CASE OF SHEKHOV 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);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)
Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque
5. The applicant was born in 1959 and is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Chelyabinsk region. 6. On 14 March 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with double murder and attempted murder. 7. During the trial the applicant was represented by State-appointed counsel, Mr A. 8. On 8 October 2003 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, in a trial by jury, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years and eleven months’ imprisonment. 9. The applicant appealed, unassisted by counsel. He submitted, in particular, that he had acted in self-defence and asked for reduction of the sentence from murder to manslaughter. 10. On 8 December 2003 the applicant was notified that the appeal hearing would be held on 23 January 2004. According to the Government, his counsel, Mr A., was also informed by telegram of the date of the appeal hearing. 11. On 23 January 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing. The applicant and the prosecutor were present. Counsel Mr A. did not attend. According to the applicant, he had asked for replacement counsel to be appointed for him. According to the Government, no such request had been made. On the same day the court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to twenty-five years and five months’ imprisonment. 12. In April 2004 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 16/9 in Omsk, where he remained until January 2005. 13. On 8 April 2004 the Court sent the applicant at his request the text of the Convention, an application form together with the explanatory note, an authority form, and the notice to applicants. On 6 May 2004 the letter was received by the Chelyabinsk remand centre where the applicant had been previously held. It was opened, stamped, and then transferred to colony no. 16/9 in Omsk. 14. According to the applicant, on 6 July 2004 a deputy head of the Omsk Department of Execution of Sentences had summoned him and strongly advised him not to submit an application to the Court. Immediately after this conversation he had been put in a disciplinary cell for eight days. According to the Government’s account, it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the official. At the applicant’s request, the official had explained to him the procedure for applying to the Court. He had not made any threats. The applicant had then been put into a disciplinary cell for having sent a letter through informal channels instead of sending it via the detention facility’s administration. 15. On 10 July 2004 the Court’s letter of 8 April 2004 was received by the staff of colony no. 16/9 and was opened and stamped. According to the applicant, he had received the covering letter of 8 April 2004 and the text of the Convention on 15 July 2004. The other enclosures and the envelope had not been given to him. According to the Government, all the enclosures had been handed over to the applicant on 10 July 2004. 16. On 23 June 2004 the applicant sent an improvised application form to the Court. 17. The applicant stated that on 9 August 2004 he had been summoned by the head of correctional colony no. 10 in Omsk, who had issued the threat that if he did not stop complaining, he would regret it. According to the Government, it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the head of the correctional colony. No threats had been made to the applicant during the meeting. 18. On 18 August 2004 the applicant was temporarily transferred to medical correctional facility no. 10 in Omsk for anti-tuberculosis treatment. 19. The applicant stated that on 15 October 2004 he had handed a sealed envelope containing a letter to the Court to the medical correctional facility’s administration. The letter had been opened, stamped and dispatched to the addressee. The Government stated that the applicant had handed the letter to the detention facility staff unsealed. 20. According to the applicant, the detention facility’s administration had refused to dispatch many of his letters to the Court, and he had therefore had to send them through informal channels. The Government stated that all his letters had been dispatched. 21. The applicant complained to various State authorities about the opening of and the failure to dispatch his letters to the Court. In a letter dated 15 May 2006, the prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that there had been no evidence of any failure to dispatch his letters. 22. On 11 October 2007 the medical correctional facility’s administration received another letter from the Court addressed to the applicant acknowledging receipt of his correspondence. That letter was opened, stamped and then given to the applicant. The employee who had opened the letter was subsequently disciplined.