Communicated on 27 June 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 36198/16 Eduard Viktorovich PEREKRESTOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE S

The applications concern the applicants ’ continued detention on remand allegedly in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and their confinement in metal cages in courtrooms during the criminal proceedings against them allegedly in breach of Articles 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. Applications nos. 40617/16 and 42050/16 further raise an issue of availability to the applicants of effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Articles 3 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Have the applicants been subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of their confinement in metal cages in the courtrooms during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court and the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , ( nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08 , §§ 113 ‑ 39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia , nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017 )?

The Government are invited to provide a detailed description and photographs of the metal cages used to confine the applicants.

2. Did the applicants ’ confinement in metal cages in the courtrooms during the proceedings before the Taganrog Town Court and the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don entail a failure to respect the fair hearing guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention ? In particular, were the applicants afforded an opportunity to enjoy effective legal assistance in the courtroom, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Were the applicants able to have confidential exchanges with their lawyers, both oral and written, during the hearings (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05 , §§ 642-48, 25 July 2013; Urazov v. Russia , no. 42147/05 , § § 85-90, 14 June 2016; and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 147, 4 October 2016 ) ?

3. Was the applicants ’ detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and was it compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Zherebin v. Russia , no. 51445/09 , §§ 45-63, 24 March 2016)?

The parties are invited to provide copies of all relevant documents.

CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

Applications nos. 40617/16 and 42050/16

1. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention regarding their confinement in metal cages, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev [GC], cited above, § 87, and Yaroslav Belousov , cited above, § 113 ) ?

2. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention regarding their confinement in metal cages, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov , cited above, § 141)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

36198/16

08/06/2016

Eduard Viktorovich PEREKRESTOV

23/07/1968

Taganrog

Aleksandr Vladimirovich KIRYANOV

40617/16

23/06/2016

Artem Aleksandrovich KORYUNOV

11/01/1990

Taganrog

42050/16

12/07/2016

Roman Nikolayevich MAKAROV

11/04/1973

Taganrog