Publication of allegedly false arrest warrant by a newspaper and subsequent violation of fair trial rights by authorities of the Russian Federation

Facts

The author, a national of the Russian Federation, claims that in 2002, a district wide newspaper published an arrest warrant issued against the author by the district police along with the author’s personal information and photograph. The author was placed in pre-trial detention and the author claims that he was not assisted by a legal counsel during his hearing and due to his lack of legal knowledge, he claims to not have complained about the lack of a counsel until his criminal case was heard in the Regional Court.

The author requested the district police to initiate criminal proceedings for calumny against the editor-in-chief of the newspaper which published the arrest warrant. The district police rejected this request, and this was challenged by the author before the Public Prosecutor’s Office which rejected the request. This was also upheld by the District Court stating that two decisions on refusal to initiate criminal proceedings had already been adopted. The author’s supervisory review appeal was also rejected by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. Subsequently, the author’s pre-trial detention was extended, and this was done in the absence of the author or his counsel. The author appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to which he received no response. The author also claims that the testimony of a witness supporting his claim was not reflected in the indictment.

The Regional Court convicted the author to life imprisonment and on a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the author’s sentence was modified to 25 years of imprisonment, and the author’s claims regarding violation of his fair trial rights were not addressed. The author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that the application was inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In order to exhaust domestic remedies, the author appealed to the Presidium of the Supreme Court which refused to examine the author’s appeals due to procedural errors. On rectification of errors, the author filed a supervisory review appeal to the Presidium which was also rejected. The author submitted four appeals to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court, but the Court refused to examine the appeals. The author submitted another appeal to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court which refused to examine the appeal on the basis that it had already been examined and a final decision had been made. The author again approached the European Court of Human Rights from which he received no response. Hence the author claims a violation of his fair trial rights under article 14 (2) and (3) (a), (b), (d), and (e) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

With respect to the author’s claims regarding his right to the presumption of innocence with respect to the publishing of his arrest warrant in the newspaper, the Committee concluded that the material before it did not allow it to establish whether and to what extent the publication affected the trial and the outcome against the author. For this, the Committee observed that the author had not sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 14 (2).

With respect to the author’s claims under articles 14 (3) (a), (b), (d), and (e) about the lack of a legal counsel to assist him during the hearing on the extension of his pre-trial detention, the Committee noted that the author did not contests the State party’s claims that the author did not exhaust all available domestic remedies and that the judgement had provided clear information about the available legal remedies. The Committee concluded that it is precluded from considering these claims of the author. With respect to exhaustion of all available domestic remedies by the author, the Committee noted that the author provides no information about submitting an appeal and that the author was not clear about his presence during the hearing.

Additionally, the Committee noted that the author had been convicted for several offences, whereas the interrogation of the witness, whom the author claims he did not get to present, was only with respect to a few elements of one of the offences. The Committee noted that even if this were to fall short of the requirement under article 14 (3) (e), the author had failed to substantiate his claims that the interrogation of the witness was absolutely necessary given the seriousness of the offences and there was a failure to substantiate his claim. For these reasons, the Committee decided that the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) of the Optional Protocol.