CASE OF ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
4. The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Cheboksary. 5. On 19 July 2005 the Chertanovskiy District Court in Moscow found the applicant guilty of kicking a police officer while intoxicated, an offence under Article 318(1) of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The District Court explained the decision to impose a custodial sentence in the following manner: “When sentencing the defendant, Mr Aleksandrov, the court takes into account the nature and degree of the social danger of the offence, all the , and the information regarding the defendant’s personality: [he] has never incurred any criminal or administrative liability, he is not registered [as a drug addict or as a person suffering from psychotic disorders], he was given positive references by his neighbours and employers, [and] his military registration has been annulled because of a kidney disease. The court accepts the above-mentioned circumstances as mitigating the defendant’s guilt; however, it does not find any grounds for sentencing [him] to probation or imposing a fine on him, given the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and the fact that [he] does not have a permanent place of residence in Moscow or in the Moscow Region”. 6. The applicant appealed, claiming in particular that he had been discriminated against by the trial court’s refusal to impose a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that he did not have a permanent residence in Moscow or in the Moscow Region, even though there had existed circumstances calling for the mitigation of his sentence. 7. On 29 August 2005 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal. It held, in a summary fashion, that the trial court had complied with every legal requirement and had issued a reasoned judgment, having sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment.