CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE KOVLER

I voted without hesitation for finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the detention facility no. IZ-77/3 known as “Krasnay a Pre snya” and of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.

My doubt concerned the violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of a public hearing. Even though I support in general the position expressed by the Court in its judgment, I regret that the Court did not take into account the possibility of a hearing in camera on the ground that, in view of the applicant ’ s professional status (see paragraph 10), he could have, in public hearings, disclosed classified information concerning methods of investigative activities against organised crime, as the prosecutor pointed out (see paragraph 22). However, I find rather strange another of the prosecutor ’ s grounds for an in camera hearing, namely that the mass media had already misrepresented the facts in the case.

Unlike in the case of Volkov v. Russia ( no. 64056/00, 4 December 2007 ) where the Court did not find a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (the widow of one of the applicant ’ s purported victims had requested in camera proceedings before the Omsk Regional Court because she feared the defendant ’ s friends and their threats), the Moscow City Court did not enlarge upon the problem of “guarantee[ing] the security of the victims, witnesses and other parties to the proceedings” (see paragraph 22). Thus the necessity of in camera hearings in the present case remains unclear for me. In my humble opinion, the respondent Government could have clarified this point in their response to the Court ’ s question “Was the exclusion of the public in the present case ‘ strictly necessary ’ for one of the purposes within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?”.