ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.04.2005<ДЕЛО РОХЛИНА (rokhlina) ПРОТИВ РОССИИ> [англ.]
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ROKHLINA v.
RUSSIA
(Application No. 54071/00)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg,
7.IV.2005)
In the case of Rokhlina v. Russia,
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become
final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may
be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (First
Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis,
President,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs {N. Vajic} <*>,
Mrs S.
Botoucharova,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Deputy Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по
тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными
скобками.
Having deliberated in private on 17 March 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 54071/00)
against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the
Convention") by a Russian national, Ms Tamara Pavlovna Rokhlina, on 21 December
1999. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Kucherena, a lawyer
practising in Moscow.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were
represented by Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at the
European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant complained, in
particular, that her detention on remand had been excessively long and the
review of the lawfulness of her detention had not been "speedy". She also
complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal charge
against her had not been determined within a "reasonable time".
4. The
application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the
Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case
(Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 §
1.
5. On 23 January 2004 the President of the First Section decided to
grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
6.
By a decision of 9 September 2004, the Court declared the application partly
admissible.
7. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of
its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First
Section (Rule 52 § 1).
8. The Government and the applicant each filed
observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. The
circumstances of the case
9. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in
Moscow.
A. The applicant"s detention on remand
1. Arrest of the
applicant
10. On 3 July 1998 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion of
shooting her husband, Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin, a member of the Russian
Parliament. An investigator of the Moscow Region prosecutor"s office authorised
her detention on remand. The applicant was placed in detention facility No.
IZ-49/9 in the Moscow Region.
11. On 8 July 1998 the applicant was
charged with murder under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code and questioned
as an accused in the presence of Mr Vankovich, a lawyer retained by her. She
chose to remain silent on the merits of the charge against her and requested
that the investigator be replaced because he had allegedly intimidated her and
showed lack of respect for her and her family. On an unspecified date the
applicant"s request was rejected as unsubstantiated.
12. On 16 July 1998
the State Duma of the Russian Federation (the lower chamber of the Russian
Parliament) established a special commission to monitor the progress of the
investigation into the circumstances of Lieutenant-General Rokhlin"s death ("the
Duma commission").
13. On 21 August 1998 the applicant"s detention on
remand was extended until 3 December 1998. The applicant did not appeal against
the extension order.
2. First appeal against an extension
of the
detention on remand
14. On 1 December 1998 the applicant"s detention was
extended until 3 April 1999, that is for a total of nine months starting from
the day of her arrest. On 9 December 1998 the applicant"s lawyers appealed to a
court against the extension order. They complained, in particular, about
unreasonable delays in the investigation of the charge against their client and
pointed to her frail health. The applicant submitted a supplementary complaint
against the extension order; she indicated that her prolonged separation from
her mentally disturbed son was detrimental to his health.
15. On 21
December 1998 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the appeals
against the extension order. It held that the detention on remand had been
imposed and extended "without any substantial violations of the law of criminal
procedure" and that the detention was justified "because [the applicant] was
charged with an especially serious criminal offence". The court found no grounds
to release the applicant on bail. On 21 December 1998 and 10 and 13 January 1999
the applicant"s lawyers appealed against the decision of the district court.
They submitted that the court had not taken into account the applicant"s
deteriorating health, long periods of inactivity of the team of eight
investigators, discrepancies in the applicant"s confessions. They also alleged
that the court had failed in its duty to give relevant and sufficient reasons
for the continued detention. On 13 January 1999 the Moscow City Court heard the
appeal and ruled that the suspicion against the applicant that she had committed
an especially serious criminal offence was, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR
Code of Criminal Procedure, a sufficient ground for her detention on
remand.
16. On 13 January 1999 the State Duma of the Russian Federation
adopted a special address to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.
Members of Parliament noted that the investigation was lingering, while the
applicant remained in custody. On 15 December 1998 the Duma commission members
had met the applicant in prison and found her health unsatisfactory. In view of
the applicant"s poor health and adverse effects of her long separation from her
mentally disturbed son and given that she was not a public danger, the Duma
requested the Prosecutor General to consider the applicant"s release from
custody on humanitarian grounds.
3. Second appeal against an extension
of the detention on remand
17. On 18 March 1999 the applicant"s detention
on remand was extended until 3 July 1999, i.e. for a total of twelve months. The
applicant"s lawyers appealed against the extension. They requested that the
applicant be released, citing her poor health and excessive delays in the
investigation.
18. On 6 April 1999 the Lyublinskiy District Court of
Moscow found that the applicant"s detention had been extended lawfully and no
substantial violations of the laws of criminal procedure had occurred. The court
held that, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the
suspicion of an especially serious criminal offence was a sufficient ground for
the holding in custody and that there were no exceptional grounds warranting the
applicant"s release. The court also noted that the applicant"s state of health
permitted her holding in custody.
19. On 11 May 1999 the Moscow City
Court dismissed the applicant"s lawyers" appeal against the district court"s
decision. It upheld the district court"s interpretation that the existence of a
suspicion of involvement in an especially serious criminal offence had been a
sufficient ground for the continued detention on remand. The court examined the
medical certificates submitted by the applicant"s defence and held that in the
absence of any life-threatening medical condition and given that the applicant"s
adult daughter was taking care of her brother, the applicant should remain in
custody.
4. Subsequent extensions of the detention and a third
appeal
against an extension of the detention on remand
20. On 23 June 1999 an
extension of the detention on remand was authorised until 3 November 1999. The
applicant did not appeal against the extension order.
21. On 8 October
1999 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised the
applicant"s detention until 3 January 2000, i.e. for a total of eighteen
months.
22. On 15 October 1999 the applicant"s counsel, Mr Burmistrov,
introduced an appeal against the detention order of 8 October 1999, under
Article 220.1 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the stamp on
the first page, the registry of the Lefortovskiy District Court received the
statement of appeal on the same date.
23. On 18 or 19 October 1999 [the
date is unreadable] the applicant filed a handwritten statement of appeal
against the order of 8 October 1999. On the same date the head of the Lefortovo
detention centre forwarded it, along with the applicant"s medical certificate,
to the Lefortovskiy District Court. According to the stamp on the forwarding
letter, the court received the document on 25 October 1999.
24. The
applicant and her lawyer complained about unjustified delays in the
investigation and submitted that the applicant"s health and that of her son were
steadily deteriorating.
25. By an interim decision of 25 October 1999,
the Lefortovskiy District Court scheduled the examination of the appeal by Mr
Burmistrov, for 27 October 1999, at 3 p.m., with the participation of a
prosecutor, the applicant and her counsel.
26. According to the covering
note produced by the Government, on 26 October 1999 the Prosecutor General"s
office sent certain materials relating to the lawfulness of the applicant"s
detention to the Lefortovskiy District Court.
27. On 27 October 1999 the
applicant was not brought to the court because she had fallen ill. The
prosecutor and her counsel objected to holding the hearing in her absence. The
hearing was adjourned until 1 November 1999.
28. On 1 November 1999 the
Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow heard the appeals against the extension
order and dismissed them. The court held that "the imposition of a preventive
measure in the form of placement in custody and [subsequent] extension of the
detention in respect of the applicant were lawful and justified". As to the
defence"s arguments about the applicant"s medical condition and adverse effects
of her separation from her son, the court found that these arguments were not
"the grounds that would render the preventive measure applied to [the applicant]
unlawful or unjustified". The court also added that it was not competent to
impose a different "preventive measure" on the applicant, such decision being in
the exclusive competence of investigators and prosecutors.
29. On 1, 7
and 25 November 1999 the applicant"s lawyers appealed against the decision of 1
November. They submitted that the court did not take into account significant
changes in the applicant"s situation after fifteen months of detention,
including the worsening health of her son, and that it did not give any relevant
reasons for the continued detention.
30. On 25 November 1999 by the
Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 1 November 1999. The court confirmed
the conclusions of the first instance court to the effect that "the placement in
custody as a preventive measure could be imposed on the sole ground of gravity
of the [committed] offence". On the basis of a medical certificate issued by the
detention facility on 4 November 1999 the court determined that the applicant
could remain in custody.
5. Release from custody
31. On 23 December 1999
the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation applied to the Moscow
City Court for an extension of the applicant"s detention until 3 July 2000.
32. On 29 December 1999 the Moscow City Court refused the Prosecutor General"s
application. It established that on 28 December 1999 the applicant and her
lawyers had finished studying the case-file and there were therefore no lawful
grounds to extend her detention beyond the maximum eighteen-month period.
33. On 30 December 1999 the prosecutor ordered the applicant"s release from
custody on the condition that she sign an undertaking not to leave the
city.
B. The trial
34. On 16 November 2000 the Naro-Fominsk Town Court
of the Moscow Region convicted the applicant of premeditated murder and
sentenced her to eight years" imprisonment in a correctional colony. The court
excluded the record of the interview made on the day following the arrest as
inadmissible evidence because the applicant had been interviewed in the absence
of a counsel, her rights had not been explained to her, she had not been
informed of video-recording and because there were substantial discrepancies
between the videotaped statements and the printed record.
35. On 21
December 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the conviction. It established,
however, mitigating circumstances in the applicant"s case and reduced her
sentence to four years" imprisonment.
36. On 7 June 2001 the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation, by way of supervisory review proceedings,
quashed the judgments of 16 November and 21 December 2000 and remitted the case
to the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region for a new examination.
37. Since 11 October 2001 the criminal case against the applicant has been
pending before the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region.
38. On
25 March 2002 the proceeding were stayed because of the applicant"s illness.
They were resumed on an unspecified date.
39. On 22 April 2003 the
applicant was taken to a hospital after she had a heart attack in the
courtroom.
40. On 20 August 2003 the proceedings were stayed again
because of the applicant"s illness. They were resumed on an unspecified
date.
41. On 15 April 2004 the proceedings were adjourned until 13 May
2004 at the applicant"s daughter"s request.
42. On 13 May 2004 the
hearing was adjourned because one lay assessor had fallen ill.
43. On 28
May 2004 the applicant did not appear at the hearing because she had to attend
to her son.
44. On 20 July 2004 the hearing was adjourned owing to the
applicant"s counsel"s absence. On 8 September 2004 another counsel for the
applicant did not appear.
45. On 25 October 2004 the court decided to
hold a new directions hearing because, by virtue of recently amended Article 30
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant"s case could be tried either by
a single judge or by a three-judge bench. On 1 November 2004 the applicant
