5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Irkutsk. 6.  In 2003 the applicant was charged with fraud relating to the alleged misappropriation of money in the private company she had worked for. Her case was brought before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk. In the course of the trial, the applicant dismissed several legal-aid lawyers and, eventually, the trial court appointed lawyer V. as defence counsel. During the court proceedings before the District Court an issue arose as to the applicant’s mental state and ability to stand trial. Thus, on 14 October 2003 after hearing the parties (including the applicant and lawyer V.), the District Court decided that the applicant should undergo an out-patient psychiatric examination in the regional psychiatric hospital. However, the applicant refused to comply with this court order. 7.  A trial hearing was accordingly scheduled for 27 November 2003, inter alia, to settle the issue of the examination. The applicant did not appear for which reason, the same day, the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention. The court held as follows:
“Having heard the prosecutor, the defendant and lawyer V., in the criminal case on fraud charges against the defendant ...
The prosecutor has requested the court to order [the applicant’s] detention because she has been obstructing the court proceedings by refusing to undergo a psychiatric examination and has failed to attend the hearing without a valid excuse.
Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises a court to order that a defaulting defendant be brought before the court or to order or vary a preventive measure. Article 97 of the Code authorises a court to order a preventive measure if there is a risk that the defendant would obstruct the proceedings ...
The court observes that despite a court order of 14 October 2003 the defendant refused to undergo a psychiatric examination ... In addition, having been informed of the date and time of this hearing, she failed to attend it and did not provide any valid excuse. Having come to the court’s registry on the same day, she submitted a request there and left the court building. These facts disclose that the applicant is obstructing the proceedings, which justifies her placement in custody. The court also takes into account that she is charged with a serious criminal offence ... The court orders her arrest and detention in Irkutsk remand centre.” 8.  By a separate decision issued on the same date, the District Court ordered that the applicant should be placed in the regional psychiatric hospital for the purpose of the in-patient psychiatric examination. 9.  On the evening of the same day, the applicant was arrested at her home and was taken to a police station. The arrest record, which was compiled at the police station, reads as follows:
“Grounds and reasons for arrest: a court order
...
[pre-printed text] I have been informed of my rights under Article 46 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (1) to be informed of the nature of the accusation against me, to receive a copy of a decision to institute criminal proceedings against me, or a copy of the arrest record, or a copy of a detention order against me; ...
My comment regarding the arrest: [the applicant’s signature] My arrest is unlawful; I have not had access to the document in which the grounds for my arrest are stated ...” 10.  Later the same evening she was placed in Irkutsk remand centre. 11.  On 28 November 2003 the applicant appealed against the detention order of 27 November 2003 to the Irkutsk Regional Court. According to the applicant, without a copy of the detention order she could only make a preliminary statement of appeal. She dispatched her appeals both to the District Court (received on 2 December 2003) and to the Regional Court (received on 3 December 2003). 12.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant was served with a copy of the detention order of 27 November 2003. 13.  On 4 December 2003 the applicant’s next of kin retained lawyer Sh. who lodged, on the same day, an additional appeal against the detention order. The applicant was provided with a copy of the lawyer’s appeal and, on 10 December 2003, lodged a request to be brought to the appeal hearing. 14.  On 10 December 2003 the Regional Court returned the appeal to the District Court to enable the latter to inform the other parties to the criminal proceedings of the appeal. This was done on 19 December 2003. 15.  The psychiatric examination of the applicant took place from 10 to 15 December 2003 in the regional psychiatric hospital in Irkutsk. On 16 December 2003 the medical panel issued a psychiatric report indicating that it was not possible to draw a clear conclusion as to the applicant’s mental state and ability to stand trial. The panel recommended further examination in Moscow psychiatric hospital. 16.  On 16 or 19 December 2003 the applicant submitted (to the District or Regional Court) a document dated 10 December 2003 by which Mr G., head officer of the medical unit of the remand centre, indicated that it would be opportune to examine whether the applicant could be released from detention. 17.  On 22 December 2003 the District Court again submitted the applicant’s and her lawyers’ appeals to the Regional Court. They were received by the Regional Court on 23 December 2003. 18.  On 25 December 2003 the District Court held a trial hearing, during which it dismissed counsel’s application for release and ordered a new psychiatric examination of the applicant in Moscow psychiatric hospital. 19.  On an unspecified date, lawyer Sh. submitted to the Regional Court a letter dated 25 December 2003 by which the Regional Department of Justice indicated that the relevant official registers contained no information about the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer, advocate V. 20.  The applicant withdrew on 5 January 2004 her request to be brought to the appeal hearing concerning the detention order of 27 November 2003. 21.  On 7 January 2004 the applicant was transferred to Moscow for a psychiatric examination. 22.  In respect of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 27 November 2003 and according to the Government, “due to the winter holiday period the appeal hearing was listed in the Regional Court for 8 January 2004”. On that date, the Regional Court, however, returned the file to the District Court for an “internal inquiry”. Apparently, the reason for this adjournment was the need to verify whether the applicant had legal assistance during the hearing on her pre-trial detention on 27 November 2003 and whether Ms V. was a professional advocate. 23.  On 19 January 2004 Ms V. submitted a written statement confirming that she was a professional advocate and that she had attended court hearings in the applicant’s criminal case “on 14 October and 17 November 2003”. 24.  