CASE OF TUMANOV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom
4. The applicant was born in 1984 and is detained in Saint-Petersburg. 5. On 22 April 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of murder. 6. On 24 April 2004 the Vyborgskiy Federal District Court of Saint-Petersburg authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial. 7. On 7 February 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s pretrial detention. The court referred to the gravity of charges, the applicant’s character, lack of permanent residence in Saint-Petersburg, and risk of absconding or re-offending. 8. On 7 April 2005 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor and extended the applicant’s detention without specifying any reasons. 9. On 15 September 2005, 21 October 2005 and 15 December 2005 when extending pre-trial detention, the District Court reproduced the grounds for detention described above. 10. On 2 March 2006 the Saint-Petersburg City Court quashed the detention order of 15 December 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. 11. On 16 March 2006, 22 March 2006 and 21 June 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention referring to the gravity of charges, absence of permanent residence, his character, possibility of absconding and committing crimes. The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on 21 June 2006. 12. On 30 June 2006 the Vyborgskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg convicted the applicant of murder and theft. 13. On 31 January 2007 the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld his conviction on appeal. As regards the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 21 June 2006, the court noted that the lower court had failed to ensure the applicant’s and his lawyer’s presence at the hearing of 21 June 2006. However, in view of the applicant’s conviction, it discontinued the appeal proceedings finding them unnecessary.