Communicated on 10 April 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 56304/07 Elvira Vitalyevna KHARITONOVA against Russia lodged on 10 November 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Elvira Vitalyevna Kharitonova , is a Russian national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Moscow. The applicant is the mother of Mr Ye vgeniy Vladimirovich Kharitonov .

The circumstances of the case

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

Criminal proceedings against the applicant ’ s son

On 3 July 2001 Ms K., a civil partner of the applicant ’ s son, died of massive blood loss caused by a stab wound. On the same day Mr Kharitonov was arrested. His release was authori s ed on 25 September 2012 against a written undertaking not to leave town.

On 11 March 2003 the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow acquitted Mr Kharitonov . That judgment was quashed, upon a prosecutor ’ s appeal, on 17 April 2003 by the Moscow City Court on account of, inter alia , procedural violations. The case was sent for a new examination.

On 9 March 2004 Mr Kharitonov died.

The criminal case against the applicant ’ s son was closed for this reason by the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow on 7 June 2004.

A supervisory appeal, lodged by the deputy prosecutor of Moscow, resulted in the annulment of the judgment of 7 June 2004. On 1 February 2007 the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow, having re-examined the case, found the criminal charges against Mr Kharitonov to have been proven and qualified the crime as murder pursuant to Article 105 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code. The court found, insofar as relevant, as follows:

“... Mr Kharitonov committed murder, that is a willful killing of another person, in the following circumstances ...

Mr Kharitonov ’ s guilt in committing the crime is proved by the entire set of evidence examined by the court ...

Having assessed the evidence, the court arrives at the conclusion that on 3 July 2001, in the kitchen of his flat, Mr Kharitonov , had stabbed [ Ms K.] in the stomach with a knife, and had wounded her and that [ Ms K.] had died of the wound, despite the fact that she had been provided with medical assistance ...

In view of the foregoing, the court finds that Mr Kharitonov ’ s involvement in the murder of [ Ms K.] ... has been proven; his actions should therefore be characterised under Article 105 § 1 of the

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. as murder.

The court holds that the institution of the criminal proceedings and the prosecution of Mr Kharitonov as an accused in the case under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has been justified.

As follows from the case file materials Mr Kharitonov died on 9 March 2004.

Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Section 1 of Article 24 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation a criminal case should be terminated in view of the death of a suspect or an accused, except when the proceedings in the case are necessary for the rehabilitation of the late suspect or accused. There are no grounds for the rehabilitation of late Mr Kharitonov .

On the basis of the aforesaid ... the court decided to terminate the criminal case against [ Mr Kharitonov ], who had committed the crime under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, in view of his death, and the court [finds no reason] for his rehabilitation.”

By the final judgment on 14 May 2007 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the judgment of 1 February 2007, having fully endorsed the District Court ’ s reasoning.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained, among other matters, under Article 6 of the Convention that her son had been found guilty of a crime in violation of the presumption of innocence principle.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Taking into account the findings of the Russian courts expressed in the judgments of 1 February and 14 May 2007 pertaining to late Mr Kharitonov ’ alleged involvement in the murder , did he have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected and was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, complied with in the present case?