FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29054/04
by Roman Dmitriyevich TROFIMENKO
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Roman Dmitriyevich Trofimenko, was a Russian national who was born in 1966 and died in 2008. The Russian 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.
On 22 May 2001 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of theft and robbery.
On 3 August 2001, when in the remand prison, he attempted to commit suicide. He received medical treatment in the regional prison hospital and detention centre medical unit.
On 20 June 2003 the applicant made a second attempt at suicide. He knocked the blade of a knife into his chest, in the heart region. The blade remained in the applicant’s body until 3 August 2004 causing pain. The blade was not removed for a long time due to the absence of necessary facilities in the prison hospital.
On 25 November 2003 the Yelizovo Town Court of the Kamchatka Region composed of a presiding professional judge and two lay judges convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment.
The applicant appealed, challenging the judgment on a number of points.
On 6 April 2004 the Kamchatka Regional Court rejected his appeal and upheld the judgment of 25 November 2003. The applicant was not represented before the court of appeal.
In 2005 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office to lodge an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 25 November 2003 because the court had disregarded the rules on the appointment of lay judges. On 12 May 2005 the prosecutor dismissed the request and informed the applicant that the lay judges had lawfully participated in the proceedings.
The applicant served his sentence in a correctional labour colony and was released at the end of 2006.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the applicant complained that he did not receive timely and adequate medical aid while being in custody. He further complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his pre trial detention had been lengthy and unlawful. Invoking Article 6 § 1, 6 § 2, 6 § 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention the applicant complained, in particular, that the criminal proceedings had been unfair and the composition of the trial court had been unlawful, that he had been unable to question a key prosecution witness and he had not been represented by a lawyer before the appeal court. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his house had been unlawfully searched. He finally invoked Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 15 July 2009 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, in which they informed the Court that the applicant had died on 27 August 2008.
By letter dated 21 July 2009 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s home address. No reply followed.
On 5 February 2010 the letter informing about the expiration of a period for submission of the observations was sent by the registered post to the last known applicant’s address. The Court noted that the failure to respond to that letter might result in the strike-out of the application. The letter returned to the Court unclaimed.
The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant has died and no member of his family or heir has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her stead.
The Court considers with reference to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Stephen PhillipsMark Villiger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy