THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 51669/20
Rustam Shirinbekovich VATANBEKOV-KOTOV
against Russia
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 November 2020,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. He was represented by Mr A. Artamonov, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaint about the courts having held the criminal trial against him in the absence of a prosecution witness is inadmissible.
In particular, the Court notes that in the light of the principles established in the case-law under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see notably Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 118-47, ECHR 2011, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC] no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015) and regard being had to the materials in its possession, the applicant’s criminal trial complied with the overall fairness requirement.
In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 October 2022.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention
(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Final domestic decision
Charges convicted of
Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)
Summary of the nature of the witness evidence
Reasons for absence
Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses’ absence
51669/20
20/11/2020
Rustam Shirinbekovich VATANBEKOV‑KOTOV
1992
Artamonov Aleksandr Vasilyevich
Moscow
Moscow City Court
25/05/2020
Kidnapping
Mr D.
The applicant and his co-defendant kidnapped D. following the latter’s failure to repay the debt owed to the co‑defendant. Both the applicant and D. worked as couriers for the applicant’s co‑defendant.
could not be located
The applicant was able to challenge other evidence presented by the prosecution (statement of an eyewitness of kidnapping questioned in court, video recording of kidnapping, statements of police officers who arrested him and his co‑defendant), etc.