CASE OF YAIKOV v. RUSSIA
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković
5. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Miass, Chelyabinsk Region. 6. The applicant is a mentally disabled person. On 19 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on a suspicion of having committed a murder. On the same day the applicant’s mother informed the investigator that the applicant suffered from a mental disease. 7. In the period from 19 September until 25 October 2003 during the questionings conducted in the presence of counsel the applicant confessed, and furthermore confessed to murders of another five persons. 8. On 20 September 2003 the Kopeysk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region remanded the applicant in custody upon the investigator’s request. 9. On 14 November 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk extended the applicant’s detention. It was subsequently extended on 18 February, 23 April and 17 September 2004 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence, might abscond, reoffend, interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way. On 17 September 2004 the applicant detention was extended until 25 November 2004. 10. On 4 March 2004 the investigator ordered a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. 11. On 16 July 2004 the commission of experts concluded that at the time of examination the applicant was in an acute phase of the disease and was not able to account for his actions. It was therefore impossible to determine the applicant’s state of mind at the time of the offences. The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision. 12. On 22 October 2004 the applicant’s case was sent by the investigator to the court. 13. On 11 November 2004 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant’s detention. 14. The court hearings in the applicant’s case started on 17 November 2004. 15. On 11 February 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court ordered compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination. The court also stated that until his placement to the hospital the preventive measure should remain unchanged. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “The court has no reason to doubt the conclusions of the medical experts [of 16 July 2004]. Taking into account the mental state of Y. and the nature of committed acts posing a danger to society and the need for compulsory treatment in a specialized psychiatric hospital with intensive supervision, the court considers that in accordance with Articles 97, 99(1) (g), 101 (4) of the Criminal Code he should be placed in this kind of hospital for compulsory treatment. However the question of releasing him from execution of sentence or criminal responsibility cannot be currently resolved, as it was not possible to resolve the question of sanity of Y. in relation to the alleged acts due to a temporary disorder, namely the depressive episode of severe degree. In these circumstances Y. should be placed in the mental hospital until the improvement of his condition ... The preventive measure should remain unchanged until his placement in the mental hospital.” 16. The applicant’s counsel appealed. In particular she argued that the applicant should be released, as the compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision would worsen his state of health. He should be treated in a mental hospital of a general type, noting that more than seven months had passed since the last medical examination. 17. On 15 April 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 July 2005 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence and the consideration of his case on the merits was still pending. 18. On 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the decision of 11 February 2005 and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first instance court. The Supreme Court noted that the first instance court had wrongly applied the provisions of the Code of the Criminal Procedure on compulsory medical treatment of offenders who had committed a crime in the state of insanity to the applicant’s case since his state of mind at the time of the commission of the crimes had not yet been established. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “Having examined the materials of the case, grounds of appeal statements ... the court finds that the decision should be quashed due to the violation of rules of criminal procedure. The present criminal case was transmitted to the Regional Court with a view of application of the compulsory measures of a medical nature. The court considered this case according to the Articles 441-442 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ... and found that Y. having a mental disease, currently in acute state, committed the acts ... and placed him in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision for compulsory treatment until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination. However according to the Article 443 (1) of the Criminal Code [Code of Criminal Procedure] the measures indicated in Article 99 of the Criminal Code could be applied only in respect of the person who has committed an act, prohibited by the criminal law, in the state of insanity, or to a person who became mentally ill after committing the crime, which makes it impossible to sentence him or to execute it. Only in such circumstances is it possible to consider the case according to these rules ... provided by Articles 440-443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It follows from the materials of the case, in particular from the results of the expert examination, that Y. does not fall into any of these categories of persons as until improvement of his acute condition it is not possible to establish whether he committed an act, prohibited by the criminal law, in the state of insanity, or has plunged into a state of mental disorder after committing the crime, which makes it impossible to sentence him or to execute the sentence. Nevertheless the court accepted this case and considered it according to Articles 440-443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the same time the court in its decision notes that Y. committed the act, prohibited by the criminal law ... However as it mentioned before it does not follow from the expert report that he was in a state of insanity ... At the same time it follows from the experts report ... that Y. suffers from the acute state of the disease and is in need of the treatment in a psychiatric institution. According to Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it is established that a person to whom detention on remand has been applied as a preventive measure suffers from a mental illness, a court, upon a prosecutor’s request and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 108 of the of Code of Criminal Procedure, shall take a decision authorising a transfer of that person to a psychiatric hospital ... The preventive measure shall remain unchanged.” 19. On 23 June 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court scheduled another hearing of the applicant’s case for 7 July 2005. 20. On 7 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor in order to cure the violations of certain procedural rules. The court also extended the applicant’s detention on remand. The decision remained silent as to the grounds on which such conclusions were based and also as to the period of such authorised detention or the date of its next review. The applicant appealed. In particular he indicated that the period of his detention had expired. 21. On 21 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 October 2005 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence. 22. On 26 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Referring to the gravity of the charges, it noted that there were no reasons which would make it necessary to cancel or change that preventive measure. 23. On 10 October 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 January 2006 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence and the consideration of his case on the merits was still pending. 24. On 25 October 2005 the investigator suspended the criminal investigation until the improvement of the applicant’s condition. The deputy prosecutor of the Chelyabinsk Region asked the court to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric institution, relying on Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 25. On the same date the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk, relying on Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the applicant’s transfer to a psychiatric institution until the improvement of his condition. The court noted that since it did not deal with the issue of compulsory medical treatment of the applicant it was not authorized at that stage to determine the type of the institution the applicant had to be transferred to. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “It follows from the medical expert’s report that Y. suffers from the acute state of the disease. Currently he is not able to understand the factual character of his actions and control them. Taking into account his current mental state it is not possible to establish his mental state at the material time in respect of the acts he is accused of. Taking into account his current mental state, the presence of the mood disorders, the hallucinatory experiences, the lack of criticism towards his own mental state, Y. represents a danger to society and is in need of the treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition. According to Article 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the court can transfer a person who is detained on remand to an inpatient psychiatric institution when it is established that the person suffers from a psychiatric illness. he court takes the decision about the transfer of Y. to the mental hospital. However the court does not deal with the issue of compulsory medical treatment of the applicant; thus it is not authorised at that stage to determine the type of the institution the applicant had to be transferred to ... ... Decides to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric institution ...” 26. The applicant’s counsel appealed. She argued, in particular, that she had not been notified of the hearing and the applicant was not in the acute state of the disease anymore. 27. On 17 November 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision on the applicant’s transfer. 28. The administration of the remand prison IZ-74/3 of Chelyabinsk asked the court to determine the type of psychiatric institution the applicant had to be transferred to. 29. On 13 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Smolensk psychiatric hospital of a specialized type with intensified supervision. 30. On 17 January 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk taking into account the results of the expert examination of 16 July 2004 decided that the applicant had to be transferred to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “... Taking into account the medical expert’s report of 16.07.2004 ... the court considers it necessary to transfer Y. to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition ...” 31. On 2 February 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 17 January 2006. 32. On 22 March 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk upheld the investigator’s decision of 25 October 2005 to suspend the proceedings. The applicant appealed. 33. On 9 June 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 22 March 2006. 34. On 22 September 2006 the medical commission of the Smolensk psychiatric hospital concluded that the applicant’s condition had improved so that he could be transferred back to the judicial and investigation authorities. 35. On 17 November 2006 the Sychevskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region passed the decision to stop the compulsory medical treatment of the applicant. 36. On 28 December 2006 the investigation was resumed and the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave the town and was released. 37. On 10 January 2007 the prosecutor decided to conduct an outpatient psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. The applicant failed to appear and his representative requested an inpatient examination. 38. On 7 March 2007 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk ordered the applicant’s inpatient psychiatric expert examination. 39. On 19 April 2007 the commission of experts delivered the results of the examination. The commission of experts concluded that at the time of the crimes the applicant was in a state of insanity. The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision. 40. On 25 July 2007 the applicant’s case was sent to the court. 41. By decision of 21 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court scheduled the hearing of the applicant’s case for 22 August 2007. 42. On 22 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court ordered the applicant’s detention for three months with reference to the expert’s report of 19 April 2007 and to the fact that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence. 43. On an unspecified date the applicant’s counsel lodged a request for conducting an additional psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. On 22 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court granted the request of the lawyer. 44. On 17 November 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until the end of consideration of the case by the trial court. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he had changed his place of residence without due notification of the investigation authorities. On 14 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 17 November 2007. 45. On 6 December 2007 the commission of experts delivered the results of the psychiatric examination, which confirmed the conclusions reached in the report of 19 April 2007 and the applicant’s inability to take part in the court’s hearings. 46. On 18 February 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court decided to return the case to the prosecutor to correct the inaccuracy in the description of the facts of the case. On the same day the court also extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 22 May 2008. 47. On 12 May 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court scheduled the hearing of the applicant’s case for 23 May 2008 and extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 22 August 2008. 48. On 20 August 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 22 November 2008. It referred again to the fact that he had changed his place of residence without due notification of the investigation authorities. 49. On 11 September 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court found it established that the applicant had sexually assaulted and murdered six women and stole the belongings of one of them. Since the applicant had committed the crimes in the state of insanity, the court relieved him of criminal responsibility and ordered his compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision. The applicant appealed. 50. On 25 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 11 September 2008.