Week-ending 28 August 2020
On Tuesday, 25 August 2020, RAPSI reported that the Supreme Court’s Presidium will consider the possibility of vacation of the sentence against opposition activists Sergey Udaltsov and Leonid Razvozzhayev in the 2012 Bolotnaya Square riot case on 16 September. Udaltsov and Razvozzhayev asked the Supreme Court to overturn their sentence in the 2012 Bolotnaya Square riot case based on the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). According to lawyer Dmitry Agranovsky, the ECtHR has held that Russia had violated Part 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights (Right to a fair trial) by convicting the opposition activists based on the testimony of another defendant Konstantin Lebedev, who had signed a plea deal with investigators.
CASE OF RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA, 19 November 2019
The ruling found:
a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, by Russia and Ukraine, on account of the failure to carry out an effective investigation into the first applicant’s allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and inhuman and degrading treatment [Arts 3 and 5 § 1 • Positive obligations • Respondent States’ failure to investigate allegations of cross-border abduction and ill-treatment involving State agents];
a violation by Russia of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention as regards both applicants;
a violation by Russia of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards both applicants on account of L.’s appearance as a witness in the applicants’ criminal case after his conviction in separate accelerated proceedings based on plea bargaining;
a violation by Russia of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention as regards the first applicant on account of the excessively intensive hearing schedule and the lengthy prison transfers, and of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention on account of his confinement in a glass cabin in the courtroom [Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Fair hearing • Co-defendant admitted as witness against the accused after conviction in disjoined plea-bargaining procedure without prior adversarial scrutiny • Art 6 § 3 (b) • Adequate facilities • Unnecessary confinement of accused in glass cabin at court hearings over a number of months • Applicant’s ineffective participation in his trial due to excessively intensive court hearing schedule coupled with lengthy prison transfers];
a violation by Russia of Article 8 of the Convention as regards the first applicant on account of the refusal of leave from detention and on account of his transfer to a remote correctional facility [Art 8 • Family life • Detainee not allowed to visit ill mother or to attend her funeral later • Detainee’s transfer to a remote prison];
a violation by Russia of Article 11 of the Convention as regards the second applicant [Art 11 • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Conviction for organising “mass disorder” on account of clashes during demonstration, without sufficient scrutiny of event organiser’s own acts and intentions];
a violation by Russia of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the second applicant [Art 1 P1 • Control of the use of property • Unlawful continued application of attachment order in respect of applicant’s assets after the end of criminal proceedings].