Absence of legal counsel during cassation hearings and denial of fair trial guarantees by Russia

Facts

The authors, S.P., A.P., V.K., and B.N., all Russian nationals, claim that their right to legal assistance during cassation proceedings was violated. Each was convicted of serious crimes, including murder and fraud, and filed cassation appeals, which were heard in their absence and without legal representation, while the prosecution was present. S.P. was convicted of murder in 2006 and sentenced to 24 years in prison. His cassation appeal was heard in 2007 without a lawyer, and his subsequent supervisory review appeal in 2010 was also decided in his absence. A.P. was acquitted in 2006, but had his acquittal overturned on cassation in his absence, leading to a retrial and a life sentence in 2010. His appeal regarding lack of legal counsel was dismissed in 2011. V.K. was convicted of murder in 2006, sentenced to 19 years, and had his cassation appeal denied without a lawyer present. He filed a new cassation appeal in 2016, which was rejected. B.N. was convicted of fraud in 2008, and his cassation appeal was heard in his absence despite requesting legal representation. His supervisory review appeal was dismissed in 2010, and subsequent complaints to the Constitutional Court and prosecutor’s office were rejected.

All authors claim that their right to a fair trial under article 14 (3) (d) was violated. B.N. additionally claims violations of articles 14 (1), (5), and 26, arguing that similar cases were granted cassation reviews with legal assistance, while he was denied the same treatment.

Admissibility

The Committee declared the communications inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, citing abuse of the right of submission due to excessive delays. It noted that the authors submitted their communications between 2016 and 2017, but their cassation proceedings occurred between 2006 and 2008, with supervisory reviews ending between 2010 and 2011. Given that the authors waited between six and eleven years before filing, the Committee found the delay unreasonable, particularly as they failed to provide convincing explanations. While the Committee does not impose strict time limits, it expects a justification for delays beyond five years, which the authors did not adequately provide. The Committee also dismissed claims of legal illiteracy and lack of access to legal resources, noting that some authors filed multiple domestic appeals and had legal representation. Additionally, it found that extraordinary review proceedings (e.g., supervisory appeals) do not reset the timeline for submission.