Death penalty appeal and the right to legal counsel

Facts

The author, a Russian citizen, was convicted for abduction and murder, and sentenced to death by the Rostov Regional Court on 16 January 1997. His cassation appeal was reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 22 May 1997, which made minor changes but confirmed the sentence. On 3 June 1999, his death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by a presidential decree. In May 2009, the author submitted a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor General, claiming that his right to defence had been violated during the cassation appeal because his lawyer had not been present, while the prosecutor had. He subsequently lodged several unsuccessful requests for supervisory review between 2009 and 2013, which were rejected on the basis that, under the legislation in force at the time, the presence of a lawyer at the cassation hearing was not mandatory. The author claims that the State party violated his right to legal assistance under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

In a separate decision on admissibility adopted on 14 July 2016, the Committee found the author’s claims under article 2 (1) and article 14 (5) of the Covenant inadmissible under the Optional Protocol due to lack of substantiation. It also determined that the communication did not amount to an abuse of the right of submission. However, the Committee considered the author’s claim under article 14 (3) (d)—regarding the absence of legal counsel during his cassation hearing—sufficiently substantiated for examination on the merits.

Merits

The Committee considered that the author’s cassation hearing, held in a capital case, formed a vital part of the criminal proceedings, as it involved a reassessment of both factual and legal issues. Although the author had legal representation at trial and his lawyer filed the cassation appeal, she was not present at the hearing. The State party argued that domestic law at the time did not require the defence counsel’s presence unless specifically requested and that neither the author nor his lawyer had petitioned for notification of the hearing.

The Committee rejected this justification, emphasizing that in cases involving the death penalty, the right to legal assistance must be ensured at all stages of the proceedings, regardless of domestic procedural rules. It also found that the State party had taken no steps to inform the author of his right to be represented or to facilitate the lawyer’s participation. The absence of legal counsel at such a decisive moment amounted to a serious procedural deficiency. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the author’s rights under article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant had been violated.

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) review the trial court’s verdict in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant and taking into account the Committee’s findings in the present views;
• (b) provide the author with adequate compensation;
• (c) under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 8 January 2025