On an unspecified date, the President of the District Court obtained a certificate from Mr G., indicating that the applicant was fit for detention and was receiving the necessary medical care in the remand centre. 25.  After the inquiry requested by the Regional Court, on 4 February 2004 the detention file was returned to that court. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 26 February 2004. 26.  On 26 February 2004 the Regional Court heard the prosecutor and counsel, and upheld the detention order of 27 November 2003. The appeal court held that the certificate submitted by the defence was not sufficient to warrant the applicant’s immediate release from detention because another certificate issued by the same detention centre confirmed that the applicant was fit for detention, although she needed a gynaecological consultation, which could be carried out at a later date. 27.  In April 2004 the Regional Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s request for a supervisory review in respect of the appeal decision of 26 February 2004. The court noted that V. had been present at the first-instance hearing on the applicant’s detention and that reference to the applicant’s own presence had been a clerical error. 28.  The applicant was released in May 2004. 29.  By judgment of 21 September 2007 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk acquitted the applicant of the fraud charges. On 28 July 2008 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. 30.  In May 2005 after the applicant had been released from detention but while the criminal case against her was still pending (see paragraphs 6-29 above), the applicant and two others, Ms I. and Ms B., decided to stage a static demonstration (пикетирование) in front of various public authorities in Moscow, including the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to protest against the allegedly “unlawful actions of public authorities and corruption”. As the applicant puts it, this demonstration related to “the persistent difficulties in relation to pending cases involving law enforcement agencies and courts, in particular in the Irkutsk Region, and the failure of the local authorities to deal with their grievances”. 31.  On 30 May 2005 they sent a telegram to the Moscow Mayor’s Office informing the authorities’ of their intention to stage static demonstrations between 3 and 16 June 2005. On 31 May 2005 the Mayor’s Office acknowledged receipt of this telegram. 32.  On 7 June 2005 at 9.30 a.m. the applicant and her friends placed themselves on a pavement separated from the building of the Federal Judges Qualifications Board by a road. Ms I. and Ms B. unfolded banners/posters containing their message. At 9.45 a.m. they were approached by several police officers, one of whom asked them to show documents justifying their demonstration. The applicant explained to the officer that they needed no “authorisation” and produced the telegram message sent to the mayor’s office and the “certified” copy of the telegram (apparently bearing the mayor’s office stamp). 33.  Nevertheless, the police officer told the applicant and her friends to cease their demonstration and follow them to the police station. As the applicant and her friends refused to comply with this, the officer compelled them to follow him to the police station. At an unspecified hour an arrest record was drawn up. It read as follows:
“[The applicant] was brought to the police station at 9.45 a.m. in relation to an administrative offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences for the purpose of compiling a record (Article 27.3 of the Code).
The person concerned has been informed of her rights and obligations under Article 25.1 of the Code: [in the applicant’s handwriting] I have not been informed of my rights and I do not understand them ...” 34.  While in the police station, the applicant made a written statement, which read as follows:
“I came to Moscow to protect my rights against various law enforcement agencies. As follows from my notification to the authorities on 30 May 2005, I was holding a static demonstration at 9.45 a.m. in conformity with the Public Gatherings Act.
I have been arrested by a person wearing a police uniform who refused to introduce himself and to show his licence ...Without explaining the actual reasons for my arrest, [the officers] told me that their superior had ordered that we be taken to the police station ... Under section 18 of the Public Gatherings Act the police should not impede the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly ... There were no reasons to stop and disperse the demonstration under section 15 of the Act ... The officer refused my request to call my next of kin and to inform them of my arrest ...” 35.  The police then compiled an administrative offence report, which read as follows:
“Time, place and circumstances of the administrative offence: on 7 June 2005 [the applicant] held a non-authorised demonstration ...
S/he has therefore committed the following administrative office: Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences ...
The person concerned has been informed of the rights and obligations listed in Article 25.1 of the Code: [in the applicant’s handwriting] I have not been informed of my rights and do not understand them ...
A copy of this document has been given to the person concerned.
[in the applicant’s handwriting] I have not been given [a copy], despite my request.” 36.  Thereafter, the police decided that the applicant and her friends should be brought before the Justice of the Peace in the 375th Circuit of the Arbatskiy District of Moscow. The judge was informed of the incoming cases and scheduled their examination for 5 p.m. 37.  A photocopy of a document dated 11 June 2004 and signed by the President of the Presnenskiy District Court indicates that under the regulations of that court the public had access to the premises until 6 p.m. during weekdays. It appears that the office of the justice of the peace who dealt with the applicant’s case was situated in the same building. 38.  According to the applicant, she and her friends were brought to the premises of the Presnenskiy District Court some time after 7 p.m. The judge first examined Ms I.’s case, in which the applicant acted as a lay defender. The examination of the applicant’s case started at or around 10 p.m. and lasted some minutes. The judge granted the applicant’s request to have access to the case file but the applicant unsuccessfully sought an adjournment to have time to study the case file and to prepare her defence. 39.  The judge found the applicant guilty of non-compliance with a lawful order by a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant was sentenced to seven days of detention, to be counted from the moment of her arrest on the same morning. The court held as follows:
“... [pre-printed text] I understand my rights under Article 25.1 of the CAO. I have no challenges or requests.
