CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV

I have already expressed my views about the issue of applicability of Article 11 in a situation of violence in a similar “ Bolotnaya case” (see Barabanov v. Russia , nos. 4966/13 and 5550/15, 30 January 2018). I have not changed my views since. However, I voted together with the majority for another reason: the case documents do not convince me that the charges against the applicant were proved in court and that the applicant enjoyed a fair trial during criminal proceedings.

In the present case the applicant was charged by the national authorities in connection with his alleged participation in mass disorder during the March of Millions in May 2012. The criminal proceedings attracted enormous public attention. The case had, from the very outset, been highly politically sensitive at the national level. The applicant and the other co ‑ accused were classified as political prisoners by various opposition movements and the independent mass media.

That being the case, I was utterly disappointed by the poor quality of the verdict (the first-instance judgment). The verdict contained no reference to any material evidence capable of supporting the findings regarding the applicant ’ s guilt. The “witness” statements made by the police officers were vague and failed precisely to identify the applicant ’ s actions and other facts relating to his involvement in the clashes. The only fact of which I am certain is that the applicant was severely beaten by police officers, which fact the national court disregarded.

The present case might serve as an example of a systemic problem, that is to say the poor quality of criminal verdicts. It is not acceptable when the decision in a criminal case merely refers to a version of events without allowing the reader to understand how the court has reached its conclusions. I am convinced that the Supreme Court ’ s instructions regarding the content of verdicts in criminal cases (particularly on how the court should reason its conclusions) need to be implemented more s crupulously (see Resolution no. 1 of 29 April 1996, with further amendments, and Resolution no. 55 of 29 November 2016).