Ill-founded fabrication of criminal case and violation of fair trial rights in the Russian Federation

Facts

The author is a Russian national of Azeri ethnicity currently serving a prison sentence in the Russian Federation. In 2011, a City Court found the author guilty of extortion committed by a group and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment. In a cassation appeal, the author maintained his innocence and claimed that evidence against him had been fabricated and claimed violation of his fair trial rights. The cassation appeal was rejected, while acknowledging a claim of the author that two witnesses were unable to make an appearance. The author lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court which was also rejected. The author further appealed the decision to the Judicial Board in Criminal Matters of the Supreme Court which reduced his sentence by one year. The author filed an appeal for insufficient reduction of his sentence before the Chair of the Supreme Court which was declared inadmissible.

The author claims that initially he was charged with nine crimes, and convicted for one for which he claimed civil compensation, to which the City Court granted compensation, which the author claims he never received. The author claims bias by the court in favor of the prosecution and reliance on the testimony of the victims and non-opportunity for cross-examination. For these reasons the author claims a violation of his fair trial rights under articles 14 (1), (3) (a), (b), (e), and (f), (5) and (6) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

On the author’s claim that the criminal case against him was fabricated, the Committee referred to its General Comment No. 32 and emphasized that article 14 (1) only guarantees procedural equality and fairness and it cannot be equated to ensuring the absence of error on part of the competent tribunal. The Committee held that the present communication did not show that the domestic court proceedings had suffered from any such defects as they had duly examined the author’s complaints about the alleged fabrication of the case.

The Committee referred to its previous decision in S.P. v. Russian Federation to hold that the author’s supervisory review appeals cannot be considered as effective remedies and that the author had failed to exhaust all domestic remedies by not raising these claims in previous instances. Furthermore, the committee was of the view that the author failed to provide how the crossexamination of the witnesses was relevant and how they would have impacted the proceedings and failed to substantiate the same. With respect to not receiving compensation as ordered by the City Court, the Committee held that it did not provide any evidence nor any explanation regarding the same and did not even lodge a complaint with the domestic authorities. For all these reasons, the Committee decided the present communication as inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.