Communicated on 26 November 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 10597/13
Mikhail Aleksandrovich VALYUZHENICH
against Russia
lodged on 5 February 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mikhail Aleksandrovich Valyuzhenich, is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and is serving a prison sentence in the Leningrad Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
The applicant was suspected of involvement in large scale drug dealing. According to the investigating authorities, the applicant, F., Fr. and Kh. purchased drugs in St Petersburg and transported them for distribution in Kazan. On 1 and 28 July and 4 August 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan authorised interception of the suspects’ cellular telephone communications.
On 2 February 2011 the applicant was arrested. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
F. and Fr. pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution. They testified that the applicant had been responsible for the organisation of the drug purchase and trafficking.
On 28 October 2011 the District Court found Fr. guilty of attempted drug dealing and sentenced him to five years’ conditional imprisonment. On 20 December 2011 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld his conviction on appeal. According to the applicant, the appeal judgment referred to him as one of the perpetrators.
On 15 November 2011 the District Court found F. guilty and sentenced him to a conditional term of imprisonment[1].
On 6 October 2011 the District Court received the case-file and fixed the trial against the applicant and Kh. for 19 October 2011.
On 19 March 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine and a half years’ imprisonment. The court also found Kh. guilty and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The court relied, inter alia, on forensic evidence, numerous witnesses’ statements, including testimonies given by F., Fr. and Kh., and printouts of their telephone communications.
On 10 August 2012 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant participated in the hearing by means of a video teleconference. He was placed in a metal cage on the premises of the remand prison where he was detained and communicated with the judges via a video link.
B. Conditions of detention and transport
During the trial the applicant was transported from the remand prison to the courthouse and back in prison vans that were poorly maintained. The number of inmates transported exceeded the van’s design capacity. The holding cells at the courthouse were windowless, dirty and poorly lit.
In the courtroom the applicant and Kh. were placed in a metal cage. There was only a wooden bench inside the cage. There was no desk and it was impossible for the applicant to take notes during the hearings. Armed security guards remained beside the cage dock. The applicant’s lawyer could approach him only upon their permission. Any conversation between them took place in the presence of the guards and Kh.
The applicant was placed in a metal cage at the remand prison even when he took part in the appeal hearing by means of a video teleconference.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention at the courthouse and the conditions of his transport to, and from, the courthouse.
He further complains that his detention in a metal cage in the courtroom during the criminal proceedings against him amounted to the treatment prohibited by Article 3 and was in contravention of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the trial court which considered his case could not be considered “a tribunal established by law” and that the appeal court failed to substantiate its conclusion to the contrary.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his guilt was established prior to his trial in the criminal proceedings against Fr. which ended on 20 December 2011.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that, while detained in a metal cage in the courtroom, he was unable to take notes and to confer confidentially with his lawyer. He further alleges that the presiding judge did not permit him or his lawyer to use a computer during the trial whilst the prosecutor was allowed to do so.
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not fair. In particular, he submits that his conviction was based on F. and Fr.’s testimonies; that the court orders authorising his telephone tapping were never disclosed to him.
Referring to Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his grievances under Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his placement in a “metal cage” during the criminal proceedings against him (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts)?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant’s confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the trial and his placement in a metal cage at the appeal hearing in which he participated by means of a video teleconference constitute a “continuing situation” (see Svinarenko, cited above, § 86)?
4. Did the applicant’s placement in a “metal cage” during the criminal proceedings against him entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention?
In particular,
(a) Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in view of the fact that the applicant was put in a “metal cage” during the criminal proceedings against him (compare, Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 136-40, 15 June 2010)?
(b) Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? What was the furnishing of the “metal cage” in the courtroom? Was the applicant provided with a desk like other parties to the proceedings? Was he afforded adequate facilities to take notes during the trial?
(c) Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? What were the arrangements for the applicant’s consultations with his lawyer in the courtroom? Was the applicant able to speak to his lawyer in private during the hearing (compare, Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 741-44, 25 July 2013)?
[1] The applicant did not submit copies of the relevant judgments.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy