Communicated on 12 June 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 43149/10 Andrey Vasilyevich SMIRNOV against Russia lodged on 17 July 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrey Vasilyevich Smirnov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1992 and lived in Tver prior to his arrest. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Stepanov , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

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

In the night of 6 May 2009 the applicant and his schoolmate, while in a state of intoxication, severely beat up another schoolmate and left him to die. However, the victim was promptly found and the doctors were able to save his life.

The applicant and his accomplice were apprehended on 7 May 2009 and confessed to beating the boy. They retracted their confessions the following day.

The applicant was initially released under the supervision of his parents but on 16 November 2009 the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver ordered his placement in custody, citing the gravity of the charges and the fact that he had confessed and later retracted his confession. The District Court interpreted the latter element as an indication of his potential to obstruct the justice. On 11 December 2009 the Tver Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding in particular:

“[That the defendant] has a permanent place of residence, lives with his family, studies in high school and does not have criminal record is not an unconditional ground for rejecting the investigator ’ s application [for a detention order] in the light of the extreme gravity of the charges.”

On 12 January and 3 February 2010 the Zavolzhskiy District Court granted further extensions of the authorised detention period, referring essentially to the same grounds. The applicant enclosed copies of statements of appeal but did not inform the Court whether or not they were examined and, if so, on which dates and what the outcome was.

By judgment of 25 March 2010, the Tver Regional Court found the applicant and his accomplice guilty of attempted murder and sentenced both of them to five years ’ imprisonment.

Counsel for the applicant and his father submitted statements of appeal, in which they challenged the legal characterisation of his acts and asked for a reduction in the sentence.

On 9 June 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the appeals and upheld the sentence.

COMPLAINTS

Application form of 17 July 2010

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention about unjustified application of the custodial measure.

Addendum to the application form of 11 October 2010

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about a restriction on the number of parental visits (no more than two visits a month) and his physical separation from his parents with a glass partition.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention compatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of (a) the fact that the applicant could receive no more than two visits from his parents a month, and (b) the physical separation of the applicant from his visitors by a glass partition (see Moiseyev v. Russia , no. 62936/00, § § 252-259, 9 October 2008)? How many times did the applicant ’ s parents visit him in pre-trial detention and on what dates? Did they make any requests to visit him which were refused?