Communicated on 30 August 2017
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 50164/15 and 61061/15
Ivan Ildusovich ZALYAMUTDINOV against Russia
and Andrey Alekseyevich KOSTYLEV against Russia
lodged on 23 September 2015 and 28 November 2015 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom before the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk allegedly in breach of Articles 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention, and the absence of an effective domestic remedy for the above complaints contrary to the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom during the proceedings before the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113‑39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017)?
2. Did the applicants’ confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular:
a) Were the applicants afforded adequate facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? What were the furnishings of the metal cage in the courtroom? Were the applicants provided with a desk like other parties to the proceedings? Were they afforded adequate facilities to take notes during the trial?
b) Were the applicants afforded an opportunity to enjoy effective legal assistance in the courtroom, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Were the applicants able to have confidential exchanges with their lawyers, both oral and written, during the hearings (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 642-48, 25 July 2013; Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 85-90, 14 June 2016; and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 147, 4 October 2016)?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention regarding their confinement in the metal cage in the courtroom, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, § 87, and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 113 and 141, 4 October 2016)?
appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
50164/15
23/09/2015
Ivan Ildusovich ZALYAMUTDINOV
12/04/1988
Sterlitamak
Alla Igorevna DUNAYEVA
61061/15
28/11/2015
Andrey Alekseyevich KOSTYLEV
14/03/1974
Sterlitamak
Alla Igorevna DUNAYEVA
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy