ORG Born in DATE , Mr PERSON is a NORP citizen who lives in GPE . At the material time he was a lieutenant - colonel in the NORP army .

ORG On DATE he was arrested and held in pre - trial detention on a charge of founding and leading a terrorist organisation , which is an offence under LAW ; he was suspected of being one of the founders and leaders of the " FP CARDINAL de Abril " ( Popular Forces DATE ) , a group that had claimed responsibility for several bomb outrages , armed attacks and murders .

ORG On DATE the judge of ORG ( tribunal de instrução criminal ) to whom the case had been assigned closed the adversarial investigation and sent the file to the public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the prosecutor delivered his charges ( acusação ) . He accused the applicant and several of his co- defendants of having drawn up a comprehensive plan under which , by means of the " FP CARDINAL de Abril " , they would seize power by force and overthrow the ORG ’s institutions . He emphasised that Mr PERSON was one of the instigators of the scheme .

ORG In accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on the administration of justice , section CARDINAL of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE and LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the file was sent , together with the prosecution ’s submissions , to ORG ( tribunal criminal ) so that the judge responsible for the case , Mr PERSON , could issue the despacho de pronúncia or de não pronúncia .

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON issued a despacho de pronúncia . After noting that there had been no irregularities during the judicial investigation or any other impediment to a trial of the merits , he rejected the prosecution ’s charges in respect of CARDINAL of the co - defendants on the ground that the evidence gathered was not sufficient to enable a reliable assessment to be made of the probability of guilt ( " a prova indiciária recolhida ... é insuficiente para ... permitir a formulação de um sério juizo de probabilidade sobre a sua culpabilidade " ) . On the other hand , he accepted the charges relating to Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other defendants and decided to keep all but CARDINAL of them in pre - trial detention .

The applicant did not appeal against the despacho under LAW procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG The trial began on DATE before ORG of ORG , which was composed of CARDINAL judges and was presided over by PERSON . The proceedings took up CARDINAL sittings of the court .

ORG At the hearing on DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG challenging the compatibility of the provisions cited earlier ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) which empowered one and the same judge both to issue the despacho de pronúncia and to try the case with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW and Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

He argued that in making such an order , the judge formed a view of an accused ’s guilt in advance that was likely to influence him when giving judgment on the merits .

On DATE , ORG held the appeal to be admissible and decided to refer it to the higher court together with any appeal against the judgment it would itself be delivering .

ORG On DATE ORG held that the applicant was a leading member of the " FP CARDINAL de Abril " but not one of their founders and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ military imprisonment ( presídio militar ) , of which DATE , DATE and DATE were immediately remitted under an amnesty . It acquitted QUANTITY of his co - defendants and sentenced the others and Mr PERSON jointly and severally to pay the ORG MONEY escudos .

ORG On DATE ORG ( tribunal de relação ) dismissed appeals by the prosecution and CARDINAL of the defendants , including Mr PERSON .

Unlike ORG , it held that the applicant was also one of the founders of the " FP CARDINAL de Abril " . It consequently increased the sentence to CARDINAL years’ military imprisonment , DATE and DATE of which were immediately remitted under the amnesty . The court upheld the sum to be paid .

ORG As regards the complaint based on LAW CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court pointed out that the drafting history showed that the purpose of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned Law no . CARDINAL was precisely to ensure that investigating judges did not give rulings on the offences into which they had to inquire ; that was why the legislature had vested in the trial judge and not the investigating judge the power to issue the despacho de pronúncia , which entailed assessing and classifying the offences charged .

ORG An appeal by Mr PERSON to ORG ( Supremo Tribunal de Justiça ) was dismissed on DATE . Referring to its case - law , the court held that the provisions complained of by the applicant were not incompatible with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the LAW ; a judge issuing a despacho de pronúncia was not bound by the view taken at that stage of the proceedings and had complete freedom when giving judgment on the merits , so that his impartiality was in no way jeopardised .

On the other hand the court held that the applicant was only a leader of the " FP CARDINAL de Abril " and accordingly reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment .

ORG Finally , the applicant applied to ORG constitucional ) . Reiterating the submissions he had made in the other courts , he argued in particular that the despacho de pronúncia was the key decision in the prosecution . The fact that it was taken by a judge who subsequently sat on the trial court violated Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the LAW , which established an absolute separation between judicial investigation , prosecution and trial ; it also , he submitted , undermined the court ’s impartiality , as the judge in question would be prejudiced against the defendant when he came to consider the merits .

ORG In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG emphasised the need to distinguish between the indictment , which was the responsibility of the public prosecutor ’s office , and the despacho de pronúncia . The latter was designed solely to verify the probability of guilt in order to avoid a trial where there was no prima facie evidence . It was thus a decision on the viability of the indictment and did not entail any prejudice on the part of the judge when the merits were being considered . It consequently served as a filter and a safeguard . Even if his legal classification of the facts was different , a judge did not act as a prosecutor . In the instant case PERSON could not be accused of partiality merely because he had issued the despacho de pronúncia . It would have been different if in his decision he had gone beyond the scope of the prosecution ’s charges and had made substantial alterations to them . In that case , which was not the one before it , the distinction between the indictment and the despacho de pronúncia would have been lost as the judge would have encroached on the prerogatives of the public prosecutor .

ORG did , however , allow the appeal on another ground , not adduced before ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , which related to a lack of reasons in the judgment at first instance . It accordingly remitted the case to ORG for the appropriate steps to be taken .

ORG On DATE the prosecution sought clarification of certain passages in the judgment and applied for rectification of clerical errors in it . On DATE ORG ordered the rectifications , allowed CARDINAL item in the application for clarification and provided the particulars sought .

ORG On its rehearing of the case on CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to that court for a fresh assessment of the facts .

The applicant was provisionally released that DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG delivered a new judgment ; the prosecution and several defendants , including the applicant , appealed against it on points of law to ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeals in part and varied the impugned decision accordingly .

Mr PERSON and CARDINAL of the co - defendants appealed to ORG against ORG judgment . The outcome of the proceedings is still awaited .

ORG Under LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW ,

" Criminal proceedings shall be accusatorial , the trial and investigative measures laid down by law being governed by the adversarial principle . "

ORG Under LAW ,

" CARDINAL . ORG Anyone promoting or founding a terrorist group , organisation or association shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment .

ORG ‘ A terrorist group , organisation or association’ shall be understood to include any group of CARDINAL or more persons , who , acting in concert , set out to undermine national integrity and independence or prevent , change or impair the functioning of ORG institutions as established by the LAW ; or to force the authorities to do something , refrain from doing something or tolerate something being done ; or to intimidate certain persons or groups or the entire population by committing offences

( e ) ORG which entail the use of bombs , grenades , firearms , explosive substances or devices , incendiary material of any kind or parcel or letter bombs .

ORG Where [ the members of ] a group , organisation or association ... are found in possession of CARDINAL of the items mentioned in sub - paragraph ( e ) of paragraph CARDINAL with a view to achieving its criminal ends , the sentence within the minimum and maximum limits shall be increased by CARDINAL . "

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the time - a new code took effect on DATE - were the following :

" Where the judicial investigation discloses prima facie evidence of the commission of a punishable offence , of the identity of the person who committed it and of his liability , the public prosecutor ’s office , if it has the standing ( legitimidade ) to do so , shall deliver its charges . "

" Where the prosecution is brought by the public prosecutor ’s office or , as the case may be , by the assistente , the file shall immediately be submitted to the judge in order that he may issue his despacho de pronúncia or de não pronúncia within DATE . "

" The despacho de pronúncia shall contain

ORG the name , occupation and address , if known , of the defendants or the necessary information to identify them ;

ORG an exact description of the offences which they are considered to have committed and the capacity in which they acted ;

ORG any special or general aggravating or extenuating circumstances ;

ORG an indication of the statute creating the offence and providing for penalties ;

ORG any decision relating to the accused ’s provisional release which , in accordance with the law , prolongs or alters the previously existing situation ;

ORG the information prescribed in LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , where necessary , and the order to communicate information concerning the accused to the criminal records office ;

ORG the date and the judge ’s signature .

" The public prosecutor ’s office , a private prosecutor and the accused may appeal against a despacho de pronúncia . The public prosecutor ’s office and a private prosecutor may appeal against a despacho de não pronúncia ... "

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the administration of justice provides :

" The Criminal Court shall be competent for the pronúncia , the trial and the subsequent phases in respect of criminal cases , subject to sections DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . "

LAW Legislative Decree No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE implementing the aforementioned PERSON provides :

" The judges of the Criminal Court shall be competent for the pronúncia or its equivalent , the trial and the subsequent phases in respect of cases to be tried under the ‘ de querela’ procedure or which are reserved to the court sitting as a bench . "


No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1-b;No violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;No violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 18;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE . He was detained in a penal colony in GPE , GPE , and he is currently detained in GPE in connection with another criminal case pending against him .

NORP Before his arrest in DATE the applicant was a businessmen and CARDINAL of the richest persons in GPE . Thus , he was a board member and the major shareholder of GPE , a large oil company ( hereinafter “ the company ” , liquidated in DATE ) . He also controlled several other mining , industrial and financial companies affiliated with ORG hereinafter referred to as “ the GPE group ” ) . Most of those companies were created as a result of the privatisation of ORG - controlled enterprises in DATE .

In DATE the GPE group was pursuing a number of large - scale business projects . Thus , PERSON was engaged in merger talks with GPE , another large NORP oil company , and with the GPE - based company ORG . PERSON was also planning to build a pipeline to LOC in order to export natural gas to the western part of LOC . Lastly , PERSON and the ORG company ORG were involved in a public struggle for control of certain oilfields .

At the same time the applicant became involved in politics . At DATE he announced that he would allocate significant funds to support the opposition parties GPE and ORG ( PERSON ) He also made certain public declarations criticising alleged anti - democratic trends in NORP internal policy . The applicant funded a non - profit NGO , “ Open GPE Foundation ” in order to promote certain political values in NORP society .

One of the companies affiliated with ORG , a large mining enterprise , producing apatite concentrate . PERSON controlled a CARDINAL % shareholding in ORG .

Apatit was privatised in DATE . In DATE the authorities made several attempts to return ORG to ORG control , claiming that the money due under the privatisation contract had not been paid by the buyers . In DATE Mr GPE , CARDINAL of the top managers in the GPE group and the applicant ’s personal friend , proposed a friendly settlement of the dispute on behalf of the buyers . The ORG privatisation authority having accepted that offer , on DATE a friendly settlement was reached . It was approved by a commercial court .

NORP In DATE the governors of GPE , GPE and LOC wrote a letter to the then ORG of GPE , PERSON ORG . In that letter they complained that ORG was abusing its dominant position on the apatite concentrate market and boosting prices of phosphate fertilisers , which , in turn , increased food prices . They also alleged that ORG was using various schemes to evade or minimise taxes . They urged General Prosecutor PERSON to return PERSON to ORG control and to apply anti - trust measures in order to make ORG reduce prices .

NORP In DATE the governor of GPE wrote to the then President of GPE , PERSON . He drew the President ’s attention to the friendly settlement in respect of the ORG shares and claimed that its terms were contrary to the interests of the ORG , since the amount received by the ORG in pursuance to that settlement was significantly lower than the market price of the shares .

On DATE the then President PERSON issued Directive No . NORP requiring reports to be obtained in relation to the acquisition of the ORG shares . In particular , he inquired whether there had been “ violations of the existing legislation committed during the sale of shares in ORG plc ” and whether the ORG had suffered any loss as a consequence of the friendly settlement that had been approved by ORG of GPE in DATE .

A wide ranging investigation then took place involving the Prime Minister , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG . In DATE ORG wrote to the President that the privatisation of ORG and its business activities had been suspicious , and that further inquiry was needed .

On DATE ORG wrote to the President informing him that ORG ( ORG ) had concluded that there was no need to take further action . The inquiry had not established that ORG had been abusing its position on the market or that the amount of the friendly settlement reached with the ORG privatisation agency had been unfair . The terms of the friendly settlement had been approved by the Prime Minister , PERSON . PERSON ’s tax payments had been constantly monitored by ORG ; although ORG and its affiliates had been subjected to various penalties and financial sanctions in the past , and a new audit was underway , ORG did not see any reason to start criminal proceedings in this respect .

Nonetheless , on DATE a criminal case was opened against ORG ; the situation concerning the acquisition of the ORG shares later formed CARDINAL of the main charges against the applicant . In DATE the scope of the investigation was broadened : the investigative team discovered evidence of tax evasion and business fraud in the business activities of the companies affiliated with GPE .

On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested in connection with the PERSON case .

On DATE the applicant was summoned to ORG and interviewed as a witness in the PERSON case .

In DATE the prosecution carried out several searches of the premises of GPE and the offices of the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , and also searched the headquarters of the political party GPE . Further , several leading executives of ORG and affiliated companies were arrested ; several others left GPE . Some of those who had left then settled in GPE . The prosecution authorities sought their extradition to GPE , but the NORP courts refused on the grounds that their prosecution was politically motivated and they would not receive a fair trial in GPE . The applicant produced copies of the decisions of the NORP courts in those extradition proceedings .

At the same time senior officials in ORG publicly declared that charges might be brought against other senior managers of ORG and affiliated companies . The applicant did not leave the country and continued his activities , including business trips in GPE and abroad .

On DATE , whilst the applicant was away from GPE on a business trip to eastern GPE , an investigator summoned him to appear in GPE as a witness on DATE at TIME . The summons was delivered to the applicant ’s office on DATE at TIME by investigators Mr F. and Mr Sh . The applicant ’s staff told them that the applicant was away from GPE until DATE . Yukos staff also sent ORG a telegram explaining the reasons for the applicant ’s absence from GPE .

On DATE Mr F. and Mr Sh . wrote a report to the leading investigator , Mr PERSON , in which they informed Mr PERSON about the applicant ’s absence . On DATE , the applicant having missed the appointment , the investigator PERSON ordered his enforced attendance for questioning and instructed the police to implement that order .

NORP In TIME of DATE a group of armed law - enforcement officers approached the applicant ’s aeroplane on an airstrip in GPE , apprehended him , and flew him to GPE .

The applicant ’s lawyer complained about the enforced attendance order to ORG of GPE . He asserted that the applicant had had a good reason for missing the interview : he had been out of town on a business trip and had not personally received the summons . As a witness he had been free to travel . On DATE the court dismissed the complaint . The court stated that it had been impossible to hand over the summons of CARDINAL DATE directly into the applicant ’s hands , so the applicant had been notified about the questioning through the GPE headquarters . The court concluded that the decision of CARDINAL DATE to bring the applicant to GPE for questioning had been issued in compliance with LAW and LAW .

Once in GPE the applicant was brought before the investigator at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE . The investigator explained to the applicant why he had been apprehended and interviewed him as a witness in connection with the applicant ’s personal income tax payments for DATE . Thereafter the applicant was informed that he was being charged in connection with a number of crimes , namely the fraudulent acquisition of the ORG shares in DATE , misappropriation of the ORG proceeds , misappropriation of ORG assets and corporate tax evasion and personal tax evasion schemes allegedly used by GPE and the applicant personally in DATE . The investigator drew up a charge sheet describing the essence of the charges against the applicant . It was CARDINAL pages long and was read out to the applicant at TIME The applicant was then interviewed as a defendant in that case but refused to testify since one of his lawyers was absent . Following the interview , at TIME on DATE the investigator requested ORG to detain the applicant pending investigation . The request was CARDINAL pages long and , according to the applicant , had been prepared in advance .

The court heard this request at CARDINAL p.m. The applicant was assisted by CARDINAL of his lawyers , PERSON . The prosecution requested the proceedings to be held in camera , referring to the materials of the case file which should not be disclosed . The defence requested a public hearing , but the court , on an application by the prosecutor , decided to hold the hearing in camera , referring to a need to guarantee the defendant ’s rights . The court heard the public prosecutor , the applicant and the applicant ’s counsel and examined certain documents from the case file produced by the prosecution . The defence submitted that the applicant had attended promptly for questioning when he had first been requested to do so , in DATE , and that he had been unable to attend the second questioning for legitimate reasons , as he had had no personal knowledge of the summons . The defence pleaded in favour of the applicant ’s release on bail . However , as the Government indicated , the defence did not indicate the amount of the proposed bail .

At the end of the hearing , which lasted TIME , the court issued a detention order , referring to Articles CARDINAL of LAW ( see the “ Relevant domestic law ” part below ) . The court summarised the charges against the applicant , the arguments put forward by the parties and the procedural history of the case . The main reasons for the detention were as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is accused of serious crimes punishable by over DATE imprisonment , committed in concert with others and over a long period . The circumstances of the crimes , [ the applicant ’s ] personality , and his position as head of GPE suggest that , if he remained at large , the applicant may influence witnesses and other participants in the trial , hide or destroy evidence ... , or commit further crimes .

[ The applicant ’s ] accomplices have fled from the prosecution . [ The applicant ] might also flee because he has a travel passport and money in foreign banks ” .

The court referred to the applicant ’s family situation , his residence in GPE and his health condition , and found that there was no reason for choosing a milder measure of restraint . As to the applicant ’s assertion that the prosecution had produced no evidence of his implication in the impugned crimes , the court noted as follows :

“ This argument ... shall not be examined on the merits , since the criminal case is still at the stage of the pre - trial investigation , and the court can not express its opinion as to the guilt [ of the applicant ] , proof of his guilt or the correctness of the legal qualification of PERSON acts ” .

The court order did not establish the duration of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant resigned from his position as Chief Executive of GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer handed over the applicant ’s foreign travel passports to the prosecution .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers appealed against the detention order . They asserted , among other things , that the reasons for the detention were insufficient , that the hearing in camera had been unlawful and that the applicant had not committed any criminal offences .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order . The hearing took place in camera , without the applicant but in the presence of his lawyers . The city court expanded on the district court ’s reasons :

“ [ The applicant ] owns a large stake in ORG , a company registered in GPE ... , has financial influence , [ and ] enjoys prestige with public bodies and companies . Employees of companies controlled by [ the applicant ] depend on him financially and otherwise .... ”

ORG also found that the materials of the case file contained sufficient evidence to suspect the applicant of having committed the impugned offences . It established , further , that the domestic law allowed the detention hearing to be held in camera , in order to keep the materials of the pre - trial investigation secret and protect the interests of the defendant . ORG also failed to fix the duration of the period of detention .

On DATE the applicant was charged with a number of additional crimes , including abuse of trust , misappropriation of property , tax evasion , large - scale fraud and forgery of official documents .

On DATE Ms Artyukhova , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers , visited him in prison . As she was leaving , guards searched her and seized a handwritten note with ideas about the case she had prepared TIME and a typed draft of the legal position in Mr PERSON ’s case .

According to the Government , Ms Artyukhova had received a note from the applicant entitled “ Written directions to the defence ” . These “ directions ” contained the following instructions ( it appears that the Government quoted from this note ) : “ to ensure that Mr GPE gives negative or vague answers about the participation in the RTT , to speak to the witnesses about their testimony of CARDINAL DATE , to check the testimonies of the defence witnesses to ensure that they do not contain any indication as to intent ” . It also contained directions as to investment activities and tax payments . The prison officials also seized from Ms PERSON a CARDINAL-page typewritten memo entitled “ Preliminary criminal - law analysis of the charges in the case of PERSON Lebedev P.P. ” .

The Government produced a report dated CARDINAL DATE by a prison officer who had participated in the search . According to the report , the search had been ordered by inspector B. In the report inspector B. indicated that he had ordered the search because he had sufficient grounds to believe that PERSON was carrying prohibited goods . The Government also produced a report by inspector PERSON , who informed his superiors that he saw that the applicant and PERSON “ exchanged a notebook with some notes , and also made notes in it ” during their meeting .

According to the applicant , the handwritten note was drafted by PERSON It stated as follows :

“ - PERSON [ the applicant ’s cell - mate ] : expects a second visit by the lawyer PERSON ;

- to work on the question of sanctions concerning violation of rules on keeping in custody GPE ( active < - > passive forms of behaviour ( ex . hunger strike ) ;

- to work on the question of receiving money for consultancy fees on the purchase of shares by various companies involved in investment activities ;

- expert analysis of signatures , to work on this question because the documents submitted are not the originals but photocopies ( expert analysis of photocopies of signatures of PERSON ) ;

- to work through questions with witnesses PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( questioning on CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL - according to circumstances ) ;

- concerning participation in RTT GPE must give negative ( indecisive ) answer ;

- prerogatives of executives of ORG and PERSON - to show the scope of their prerogatives , how promotions are made ;

- check witnesses of the defence ( former managers and administration of ORG , PERSON position CARDINAL , the essence of testimonies

CARDINAL ) NORP absence of intention ;

CARDINAL ) NORP absence of instructions , advise on methods of investment and tax activity ;

It is necessary to work on testimonies of witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , tax people ;

Other - to conduct , by Western audit and law firms , audit of personal fortune , in the following context ‘ I have right to receive income in accordance with decision of meeting of shareholders ‘ counsel . ... in the case ... ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers were informed that the pre - trial investigation had finished . The defence was given access to the materials of the investigation file for examination and preparation for the trial .

The Government produced a copy of a report by investigator Mr. K. to Mr B. , the Head of ORG of ORG , concerning the episode of DATE . Mr PERSON informed Mr B. about the content of the note seized from Ms PERSON According to Mr PERSON , that note contained the applicant ’s instructions to the defence team as to the tactics of the defence and , in particular , was aimed at ensuring coordination with Mr GPE , the applicant ’s co - accused . According to Mr PERSON , the applicant “ dictated ” the note to PERSON . Mr PERSON concluded that this note had evidentiary value in the applicant ’s criminal case .

On DATE the defence made an application to ORG for the measure of restraint to be changed , arguing that as the pre - trial investigation had finished and all the witnesses had been questioned there was no longer even a theoretical possibility that the applicant might interfere with the proceedings . They also argued that there was no reason to believe that the applicant would resume his alleged criminal activities or that he would flee jurisdiction . Sureties and bail were also offered . On DATE the prosecution dismissed the application for release .

On DATE the prosecution requested ORG to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The prosecution referred to the “ note seized from CARDINAL of the lawyers [ of the applicant ] containing instructions from FAC to exert pressure on witnesses for the prosecution ” . The prosecutor was apparently referring to the note seized from PERSON . The prosecution ’s application for an extension was lengthy and carefully reasoned ; it ran to CARDINAL pages .

In TIME of DATE the applicant ’s lawyers learned that the court would hear the request at TIME on DATE , DATE . The lawyers did not receive a copy of the request before the hearing .

The hearing began at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE . The defence sought an adjournment of the hearing to DATE , but the court instead allowed the lawyers a TIME break to prepare their pleadings . During TIME the lawyers stayed in the courtroom and took instructions from the encaged applicant in the presence of guards and court staff .

The court decided to hold the hearing in camera . The applicant ’s lawyers objected , referring , in particular , to the fact that ORG had previously publicly stated that there was nothing in the applicant ’s case that would lead to the necessity for any hearings in camera . The court refused the applicant ’s request that the hearing be in public , without giving any reasons .

In the course of the hearing the defence produced documents in support of their view that the applicant was no longer a board member of GPE , that he had no shares in GPE or other companies which , according to the prosecution , had been involved in the impugned scam operations , and that before his arrest he had permanently resided in LOC . On that basis , the defence asserted that the applicant would not abscond . However , the court refused to examine the documents provided by the defence .

In TIME of DATE the hearing was adjourned . It was resumed on DATE . On DATE the defence obtained a copy of the prosecution ’s request for an extension of the detention . At the same time the prosecution filed with the court new pieces of evidence , including the note seized from Ms Artyukhova . The court admitted Ms A ’s note in evidence . The defence sought an adjournment for DATE to examine those documents . They also contested their admissibility , claiming that the documents had been obtained in breach of the privilege pertaining to lawyer - client communications . They claimed , further , that they had not enough information about the origin of this document . However , the court ruled that a TIME adjournment would suffice .

DATE the applicant ’s representative , PERSON , requested the court to adjourn the hearing for one day in order to allow the defence to study new materials submitted by the prosecution . The court ordered a CARDINAL - and - a - half hour break but refused to adjourn the hearing to DATE .

On DATE the court extended the detention until DATE , essentially for the same reasons it had relied on before . ORG examined the applicant ’s family situation , and the “ personal sureties ” proposed by several individuals who guaranteed the applicant ’s appearance at the trial . However , those elements did not persuade ORG that the applicant could be released . ORG referred to the fact that the applicant ’s presumed accomplices had fled from trial , and that the applicant controlled business structures which were implicated in the alleged crimes and could therefore use them to continue his criminal activities or influence witnesses who worked in those structures . The court noted that the applicant had a foreign passport and personally owned shares in a foreign company and through a trust company . In addition , the court stated that the applicant had tried to intimidate witnesses . It did not refer directly to Ms A ’s note in its analysis , although it mentioned it when summarising the submissions by the prosecution . The court also had regard to the necessity of carrying out further investigative actions . It concluded that , if released , the applicant might flee from justice , influence witnesses and continue his activities .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers appealed against this decision . The appeal was received by ORG from the first - instance court on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld it . The hearing in ORG took place in public in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyers . The applicant was absent from that hearing . From that moment on the detention hearings in the applicant ’s case were held in public . In the decision of DATE ORG held , inter alia , that the lower court had had evidence that the applicant had tried to exert pressure on witnesses .

On an unspecified date the prosecution requested ORG to extend the applicant ’s detention again because the applicant needed more time to study the prosecution files . In support of his request the prosecutor mentioned in his submissions the “ seizure from one of the defendants of the written notes containing the instruction of GPE to put pressure on the witnesses for the prosecution ” .

On DATE the court held a hearing . The defence lawyers complained that they had been unable to see the applicant in private to take instructions as the applicant had only been informed DATE of the hearing and had had insufficient time to review the new case materials submitted by the prosecutor . They themselves had only been informed of the hearing on DATE . They asked for an adjournment of DATE . They also submitted to the court an expert handwriting analysis report showing that the document seized from ORG had been written by her and not by the applicant . The defence claimed , further , that the applicant would not abscond . In support of that claim , the defence referred to one of the co - accused , Mr PERSON , who had signed a written undertaking not to leave his city of residence and had not absconded . The defence indicated that the applicant ’s passports had been handed over to the prosecution and that his family were once again offering to put up bail for him . In the opinion of the defence it was absurd to suggest that the applicant would continue with criminal activity , since he was not charged with crimes of violence but with economic crimes : it would be impossible for him to commit such crimes if bailed on condition of house arrest . The prosecution objected to the applicant being granted bail on the condition of house arrest .

After having examined the materials of the case file and having heard the parties , the court extended the detention until DATE essentially for the same reasons as before . In support of its conclusions , the court referred to the fact that some of the applicant ’s co - defendants had fled from GPE , that the applicant had several foreign passports , that he owned a considerable amount of shares in a foreign company , and that he had tried to exert pressure on the prosecution witnesses . The court also referred to the fact that some of the witnesses were dependent on the applicant . In the detention order the court did not , however , refer to the risk that , if released , the applicant would engage in criminal activities . ORG also held that the detention could not be replaced by personal sureties because the court was not entitled to take such a decision under LAW of the CCrP.

The Government maintained that the applicant ’s appeals against the detention order of DATE were received by ORG on DATE ( appeal by Mr GPE ) and DATE ( appeal by PERSON ) . On DATE the materials of the case were forwarded by ORG to ORG . The parties were informed of the date and venue of the appeal court hearing . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE the prosecution submitted the case to ORG for trial .

On DATE the ORG decided to hold a preliminary hearing on QUANTITY May and ordered that the applicant should stay in prison . The decision was taken in camera and without the attendance of either the applicant or his lawyers or the prosecution . No reasons for the continued detention of the applicant were given and the period of detention was not specified .

On DATE one of the applicant ’s lawyers , PERSON , lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . She complained , inter alia , that the detention hearing had been held without the applicant or his lawyer , and that the decision extending the detention did not contain any reasons . After having obtained a reply from the prosecution , ORG forwarded the appeal to ORG . The applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE was dismissed by ORG on DATE . It appears that neither the applicant nor his lawyers were present at the hearing of DATE . According to the Government , the summons was sent to CARDINAL lawyers representing the applicant ; however , the summons was not sent to PERSON , as her power of attorney did not entitle her to represent the applicant before the appeal court . The Government did not produce copies of the summons . ORG found that the decision of DATE had been taken by a competent court in compliance with the relevant legislation . It did not specify the reasons for extending the applicant ’s detention .

Preliminary hearings in the trial court took place on CARDINAL May and DATE . On the latter date the court decided to open the trial on DATE and to join the cases of the applicant and Mr GPE . It also ordered that the applicant should stay in prison pending trial . No reason for that decision was given and the court did not specify the period of detention . PERSON appealed against that decision , claiming , inter alia , that the decision of DATE to detain the applicant had not been reasoned . On DATE the detention order of DATE was upheld by ORG . ORG in its decision indicated that it had reviewed the materials of the case file , examined the submissions of the parties , and concluded that the detention order by the first - instance had not violated the criminal procedure law . ORG also indicated that , taking into consideration the materials available in the case file , the first - instance court had not found any grounds to reverse or modify the measure of restraint in the form of detention pending trial . According to the applicant PERSON was unable to participate in the hearing on medical grounds . However , the applicant , several of his lawyers and the lawyers representing PERSON PERSON were present at that hearing .

On DATE , when the trial started , the applicant ’s lawyer requested the trial court to release the applicant because he was detained unlawfully . The court dismissed that request . In its ruling the court established that during the investigation the detention had been ordered and extended by ORG . ORG declared itself incompetent to reassess those detention orders . ORG further noted that on DATE , following receipt of the case file from the prosecution , it had maintained the measure of restraint imposed earlier . That decision was later confirmed on DATE . Those decisions were not quashed , and only an appeal court could examine the lawfulness of previously imposed detention orders . The court concluded that it did not detect any “ breaches of the existing legislation that would prevent the applicant ’s detention ” .

PERSON appealed against that ruling , but on DATE ORG upheld both the above decision and the earlier decision of the same court of DATE ( cf . above ) .

On an unspecified date the prosecution requested the court to extend the applicant ’s detention because the trial was continuing .

On DATE ORG held a public hearing , in the presence of the applicant and his lawyers . During the hearing the applicant ’s lawyers asked the court to consider alternative measures of restraint . Having examined the parties’ submissions ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , essentially for the same reasons that ORG had given earlier , at the pre - trial stage ( without , however , mentioning the applicant ’s property abroad ) . The detention order indicated that there was a risk that the applicant would try to put pressure on witnesses , and that the detention was the only appropriate option .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extension order . The appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , repeating the reasons given in the earlier decisions in that regard . The court repeated in particular that the applicant had tried to influence witnesses in the case , that many witnesses worked in companies affiliated with him , that the applicant had international connections , and that other suspects had fled GPE . The applicant ’s lawyers during the hearing asked the court to consider alternative preventive measures . The applicant ’s appeal against that decision was rejected by ORG on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the court extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention until DATE , again with essentially the same reasoning . In the detention order ORG noted that by that time both parties had completed presenting their evidence and the proceedings were reaching the stage of oral pleadings ( preniya ) , which would then be followed by the closing address of the accused persons and the court ’s deliberations . However , it was still possible for the court to re - open the judicial examination of evidence , if need be . Further , the court assumed that the pleadings , addresses and deliberations could take a long time , given the complexity of the case and the number of parties involved . The appeal by the applicant against this decision was also unsuccessful , as ORG rejected it on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the charges brought against him and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in the main , excluded several charges and reduced the sentence to DATE . Some time afterwards the applicant was transferred to a correctional colony in GPE , where he is currently serving his sentence .

From CARDINAL until DATE the applicant was detained at remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE , known as “ PERSON ” . From CARDINAL DATE until DATE the applicant was detained at remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE , which is a special - purpose block of the “ PERSON ” . Thereafter , and until his transferral to the penal colony the applicant was again detained at remand centre DATE . On DATE the applicant was sent to serve his sentence at penal colony ORG IK-CARDINAL in the town of GPE , GPE .

The applicant indicated that from CARDINAL DATE to DATE he had been held in cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . In those cells the partition dividing the toilet from the rest of the cell was CARDINAL cm high . The applicant insisted that the partition was not high enough to ensure his privacy when using the toilet . He insisted that the toilet had not been separated or soundproofed and allowed inmates to see and hear everything happening in the toilet . The smell from the toilet pervaded the cell . The applicant had to eat his meals in the cell in such conditions . The prison authorities did not supply curtains to separate the toilet from the rest of the cell . He noted that no such curtain ( or curtain mark ) was visible in the photographs of cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided by the ORG . The applicant ’s bed was very close to the lavatory . It was only on DATE , after the end of the trial and the applicant ’s conviction , that he was transferred to the refurbished cell no . CARDINAL , where the partition was QUANTITY high .

According to the applicant , his cell in remand centre no . CARDINAL housed CARDINAL persons . Thus , each detainee had at QUANTITY of space in the cell , which contained beds , a worktable that also served as a dining table and the toilet bowl and washbasin . The applicant was incarcerated in such a cell for TIME a day for DATE . At remand centre CARDINAL the applicant shared a cell with CARDINAL people .

In DATE the unventilated cells of the remand centres became too hot – QUANTITY and in DATE too cold DATE QUANTITY . The effect of the lack of ventilation was particularly acute on the applicant because he was a non - smoker and was constantly forced to inhale tobacco smoke . On DATE the applicant was unable to have his TIME walk as he had to attend court . Moreover the walking areas were totally enclosed roofed yards at the top of the remand centre . The applicant therefore never had any access to fresh air on these walks . The dimensions of some of the walking areas were very small : TIME . Additionally , the applicant was only permitted DATE washing facilities .

The applicant further submitted that the authorities had consistently denied independent observers the opportunity to inspect the conditions of his detention . Thus , the authorities had refused to grant permission to the PACE Special Rapporteur to visit the applicant ; the head of the remand centre had refused a NORP member of ORG access to visit the applicant and inspect the conditions of his detention . On DATE a NORP Member of ORG , PERSON , sent a request to the then Head of IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL asking to inspect the “ incarceration conditions of PERSON . Under NORP law members of parliament have an unfettered right to visit remand prisons and penal GPE . However , when Mr PERSON visited the remand centre on DATE the head of the remand prison unlawfully refused him access to the applicant . Further , the applicant was denied access to his doctors in connection with his gastric problems .

On DATE and DATE , in his appeals to ORG against the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE extending his detention pending trial , the applicant described the poor conditions in which he was detained . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaints . Those decisions did not contain any analysis of the applicant ’s allegations about the conditions of his detention . The applicant also described the conditions of his detention in his cassation appeal against the judgment of ORG of DATE .

DATE . According to the Government , in remand centre IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant was detained in cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Cell no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was placed for DATE after his arrival , measured QUANTITY . The applicant was detained there with CARDINAL other people . Cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY . The applicant was detained there DATE and DATE with CARDINAL other people .

The cells in remand centre no . CARDINAL were also not overcrowded . In remand centre no . MONEY the applicant had an individual sleeping place and QUANTITY of personal space in each cell where he was detained . They produced a report indicating the surface area and number of sleeping places in each cell in which the applicant was detained . According to the information provided by the Government , an average cell measured QUANTITY by QUANTITY . The applicant was detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was transferred to newly refurbished cell no . CARDINAL .

Each cell had windows , electric lighting , hot and cold water , a lavatory and a toilet pan . Although the electric light was on during TIME , it was of a lesser intensity than the daytime lighting . The toilet pan was separated from the rest of the cell by a partition measuring CARDINAL cm ( cell no . CARDINAL ) and QUANTITY ( cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , so that the person using the toilet pan was not seen by his cellmates or from the spy - hole in the door . The ORG submitted photos of the cells in which the applicant had been detained and of the toilet cubicles . In their post - admissibility submissions the Government indicated that in all cells the partition was QUANTITY high .

All the cells were equipped with a TV - set , a fridge , an electric kettle and a ventilator , in addition to the standard furniture ( bunk beds , stools , table , food locker , coat - hanger , garbage bin , and washing bowls ) . The cells were properly heated , and ventilated through open windows and through a forced ventilation system , which was always in order . The cells were inspected on the DATE basis by the prison staff , who checked that all systems functioned properly . The applicant did not make any complaints about temperature or ventilation in the cell where he was detained .

The applicant was given bed linen and cutlery and was allowed to have his own bed linen .

The applicant could have a TIME DATE walk in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL courtyards equipped with a metal shelter and benches . When he had arrived at the remand prison late after the court hearings , he had been unable to take exercise . According to the information provided by the Government , remand centre no . CARDINAL had QUANTITY walking yards ( the smallest measured QUANTITY , the largest QUANTITY ; the average area was QUANTITY ) . Each walking yard was equipped with a roof and benches . The Government also produced several reports showing the number of people from each cell who could have a walk outside ; these reports concerned CARDINAL cells and were dated DATE , DATE , and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The Government also produced documents on the quality and quantity of food distributed to detainees . They submitted , further , a copy of the applicant ’s medical history showing that the applicant , while in detention , had not had major health problems , although there had been some medical incidents and the applicant had on many occasions been examined by doctors .

The applicant could also take a shower for TIME once a week , and , for additional payment , take a shower more often , go to a fitness room , wash his underwear and bed linen , and receive other extra services . Thus , he visited the fitness room of the prison CARDINAL times . In the fitness room he was also able to take a shower . The last visit to the fitness centre was dated DATE .

CARDINAL times a day he was given hot food of an appropriate standard . On court days the applicant received dry food or , alternatively , was allowed to take food sent to him by his relatives .

The Government indicated that while in the remand centres the applicant had been examined by a doctor with the use of special medical equipment . In particular , doctors examined him in order to define whether further examination of the internal organs was necessary .

In support of their submissions the ORG also submitted reports from prison officials , dated DATE , which certified the above information on the sanitary conditions in the cells where the applicant had been detained . The Government also submitted a copy of the applicant ’s personal cash account , which showed that he had been receiving money from his relatives and was able to spend it on , among other things , food , extra visits to the shower room or the sports room or renting additional equipment .

