FIRST SECTION

Application no. 26401/06 Vladimir Mikhaylovich BURMISTROV against Russia lodged on 28 April 2006

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Burmistrov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1959 and lived until his arrest in the town of Atkarsk , Saratov Region. He is serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the village of Kamenskiy , Saratov Region.

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

According to the applicant, he was arrested on 2 June 2005 on suspicion of aggravated drug trafficking, but the record of his arrest was only drawn up on the following day. The applicant also submitted that he had been ill-treated and abused during those two first days of his detention.

The applicant ’ s detention was extended on a number of occasions, on the basis of the gravity of the charges against him and his liability to abscond, re-offend and obstruct justice. The most recent detention order which the applicant appealed against was issued on 2 August 2005 when the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov extended his detention until 3 October 2005. On 17 August 2005 the Saratov Regional Court upheld that order, having endorsed the District Court ’ reasoning.

In the course of the pre-trial investigation and trial the applicant was represented by legal aid counsel.

On 28 November 2005 the Engels Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant appealed, having argued that accusations against him were based on false evidence collected by bias investigators who had committed a number of procedural violations and had disregarded his rights of a defendant.

On 9 March 2006 the Saratov Regional Court , in the absence of the applicant and without providing him with assistance by counsel, dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal statement, having found that the Town Court ’ s findings of his guilt were lawful and well-founded. The prosecutor attended the hearing and made submissions.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention that his arrest and pre-trial detention had been unlawful, that he had been a subject of the police brutality following his arrest, that the investigating authorities had treated him poorly, having curtailed his defence rights, in particular his right to have as much time as he had wished to study case file materials, that they had forged evidence in his case, that he had not benefited from effective legal assistance during the pre-trial investigation and trial as he had had appointed legal aid counsel who had not cared for his rights, that the trial court had disregarded his motions and requests, that it had fixed hearings without a proper consideration of his interests and that it had refused to hear a certain defence witness who could have revealed to the court his complicated relations with the prosecution witnesses, that his trial had not been truly public as the public had not attended the hearings, and that the courts had misinterpreted the evidence and incorrectly applied the law.

2. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not been afforded an opportunity to attend the appeal hearing against his conviction and that he had not benefited from legal services on appeal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant able to be present at the appeal hearing against his conviction before the Saratov Regional Court ? If not, were the proceedings before the appeal court in the applicant ’ s case compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

2. Did the interests of justice require that the applicant be provided with free legal representation at the appeal hearings in the criminal proceedings against him (see Benham v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III; Maxwell v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300 ‑ C; and, in particular, Article 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure)? In the affirmative, was the fact that the applicant was not provided with legal aid counsel compatible with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?