Communicated on 8 March 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 41849/10 Irek Minzakiyevich MURTAZIN against Russia lodged on 24 September 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the right to freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. The applicant, an opposition politician and blogger, was found guilty in criminal proceedings ( i ) on the charge of criminal libel for the publication of an unverified rumour about the death of the regional governor, (ii) on the charge of incitement of hatred towards a social group in connection with his book about the same regional governor (the “regional government” was taken to constitute such a social group). He was given a two-year custodial sentence which he served in full.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. The parties are requested to submit an English translation of the relevant parts of the District Court ’ s judgment of 24 November 2009, including in particular (a) the summary of the linguists ’ report of 28 November 2008, pp. 153-56, and (b) the court ’ s findings, pp. 200-207.

2. Did the applicant have a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal, as required by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular,

(a) Was the trial court subjectively and objectively impartial, taking into account that the applicant had had a conflict with the presiding judge ’ s daughter and filed six motions for him to recuse himself?

(b) Did the applicant have an opportunity to put questions to the expert witnesses for the prosecution, Ms Novikova and Ms Yakovleva , as envisaged in subparagraph 3 (d) of Article 6?

3. Did the Russian courts apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? In particular,

(a) Did they take into account the political context of the publications and the wider limits of permissible criticism with regard to politicians and governments?

(b) Did they distinguish between statements of fact and value judgments and identify the parts of the publications falling into each category?

(c) Did they consider whether the applicant ’ s statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could be seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, or could lead to harmful consequences?

(d) Did they set out how the unverified death notice, besides being untrue, was detrimental to the alleged victim ’ s reputation?

(e) Did they consider the proportionality of the criminal sanction and the chilling effect that a custodial sentence would have on the freedom of expression?