Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Application no. 6357/06 Andrey Borisovich KARAVAYEV against Russia lodged on 23 December 2005

The applicant, Mr Andrey Borisovich Karavayev , is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Kamensk-Uralskiy .

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

On 5 January 2005 criminal proceedings were brought in connection of drug-trafficking. On the same date, in the context of those proceedings, the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of him being involved in that offence. According to the applicant, at the moment of his arrest he voluntarily gave out the drugs which he had on him.

On the same date the applicant was provided with a lawyer, who, according to the applicant, did not have the authority to take part in investigative actions.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

It is unclear whether the judgment of 27 April 2006 was appealed against.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about ill-treatment during the preliminary investigation. He further complains under Article 5 � 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention from 22 to 25 July 2005 was not based on a court order, and therefore was unlawful. He also submits that the decision of 25 July 2005 by which his pre-trial detention was prolonged was taken in the absence of his lawyer and himself. The applicant complains that the trial court�s refusal to call and examine the investigator in charge at his request breached his rights secured by Article 6 � 3 (d) of the Convention. Lastly, the applicant relies on Article 13 of the Convention stating that the fact that for some time he was not furnished with a duly certified copy of the decision of 25 July 2005 prevented him from applying for a supervisory review of that decision. This deprived him of effective domestic remedies.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant�s detention on remand compatible with the requirements of Article 5 � 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Did the applicant�s detention from 22 to 25 July 2005 have any basis in national law, and was it in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ��146-51, ECHR 2005-X)?