[in the applicant’s handwriting] I have lodged a request and challenged the judge but these motions have not been examined.
The court has established the following:
On 7 June 2005 [the applicant] failed to comply with a lawful order by police officers ... and failed to end a non-authorised demonstration in front of the Supreme Court of Russia ... The defendant has pleaded not guilty ...
The court has granted [the applicant’s] request to have her co-participants in the demonstration as lay defenders in these proceedings. The court has dismissed her request to obtain external video recordings of the building of the Supreme Court since there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the administrative offence record, in particular as regards the commission of the offence, its place and circumstances.
Mr S., police officer, has been heard as a witness and has made the following statement. He and his colleagues asked the demonstration participants to show documents relating to the authorisation of the public event. [The applicant] handed over a telegram. Since there were doubts as to the authenticity of the document, [the applicant] and the other two were asked to show their identity documents. Since they refused, despite several warnings, the police took them to the police station to determine their identities and to determine the circumstances relating to the lawfulness of the demonstration. Since [the applicant] and the others refused to follow the police, they were compelled to do so ...
The court has seen the documents mentioned above, and notes that they have been amended. The court accepts that in the circumstances the police officers had sufficient reasons to doubt the authenticity of the documents. Therefore, their order to the persons concerned to accompany them to the police station was lawful and justified. It is also so in view of the defendants’ refusals to show identity documents.
The court rejects [the applicant’s] allegation that she was not asked to show her identity documents ... Her refusal to show an identity document and to go with the police officers to the police station discloses non–compliance with lawful orders by police officers ...”
Ms I. and Ms B. were sentenced to five and six days of detention respectively. 40.  The applicant was released on 14 June 2005, having served the sentence imposed by the justice of the peace. 41.  The applicant and her friends appealed against the judgments of 7 June 2005 to the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. On 24 June 2005 the applicant was notified of the date and time of the appeal hearing. On 27 June 2005 the applicant asked that her lay defenders be informed of the date, time and place of the appeal hearing. 42.  On 27 June 2005 the District Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 7 June 2005 against her. The court held as follows:
“On 7 June 2005 [the applicant] held a non-authorised demonstration and held a banner containing a very negative assessment of the professional activity of the Prosecutor General, the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. She refused to comply with lawful orders to end the violation of the public order, threatened police officers with prosecution, thereby resisting a lawful order by police officers ... Under sections 5 and 12 of the Public Gatherings Act one has a right to assemble at a venue and at an hour previously indicated in a notification to the competent authority ... Section 8 of the Act prohibits public events in the immediate vicinity of court buildings. Section 17 of the Act provides that failure to comply with a lawful order of the police or resistance to the police entails the liability of the persons concerned ...” 43.  On 1 July 2005 the District Court examined Ms I.’s appeal and discontinued the administrative offence case against her, holding as follows:
“... The record of the administrative offence indicates that the defendant refused to comply with the repeated orders of the police officers ... However, the record contains no indication of the content of such orders. The reports made by the police officers state that the defendant had been arrested in relation to a non-authorised demonstration. Mr P., police officer, has explained to the appeal court that the administrative case concerned unlawful demonstrating. In view of the above, the appeal court considers that the administrative proceedings were initiated against the defendant in relation to a fact falling with the scope of Article 20.2 of the CAO [Code of Administrative Offences] ... The court considers that sufficient evidence was not adduced at first instance to find the defendant guilty of the offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO ... ” 44.  On 6 July 2005 the District Court quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of Ms B. and discontinued the administrative offence case against her, holding as follows:
“... It follows from reports made by police officers that the defendant was arrested after [the group] had attempted to carry out a non-authorised demonstration; she failed to comply with repeated orders of police officers and shouted ... The record of the administrative offence refers to unlawful demonstrating falling within the scope of Article 20.2 of the CAO ... The record was not signed by the head officer. The court considers that sufficient evidence was not adduced at first instance to find the defendant guilty of the offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO ...” 45.  The applicant lodged numerous complaints against the justice of the peace who convicted her. By a letter of 5 September 2005 the District Court dismissed her complaint, indicating that, as explained by the justice of the peace, he had examined the cases against the applicant and her friends between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 7 June 2005. 46.  According to the applicant, from 7 to 9 June 2005 she was kept in the police station without food or drink. The cell had no windows or system of ventilation. She had no access to a toilet and had to urinate in the presence of other detainees, including male detainees. From 9 to 14 June 2005 she was kept in a detention facility, in which, despite her illnesses, she was forced to clean the premises.