginning of the confession. The applicant further reiterated his grievances.The Court’s assessment
21. As regards the applicant’s questioning as a witness on 22 March 2009, there is no indication in the materials before the Court that the domestic courts referred to or relied upon the record of that questioning in their judgments and decisions (see paragraph 13 above). Therefore, the Court cannot speculate whether the alleged absence or presence of a lawyer during that period affected his defence rights or had any impact on the overall fairness of the proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 67360/11 and 2 others, § 130, 11 February 2016). Accordingly, it follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
22. As regards his confession statement of 22 March 2009, the applicant argues that contrary to what is indicated in the interview record counsel G. was not present at the beginning of his confession but only joined him later. In other terms, the applicant challenges the authenticity of that interview record, and such claim must be supported by compelling evidence proving the assertion beyond reasonable doubt (see, among many other authorities, Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, § 124, 12 May 2017; Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, § 76, 15 November 2007; and Saranchov v. Ukraine, no. 2308/06, § 54, 9 June 2016).
23. In the present case, there is no indication that the applicant, assisted by different lawyers, sought to advance any such complaint at the domestic level, either by attempting to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer G. or by requesting during his criminal trial to exclude his confession statement as inadmissible evidence on account of the breach of his right to legal assistance (see Hovanesian v. Bulgaria, no. 31814/03, § 27, 21 December 2010). On the contrary, the Court observes that at trial the applicant unambiguously and explicitly confirmed that he had been assisted by a lawyer during his confession (see paragraph 12 above). In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint is not supported by sufficient evidence and therefore must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.The remainder of the applicant’s complaints
24. Referring to Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant alleged a number of other violations in this case.
25. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of the all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
26. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021.signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
Olga ChernishovaDarian Pavli
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy