6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lived in Moscow. 7.  The applicant engaged in commerce and at some point in the early 1990s became the president of the Russian Afghan War Veterans Fund. 8.  In April 1997 the authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and a few other persons on suspicion of several crimes, including masterminding the murder of the applicant's business rivals. 9.  On 21 January 2000 the Military Court of the Moscow District (Московский окружной военный суд), sitting as a bench composed of one professional judge and two lay assessors, examined the case presented by the prosecution and acquitted the applicant and his co-accused on all charges for lack of evidence of his involvement in the alleged crimes (за недоказанностью участия в совершении преступлений). 10.  On 26 January 2000 the prosecution lodged an appeal against the judgment of 21 January 2000, arguing that the first-instance court had wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and “failed to adopt measures aimed at achieving a comprehensive, full and objective investigation of all the circumstances of the case, to eliminate the inconsistencies in the prosecution case file and to have regard to all possible versions of events, but had pinpointed nonexistent inconsistencies for which the investigative authority allegedly failed to account”. 11.  The prosecution suggested that the first instance court ought to have eliminated the inconsistencies in the prosecution case file of its own motion and requested the appeal court to remit the case for re-trial. 12.  On an unspecified date the parties, including the applicant and alleged victims, filed their own arguments. 13.  By decision of 25 July 2000 the Military Division of the Supreme Court of Russia (Военная коллегия Верховного Суда Российской Федерации), sitting as a bench of three professional judges, examined and rejected the arguments of the prosecution and the alleged victims and upheld the judgment of 21 January 2000 in full. The court noted that:
“... Despite the arguments in the prosecution's appeal about the incomplete and one‑sided nature of examination of the case by the court, the judicial investigation was sufficiently thorough and comprehensive.
All pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence were examined at the court hearing.
The court ruled on all applications by the parties concerning the examination of the evidence, took all necessary measures to remedy the shortcomings of the investigation and eliminate the inconsistencies in the oral statements of the questioned persons, and as regards the questions requiring specialist knowledge decided to carry out and then carried out appropriate expert examinations.
At the same time, having evaluated the evidence examined in its entirety, the court came to a reasoned conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that every means of collecting evidence in the court proceedings had been exhausted. In fact, this was confirmed by the prosecutor (государственный обвинитель), who did not make any application for a fresh investigation in court (судебное следствие) with a view to eliminating of the existing or newly discovered inconsistencies, and the prosecutor who took part in the appeal hearing ...
The constitutional principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms in the administration of justice presupposes the separation of the function of consideration of cases from the functions of the prosecution and the defence submitting argument before the court. Thus, the task of prosecution before the court pertains to the prosecution bodies, whilst the court has an obligation to formulate conclusions about the established facts, regard being had to the evidence examined in the court hearing, to evaluate objectively the lawfulness and validity of the charges, to decide on the issue of acquittal or conviction, have due regard to the evidence collected by the investigation bodies and the arguments of the defence, thus securing the just and impartial resolution of the case and granting the parties equal opportunities to defend their positions. Hence, the court is empowered to determine the guilt of a person only on condition that it has been proven by the prosecuting bodies and officials. The lower court in the present case has fully complied with this requirement of the Constitution of the RF ...
Having considered the evidence of guilt and innocence presented in court by the parties, the court came to the conclusion that it was insufficient to convict and that [the court] has exhausted all statutory means of collecting additional evidence, which is why it took a well-grounded decision to acquit [the applicant and two co-accused] for lack of evidence of their involvement in the criminal actions in respect of which they had been accused by the investigative bodies, having interpreted, in accordance with the requirements of the legislation and the Constitution of the RF, all doubts about the guilt in their favour.” 14.  On 25 August 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General applied for supervisory review of the judgments in the case, arguing that the lower courts ought to have reacted to the breaches of the domestic law and various deficiencies in the prosecution case file by remitting the case for an additional investigation instead of acquitting the accused. He referred to, among other things, paragraph 2 of Article 232(1) of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure in this connection. 15.  On 13 December 2000, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, sitting as a bench of nine professional judges, heard the parties, including the applicant and his counsel, and accepted the prosecution's arguments. 16.  The court stated that:
“... the Presidium finds that the prosecution appeal is well-founded and that it should be granted, as the preliminary investigation and the trial, despite the requirements of Article 20 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, were conducted in an incomplete and one-sided manner, without proper inquiry into incriminating and exculpatory circumstances. ...” 17.  The court pointed out several breaches of the domestic procedure by the investigating authorities and various inconsistencies in the prosecution case file and gave a number of detailed instructions as to how these deficiencies should be eliminated. The court quashed the judgment of 21 January 2000 and the appeal decision of 25 July 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh investigation 18.  On 31 January 2001 the applicant died in a car accident. 19.  On 2 April 2001 the prosecution discontinued the case in respect of the applicant on account of his death, and pursued the investigation against S., one of the persons who had stood trial and been acquitted together with the applicant. 20.  On 28 May 2003 co-accused S. was found guilty and sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment.