Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2022)50

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Pichugin against Russian Federation

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 March 2022 at the 1428 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies [1] )

Application No.

Case

Judgment of

Final on

38623/03

PICHUGIN

23/10/2012

18/03/2013

38958/07

PICHUGIN

06/06/2017

06/06/2017

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46 paragraph 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Recalling that, in its first judgment concerning the applicant the Court found, inter alia, violations of the right to a fair trial under Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention on account of the lack of a public hearing and the refusal to allow the defence to put questions to a decisive witness, including in relation to his credibility, and that in the second judgment it found violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(d) on account of the refusal to admit expert evidence submitted by the defence and a breach of the presumption of innocence due to the publication of media interviews by officials presenting his involvement in the crimes as an established fact;

Recalling again that the just satisfaction awarded to the applicant by the Court in both cases has been paid and no further measures are required in response to the violations of Article 5 of the Convention;

Recalling further that the judicial reopening of the domestic criminal proceedings did not ensure redress for the applicant, since his convictions were upheld without providing a full analysis of the evidence against him and the safety of the convictions in the light of the findings of the European Court;

Noting that while a further review by the Supreme Court would be highly desirable as a means to provide appropriate redress to the applicant, other forms of redress are also possible;

Reaffirming the unconditional obligation of every respondent State, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by final judgments in cases to which it is a party;

Stressing again that the applicant has been waiting for redress since 2013;

DEPLORES that, despite the Committee’s calls since 2016 to find alternative avenues to secure full redress for the applicant, no such avenues have been found;

EXHORTS again the Russian authorities to find, as a matter of urgency, alternative avenues to secure redress to the applicant, including by considering the adoption of measures to ensure his release, and to inform the Committee of their conclusions by 1 June 2022 at the latest.