AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 4026/03
by Nikolay Khayrullovich BAKHITOV
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 31 August 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L. Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A. Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr D. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 December 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Nikolay Khayrullovich Bakhitov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Naro-Fominsk, the Moscow Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He alleges that during the first three days upon his arrest he was not provided with a lawyer. On 22 and 24 July 1995 he was questioned without a lawyer.
On 18 August 1995 the applicant was charged with robbery, murder, illegal possession of firearms and false reporting of a crime.
On the same date the Prosecutor of the Gagarinskiy District of Moscow ordered his detention on remand.
The applicant submits that he was ill-treated by police and investigative authorities and that the conditions of his pre-trial detention were inadequate. He also submits that while in detention he suffered from a wound in his stomach received before his arrest and the authorities failed to provide him with necessary medical treatment. He alleges that in 1995 his wife was illegally detained and ill-treated in relation to his criminal case.
On 21 June 1996 the case file was transmitted to the Moscow City Court.
On 3 June 1997 the Moscow City Court, presided by Judge A., remitted the case for additional investigation. The applicant alleges that Judge A. questioned witness R. in her office out of trial in breach of procedural rules.
On 11 November 1997 the case was transmitted to the Moscow City Court.
On 4 March 1998 the Moscow City Court again remitted the case for additional investigation.
On 31 July 1998 the case was transmitted to the Moscow City Court.
On 10 August 1998 the Moscow City Court remitted the case for additional investigation.
On 24 September 1998 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the appeal of the deputy prosecutor of Moscow against the decision of 10 August 1998 and remitted the case for additional investigation.
On 10 December 1998 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 10 March 1999.
On an unspecified date the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 10 December 1998 and remitted the matter to the first instance court.
On 25 January 1999 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 March 1999.
On 10 March 1999 the Moscow City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 June 1999.
On 3 June 1999 the Moscow City Court remitted the case to the Prosecutor’s Office of Moscow for additional investigation.
On 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the deputy prosecutor of Moscow against the decision of 3 June 1999.
On 22 November 1999 the Moscow City Court heard the case. The court excluded from the trial some evidence obtained with procedural defects and found the applicant guilty of illegal possession of firearms and acquitted him of other charges. The court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and ordered that he be released from serving his sentence and, consequently, from custody, as by that moment the applicant had spent in custody more than four years. The applicant was released in the court room.
On 29 November 1999 the applicant filed his grounds of appeal. He requested the appeal court to quash his conviction for illegal possession of firearms and to remit the case to a different bench of the first instance court for a fresh examination.
In December 1999 the applicant was operated on his stomach.
On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation composed of judges G., L. and B. upheld the applicant’s acquittal of false reporting of crime, quashed the remaining part of the judgment of 22 November 1999 and remitted the case to the first instance court. It appears that the court did not issue a detention order in respect of the applicant.
On 30 November 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s case. The applicant submits that the court refused to summon one prosecution and four defence witnesses. During the hearing the applicant complained to the court that his legal counsel did not act in his interest, but the court rejected his complaint as unsubstantiated. The court examined the victims’ testimonies, witnesses’ statements and forensic evidence. The court excluded from evidence the applicant’s testimonies of 22 and 24 July 1995 given without a lawyer and his wife’s testimony given during her detention in 1995 and some other pieces of evidence obtained in breach of procedural rules. The court finally found the applicant guilty of illegal possession of firearms, of murder and robbery and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment with forfeiture of estate.
On 23 January 2002 the applicant read the record of proceedings in the Krasnopresnenskaya prison of Moscow in a special room. He alleges that he could not properly study the record of proceedings, because the room was badly lit and the pages were turned by a staff member of the pre-trial detention centre. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer applied for adjournment of the appeal hearing.
On an unspecified date the applicant’s lawyer filed the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the trial court had based the conviction on illegally obtained and falsified evidence and requested the court to quash the judgment of 30 November 2001 and terminate criminal proceedings against the applicant.
On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court composed of judges G., L. and K. upheld the judgment of 30 November 2001.
Following his conviction the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to initiate supervisory review proceedings.
1. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of criminal proceedings against him.
2. He complained under Article 3 of the Convention that his wife had been ill-treated by police in 1995 and under Article 5 of the Convention that she had been illegally detained in relation to his criminal case in 1995.
3. He complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by investigative authorities during pre-trial detention and that he had not been provided with necessary medical treatment while in pre-trial detention and under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest had been unlawful, that he had not been informed of the grounds of arrest and that his detention between 22 July 1995 and 22 November 1999 had been unlawful and unreasonably long.
4. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had based his conviction on illegally obtained and falsified evidence; that Judge A., who had heard his case in 1997, had questioned witness R. in her office in breach of procedural rules; that judges G. and L. had participated in the appeal hearing of his case twice in the same capacity; that he had been denied access to supervisory review proceedings.
5. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that he had not been provided with adequate facilities to study the record of trial proceedings.
6. He complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention that he had not been provided with a lawyer during the first three days after his arrest and that during the hearing on 30 November 2001 his legal counsel had not acted in his interest.
7. He complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that the trial court had refused to summon one prosecution and four defence witnesses.
8. He complained under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he had been convicted for the crime for which he had been acquitted.
1. The applicant complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him, referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention provides, so far as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The Court examined the other complaints raised by the applicant before it. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and insofar as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings against him;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
BAKHITOV v. RUSSIA DECISION
BAKHITOV v. RUSSIA DECISION