10:30 05.10.2010 | Все новости раздела "Другая Россия / НБП"
Европейский суд начал коммуникацию по делу нацбола Манулина
Перед Правительством Российской Федерации были поставлены вопросы:
1. Были ли условия содержания в учреждении ИЗ-77/3 ("Матросская тишина") совместимы с положениями ст.3 Европейской Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод?
2. Было ли продление срока содержания под стражей Заявителю обосновано "разумными и достаточными" причинами, как того требует ст.5 ч.3 Конвенции?
Напомним, что 8 декабря 2005 года завершился самый крупный в новейшей российской истории судебный процесс - на скамье подсудимых находились 39 человек, в подавляющем большинстве – студенты, среди них 9 девушек и 7 несовершеннолетних. Одним из осужденных был Кирилл Манулин. Они пробыли за решеткой почти год. 14 декабря 2004 года группа тогда еще не запрещенных национал-большевиков пришла к Общественной приемной при Администрации Президента РФ на прием к тогдашнему советнику Президента по экономическим вопросам Андрею Илларионову (по расписанию в тот день должен был принимать именно он). Прием в тот день не состоялся, а молодые люди и девушки оказались по стражей. Сначала их обвинили в попытке насильственного захвата власти (ст.278 УК РФ, до 20 лет лишения свободы), потом - в участии в массовых беспорядках. Кабинет, в котором оказались закрыты участники акции, имел размеры приблизительно 3х4 метра. Поскольку день был выбран специально – приурочен к восстанию декабристов, пресса стала называть подсудимых "декабристами".
Полный текст письма ЕСПЧ на английском здесь:
23 September 2010
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 26676/06
by Kirill MANULIN
against Russia
lodged on 3 April 2006
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kirill Viktorovich Manulin, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Agranovskiy, a lawyer practising in the Moscow region.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background information
The applicant is a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.
On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the President's administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.
They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President's administration Mr Surkov, and the President's economic advisor Mr Illarionov. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation.
The intruders stayed in the office for one hour and a half until the police broke down the blocked door. They did not offer any other resistance to the authorities.
2. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant's detention.
On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with an attempted violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction and degradation of others' property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).
On 8 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant's detention until 14 April 2005
On 16 February 2005 the applicant's charge was amended to that of participation in mass disorders, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant's detention until 14 July 2005.
On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and thirty-nine persons, including the applicant, were committed for trial.
On 20 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow scheduled the preliminary hearing for 30 June 2005 and held that all the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.
On 30 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants' requests to be released and ordered that they should remain in custody pending trial.
During the hearing of 27 July 2005 the applicant and his co-defendants lodged applications for release. On the same day the Tverskoy District Court rejected the requests, finding that their detention was lawful and justified. On 5 October 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.
On 8 December 2005 the Tverskoy District Court found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of participation in mass disorders. It sentenced the applicant to three years' imprisonment conditional on two years' probation. The applicant was immediately released.
3. Conditions of detention
The applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow.
He was detained in a cell measuring about 28 sq. m together with eight to fifteen inmates.
The light in the cell was never turned off, disturbing the applicant's sleep.
The cell was infested with cockroaches.
It was equipped with a lavatory pan. The pan was separated from the living area by a partition of a metre in height. According to the applicant, the person using the toilet was in view of other inmates.
The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week. Hot water was often unavailable.
The applicant had a daily walk of about an hour. The exercise yard was covered and measured 3 metres by 5 metres.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 about the allegedly inhuman conditions of his detention.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that there were no reasonable grounds to detain him and that the domestic courts did not have due regard of the defence's arguments.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention was too long and the detention orders were not grounded on sufficient reasons.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the conditions of the applicant's detention in detention facility no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant's detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons and was it compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? The parties are requested to produce all detention orders and relevant appeal decisions in respect of the applicant.
Обсудить новость на Форуме