Communicated on 19 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 24215/18 Rustem Firkatovich SALIMZYANOV against Russia lodged on 12 April 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Rustem Firkatovich Salimzyanov , is a Russian national , who was born in 1970 and lives in Cheboksary. He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Kondratyeva , a lawyer practising in Kanash , Chuvashiya Republic.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date the applicant was indicted for incitement to gender and religion based hatred and hostility for having published a draft constitution of the Islamic State (Caliphate) in an account on the Facebook social network on 7 April 2015.

On 12 April 2017 the investigator in charge of the applicant ’ s case commissioned a forensic psycholinguistic analysis of the applicant ’ s publication to assess its content. The investigator ’ s decision was communicated to the applicant ’ s counsel on 18 April 2017. The counsel ’ s subsequent requests challenging the appointed experts, suggestions as to the composition of the experts ’ board and additional questions for the forensic analysis were to no avail.

On 3 October 2017 the Kanash District Court of the Chuvashiya Republic found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years ’ imprisonment. The applicant maintained his innocence and refused to testify. The court relied on the witnesses ’ statements, books and other materials seized at the applicant ’ s place of residence and the forensic psycholinguistic analysis which construed the applicant ’ s publication as inciting hostility and hatred to non-Muslims and women. The court dismissed the defence counsel ’ s requests to question the forensic experts. The applicant appealed.

On 12 December 2017 the Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic upheld the applicant ’ s conviction, in substance, on appeal.

On 22 February 2019 the Kalininskiy District Court of Cheboksary of the Chuvashiya Republic released the applicant from serving the prison sentence noting that, pursuant to the amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as of 27 December 2018, the acts committed by the applicant no longer constituted a criminal offence.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was unable to confront the expert witnesses who had prepared the forensic psycholinguistic analysis of his publication.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, as regards the trial court ’ s refusal to question the forensic experts on whose report the courts relied when finding the applicant guilty, coupled with the lack of opportunity for the applicant to put questions to the experts, to challenge their appointment or to propose his own experts for inclusion in the team, was there a disbalance between the defence and the prosecution in the area of collecting and adducing expert evidence (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §§ 724-35, 25 July 2013, and Pichugin v. Russia [Committee], no. 38958/07, §§ 31-38, 6 June 2017)?