During the trial the applicant sat on a wooden bench in a small cage in the courtroom . He had to instruct his lawyers through the bars , while a convoy officer was always present next to him . Whenever the applicant left the cage , he was handcuffed to convoy officers . According to the applicant , on court DATE he received little food , no exercise , and no fresh air . The Government submitted that on court DATE the applicant had been unable to have a walk because he had regularly arrived at the remand centre late , when all the walking yards had been closed . The applicant was always provided with hot food , and , depending on the time of his departure from the remand centre , with a travel ration .

The applicant ’s case attracted considerable public attention in GPE and abroad . In the course of the trial and afterwards many prominent public figures and influential organisations expressed their doubts as to the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his colleagues . The applicant submitted documents to that effect .

Thus , according to the applicant , his allegations were endorsed by the comments of leading NORP politicians and foreign governments ; the findings of the Special Rapporteur of ORG of ORG ; ORG , which concluded that the circumstances of the applicant ’s case went “ beyond the mere pursuit of criminal justice , and include elements such as the weakening of an outspoken political opponent , the intimidation of other wealthy individuals and the regaining of control of strategic economic assets ” ( Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) , adopted on DATE ) ; the judgment of ORG in the case of GPE and PERSON v. ORG , in which the judge concluded that “ it is more likely than not that the prosecution of PERSON is politically motivated ” and that “ President PERSON had directed that ... Mr PERSON should be prosecuted ” ; the granting on DATE by GPE authorities of political asylum to other individuals closely linked to the applicant who had also been granted refugee status . The applicant also referred to the decisions of ORG ( GPE ) of DATE in an extradition case concerning former GPE managers , and to some other NORP jurisdictions . The applicant considered that in those proceedings the courts had established that his prosecution and that of his colleagues was politically motivated .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE provides :

“ CARDINAL . Having chosen a measure of restraint ... the court ... renders a ruling which should specify the charges against the suspect or accused persons , and the grounds for applying the measure of restraint . ”

“ CARDINAL . Pre - trial detention shall be applied as a measure of restraint by a court only where it is impossible to apply a different , less severe precautionary measure ... When the court decides to apply pre - trial detention as a measure of restraint it should specify in its ruling the specific facts which lead the court to reach such a decision . ...

Where it is necessary to apply detention as a measure of restraint ... the investigating officer shall apply to the court accordingly ...

[ The request ] shall be examined by a single judge of a district court ... with the participation of the suspect or the accused , the public prosecutor and defence counsel , if one has been appointed to act in the proceedings . [ The request shall be examined ] at the place of the preliminary investigation , or of the detention , within TIME of receipt of the [ request ] by the court .... The non - justified absence of parties who were notified about the time of the hearing in good time shall not prevent [ the court ] from considering the request [ for detention ] , other than in cases of absence of the accused person . ...

Having examined the request [ for detention ] , the judge shall take CARDINAL of the following decisions :

( CARDINAL ) apply pre - trial detention as a measure of restraint in respect of the accused ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG dismiss the request [ for detention ] ;

( CARDINAL ) adjourn the examination of the request for TIME so that the requesting party can produce additional evidence in support of the request . ...

Repeated requests to extend detention of the same person in the same criminal case after the judge has given a decision refusing to apply this measure of restraint shall be possible only if new circumstances arise which constitute grounds for taking the person into custody . ”

“ CARDINAL . A period of detention during the investigation of criminal offence shall not last longer than DATE .

NORP If it is impossible to complete the preliminary investigation within DATE and there are no grounds for modifying or lifting the preventive measure , this time - limit may be extended by DATE by a judge of a district or military garrison court of the relevant level in accordance with the procedure provided for in LAW of the present Code . This period may be further extended DATE in respect of persons accused of committing grave or particularly grave criminal offences only in cases of special complexity of the criminal case , and provided that there are grounds for application of this preventive measure , by a judge of the same court upon an application by the investigator , filed with the consent of a prosecutor ...

NORP The period of detention may be extended beyond DATE and up to DATE only in exceptional cases and in respect of persons accused of committing grave or particularly grave criminal offences by [ a judge ] on an application by an investigator filed with the consent of ORG or his deputy .

Further extension of the time - limit shall not be allowed . ...

Examination of [ the prosecution ’s ] request for extension of the detention is not allowed , except where the suspect or accused is undergoing in - hospital psychiatric examination or in other circumstances which exclude his participation in the court hearing , which should be supported by appropriate documents . In any event the participation of the defendant ’s lawyer is mandatory . ”

“ CARDINAL . A preventive measure shall be lifted when it ceases to be necessary or replaced by a stricter or a more lenient CARDINAL if the grounds for application of a preventive measure ... change .

A preventive measure shall be lifted or modified by an order of the person carrying out the inquiry , the investigator , the prosecutor or the judge or by a court decision .

A preventive measure applied at the pre - trial stage by the prosecutor , the investigator or the person carrying out the inquiry , on his written instructions , may be lifted or modified only with the prosecutor ’s approval . ”

“ CARDINAL . If a witness fails , without reasonable excuse , to attend court when summoned ... he or she may be brought forcibly .

Enforced attendance ... shall consist of the person being brought by force before the inquirer , the investigator or the public prosecutor , or the court .

NORP If there are reasons preventing their appearance in response to the summons at the designated time , the persons mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall immediately notify the authority by which they have been summoned accordingly .

A person who is to be forcibly brought before the relevant authority shall be notified accordingly by an order of the person carrying out the inquiry , the investigator , the public prosecutor or the judge , or a ruling of the court , and this notification shall be confirmed by his signature on the order or ruling .

Enforced attendance can not be carried out at TIME - time , except in circumstances when the matter can not wait .

Underage persons who have not reached DATE , pregnant women and sick persons who can not leave their place of residence on account of poor health , which shall be certified by a doctor , shall not be forced to attend . ... ”

“ Actions ( omissions ) and decisions of the agency conducting the inquiry , the person conducting the inquiry , the investigator , the prosecutor or the court may be appealed against in accordance with the procedure set forth in the present Code by participants in the criminal proceedings or other persons , to the extent that the procedural actions carried out and procedural decisions taken affect their interests . ”

“ ... CARDINAL . NORP A person who is summoned for questioning shall attend at the appointed time or notify the investigator in advance of any reason preventing him from attending . If a person summoned for questioning fails to appear without any valid reasons he may be brought forcibly ... ”

“ CARDINAL . When a criminal case is submitted [ to the court ] , the judge shall decide either

( i ) to forward the case to an [ appropriate ] jurisdiction ; or

( ii ) to hold a preliminary hearing ; or

( iii ) to hold a hearing .

