FIRST SECTION

Application no. 2776/06 Georgiy Borisovich GURIN against Russia lodged on 28 December 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Georgiy Borisovich Gurin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in Moscow .

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

On 22 November 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.

On 15 June 2005 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenc ed him to seven years and six months ’ imprisonment. The District Court based the conviction on statements made by the applicant ’ s former wife, Ms D., during the pre-trial investigation when she had acknowledged that the applicant had killed the victim when the three of them had been drinking alcohol in the applicant ’ s flat and that she had witnessed the applicant having dismembered the victim ’ s body and packed the parts in bags before he had thrown them away. The trial court read out Ms D. ’ s pre-trial statements despite the applicant ’ s and his lawyer ’ s objections to that effect, having excused Ms D. from appearing in open court. In addition, the District Court heard the victim ’ s mother who had testified to her son ’ s disappearance in December 2002 and a police officer who had participated in the search for the victim and had taken part in the applicant ’ s arrest, as well as his first interview in which the applicant had accused his former wife of murder. The trial court also studied material evidence, including reports recording the discovery of the parts of the body and their examination, the autopsy report, and the victim ’ s identification record. It read out statements given by the applicant in his first interview in which he had accused his former wife of having murdered the victim after the latter had sexually assaulted her. The applicant refused to testify in open court and insisted on the truthfulness of his pre ‑ trial statements.

On 10 August 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 15 June 2005, having dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint about his inability to confront Ms D. in open court. The City Court noted that the trial court had taken every possible step to ensure Ms D. ’ s attendance. However, her whereabouts had been unknown and the trial court had had no choice but to proceed with the reading out of her pre-trial statements.

According to the applicant, in 2007 he was diagnosed with tuberculosis following his detention with an inmate suffering from the active form of the disease. At the same time, the applicant did not dispute that he received and continues to receive necessary treatment in detention.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings had been excessively long, that he had not been duly informed of the appeal hearing on 10 August 2005 and that he had been unable to confront the sole direct witness against him, his former wife, at any stage of the proceedings.

2. In a letter sent to the Court in 2007 the applicant also complained about his having been infected with tuberculosis.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

In the proceedings leading up to the applicant ’ s conviction, was he afforded an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against him, in particular his former wife, Ms D? If not, did this fact give rise to a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Rachdad v. France , no. 71846/01, 13 November 2003) ?