CASE OF MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)
Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Astrakhan. 5. In July 2004 the applicant was charged with murder of V. Counsel Sh. was appointed to represent him during investigation and trial. 6. On 10 December 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court held a preliminary trial hearing. The applicant opted for a jury trial. In support of his request, Sh. stated as follows: “[The applicant] has committed a particularly serious offence which might entail a lengthy custodial sentence. ... I support the [applicant’s] request.” 7. On 18 February 2005 the court completed the examination of evidence. Both prosecution and defence made their closing arguments. In his statement, Sh. called the applicant “a robber and a drunkard”. The presiding judge instructed the jury to disregard the counsel’s statement as referring to the applicant’s character. 8. On 18 February 2005 the jury delivered a guilty verdict. 9. On 21 February 2005 the applicant asked the court to replace counsel Sh. alleging that the defence carried out by him had not been effective. The court dismissed the applicant’s request. 10. On the same date the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 11. On 1 March 2005 the applicant asked the Regional Court to appoint legal counsel to represent him before the appeal court. On 8 March 2005 the court refused to appoint a lawyer referring to the relevant legal provisions that did not provide for a right to have a state-appointed lawyer before the appeal court. 12. On 21 July 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 21 February 2005 on appeal. According to the official documents, the applicant was not provided with legal assistance. 13. On 6 June 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment of 21 July 2005 by way of supervisory review. The court noted that the applicant had not been provided with legal assistance in the appeal proceedings and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court. The applicant did not attend the hearing. He was represented by counsel O. 14. On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to Moscow. Counsel R. was appointed to represent him. From 1 to 3 August 2007 R. studied the case-file. On 7 and 14 August 2004 he met with the applicant at the remand prison. 15. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a revised statement of appeal. 16. On 16 August 2007 the Supreme Court held a new appeal hearing. According to the applicant, he participated in the hearing by means of a video link. R. was present in the courtroom. He did not submit a statement of appeal and made oral submissions to the court. Having examined the applicant’s appeal, the court upheld, in substance, his conviction. The court also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ineffectiveness of the legal assistance provided by counsel Sh. In this connection, the court noted that the applicant had consented to be represented by Sh. both during the investigation and trial. The court also concluded, on the basis of the trial record, that Sh. had taken an active part in the trial. In his closing argument, Sh. had supported the applicant’s non-guilty plea and argued that the applicant had not been proved guilty. Lastly, the court took into account that, prior to the jury verdict, the applicant had not complained about the quality of the defence provided by Sh. 17. On 18 August 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory review complaint against the judgment of 16 August 2007.