The judge ’s decision shall take the form of an order ...

NORP The decision shall be taken within DATE of submission of the case to the court . If the accused is detained , the judge shall take the decision within DATE of submission of the case to the court ... ”

“ Where a criminal case is submitted for trial , the judge must ascertain the following points in respect of each accused :

( i ) whether the court has jurisdiction to deal with the case ;

( ii ) NORP whether copies of the indictment have been served ;

( iii ) whether the measure of restraint should be lifted or modified ;

( iv ) whether any applications filed should be granted ... ”

“ CARDINAL . When there are no grounds to take CARDINAL of the decisions described in sub - paragraphs ( i ) or ( ii ) of the first paragraph of LAW , the judge shall set the case down for trial ... In the order ... the judge shall decide on the following matters : ...

( vi ) The measure of restraint , except for cases where pre - trial detention or house arrest are applied ... ”

“ CARDINAL . During the trial the court may order , modify , or lift a precautionary measure in respect of the accused .

NORP If the defendant has been detained before the trial , his detention may not exceed DATE from the time the court receives the case for trial to the time when the court delivers the sentence , subject to the exceptions set forth in § CARDINAL of this Article .

NORP The court ... may extend the accused ’s detention during trial . It is possible to extend detention only in respect of a defendant charged with a serious crime or an especially serious crime , and each time for a period of DATE ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Having received the criminal case with the notice of appeal ... the judge shall fix the date , time and venue of the [ appeal ] hearing .

NORP The parties shall be notified of the date , time and venue [ of the appeal hearing ] no later than DATE beforehand . The court shall decide whether the convicted detainee should be summoned to the hearing .

A convicted detainee who has expressed a wish to be present [ at the appeal hearing ] shall have the right to be present personally or to submit his arguments by video link . The court shall decide in what form the participation of the convicted person in the hearing is to be secured . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Trials of criminal cases in all courts shall be public , with the exception of the cases indicated in the present Article .

Judicial proceedings in camera are admissible on the basis of a determination or a ruling of the court in the event that :

( i ) NORP proceedings in the criminal case in open court may lead to disclosure of a ORG or any other secret protected by the federal law ;

( ii ) the criminal case being tried relates to a crime committed by a person who has not reached DATE ;

( iii ) the trial of criminal cases involving a crime against sexual inviolability or individual sexual freedom , or another crime where the trial may lead to disclosure of information about the intimate aspects of the life of the participants in the criminal proceedings or of humiliating information .

( iv ) this is required in the interest of guaranteeing the safety of those taking part in the trial proceedings and that of their immediate family , relatives or persons close to them ;

Where a court decides to hold a hearing in camera , it shall indicate the specific circumstances in support of that decision in its ruling on this point . ... ”

On DATE ORG of the Russian Federation delivered decision no . CARDINAL-O in which it held that Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG should be interpreted as guaranteeing to the accused the right to participate in any detention hearing , in particular when the judge sets down the case for the trial under LAW .

On DATE ORG of GPE adopted Ruling no . CARDINAL In particular , ORG held :

“ Since deprivation of liberty ... is permissible only pursuant to a court decision , taken at a hearing ... on condition that the detainee has been provided with an opportunity to submit his arguments to the court , the prohibition on issuing a detention order ... without a hearing shall apply to all court decisions , whether they concern the initial imposition of this measure of restraint or its confirmation . ”

On DATE the ORG delivered decision no . CARDINAL on a complaint about ORG refusal to permit a detainee to attend the appeal hearings on the issue of detention . It held :

“ LAW , which regulates the presence of a defendant remanded in custody before the appeal court ... can not be interpreted as depriving the defendant held in custody ... of the right to express his opinion to the appeal court , by way of his personal attendance at the hearing or by other lawful means , on matters relating to the examination of his complaint about a judicial decision affecting his constitutional rights and freedoms ... ”

The Pre - trial GPE of DATE ( Federal PERSON on ORG and Defendants , no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , as in force at the material time , provides in section CARDINAL that a detainee has a right to confidential meetings with his lawyers . That section does not define whether the lawyer and the client are entitled to make notes during such meetings and to exchange any documents . The meeting should be conducted out of the hearing of prison staff , but the prison staff should be able to see what is happening in the hearing room . Section CARDINAL establishes that a meeting can be interrupted if the person meeting the detainee tries to hand him “ prohibited objects , substance , or food stuff ” or to give him “ information which may obstruct the establishment of truth in the criminal case or facilitate criminal acts ” .

Section CARDINAL establishes that all correspondence by detainees goes through the prison administration , which may open and inspect the mail . Correspondence addressed to the courts , to the ombudsman , to the prosecuting authorities , to ORG , etc . , is free from perusal but lawyers are not mentioned in this list ( for more details see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . It appears ( see the paragraphs immediately below ) that the Pre - trial LAW was routinely interpreted by the prison authorities as allowing the former to seize and inspect correspondence between a detainee and his lawyer .

Section CARDINAL of the Pre - trial LAW establishes as follows :

“ Where there are sufficient reasons to suspect that a person entering or leaving the prison carries prohibited objects , substances [ or ] food stuff , the prison officials may search their clothes and belongings ... and seize the objects , substances and food stuff ... which [ detainees ] are not allowed to have or to use . ”

The Internal Regulations for Remand Prisons , introduced by Decree no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , contained section CARDINAL , which established that lawyers can not use computers , audio- and video - recording equipment , copying machines , etc . , during meetings with their clients in remand prisons unless authorised by the prison administration . On CARDINAL October CARDINAL ORG of GPE struck down that provision as unlawful ( decision confirmed on DATE ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE interpreted the above provisions of the Pre - trial LAW in their constitutional meaning . ORG held that the law may legitimately introduce certain limitations on the lawyer - client confidentiality , including perusal of their correspondence . However , such limitations should not be arbitrary , should pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to it . Legitimate aims may include preventing further criminal activity by the accused , and preventing him from putting pressure on witnesses or otherwise obstructing justice . The general rule is that the lawyer - client correspondence is privileged and can not be perused . Any departure from this rule is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the authorities have valid reasons to believe that the lawyer and/or his client are abusing the confidentiality rule . Further , ORG specified that the prison authorities should have “ sufficient and reasonable grounds to believe ” that the correspondence contains unlawful content and that they may peruse such correspondence only in presence of the persons concerned and on the basis of a written motivated decision . The results of the inspection of the mail should also be recorded . At the same time ORG ruled that any correspondence addressed by a detainee to his lawyer but not submitted “ through the prison administration ” , as provided by the federal law , can be checked by the prison administration .