TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): Mais vu le développement dans la réplique de la partie recurrente, je me borne à souligner le fait que le grief invoqué par Monsieur Marièche a été rejeté comme irrecevable et que les autres événements qui ont marqué la transition en Roumanie d'un régime communiste à un régime démocratique forment l'objet ou ont formé l'objet d'autres affaires devant votre honorable cour.
GR2 (Government): En revenant aux éléments factuels et juridiques de l'affaire que vous examinez aujourd'hui et en essayant de répondre aux questions posées par les membres de la grande chambre, je regrette si la manière dont on a formulé les observations écrites n'a pas été totalement claire en ce qui concerne les questions de la réduction de l'affaire, en ce qui concerne le délai de prescription des faits invoqués par Monsieur Stojka, faits dont il a subi les conséquences.
GR2 (Government): Il s'agit en effet de deux délais distincts de prescription.
GR2 (Government): C'est le délai de juin 1985 pour l'infraction de comportement abusif, l'autre délai de prescription de 16 juin 1998 visant l'infraction de vol avec violence et la tentative d'homicide, infraction dont Monsieur Stojka a soutenu la victime.
GR2 (Government): Il est vrai que le procureur a accepté de verser au dossier de l'enquête la plainte de Monsieur Stojka de 2001 Le but fondamental de cette démarche était bien évidemment de vérifier la qualification juridique avancée par la partie ou donner une qualification juridique aux faits reprochés par l'auteur de la plainte.
GR2 (Government): La manière dont Monsieur Stojka a été associé à la procédure pénale visait justement la qualification juridique qui entraîne toute une série de conséquences parmi lesquelles l'intervention de la prescription et le calcul du délai de prescription si la prescription est applicable.
GR2 (Government): Si Monsieur Stojka aurait porté sa plainte devant les autorités judiciaires à une date antérieure au moment où le délai de prescription était déjà échoué, pour les droits faits reprochés aux agents du gouvernement et aux autres personnes pendant les événements du juin 1990, il lui aurait été loisible d'avoir une plus grande participation dans l'enquête.
GR2 (Government): Il lui aurait été loisible de vérifier à un stade plus précoce de la procédure et non devant la grande chambre l'intervention des causes de suspension ou d'interruption du délai de prescription.
GR2 (Government): Il lui aurait été loisible, après l'épuisement de votre recours interne, de reprocher le caractère inefficace de la procédure et entendu le fait qu'il y aurait été parti.
GR2 (Government): Mais, comme déjà souligné dans mon intervention, Monsieur Stojka vient devant vous en tirant profit des démarches que d'autres parties lésées et d'autres parties civiles ont accomplies dans le dossier.
GR2 (Government): En ce qui concerne le déroulement de l'enquête, j'ai déjà précisé dans l'intervention que l'enquête a été close pour les infractions de génocide et traitements animaux, vu le fait que le parquet n'a pas identifié les éléments constitutifs de ces deux infractions.
GR2 (Government): En effet, pour ce qui est de l'infraction de génocide, le parquet constata que les éléments de l'infraction ne sont pas réunis en l'espèce dans la mesure par génocide.
GR2 (Government): On entend la commission des actes criminels dans le but de détruire une communauté ou un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux.
GR2 (Government): Or, les manifestants de Bucarest ne pouvaient pas être considérés comme appartenants de tel groupe, du point de vue historique, social, national, racial ou religieux.
GR2 (Government): Pour ce qui est de l'infraction de traitements inhumains, le parquet constata qu'il manquait la situation prémise nécessaire pour l'existence de cette infraction, à savoir un état de guerre, rupture de relations entre les États, incursion d'une bande rivale dans le pays.
GR2 (Government): De plus, le sujet passif est représenté par les malades, blessés, membres de la Croix-Rouge, naufragés, prisonniers de guerre ou d'autres personnes tombées dans les mains de l'adversaire.
GR2 (Government): Pour une partie de l'enquête qui vise le décès de M. Mokane et d'autres individus, l'enquête est toujours pendante.
GR2 (Government): Le gouvernement a déjà accepté la conclusion de la Chambre sur la durée de la procédure pénale.
GR2 (Government): Toutefois, on considère qu'une conclusion sur une durée excessive de la procédure pénale ne peut pas conduire à une qualification de climat de quasi-infinité.
GR2 (Government): En ce qui concerne la demande de pratique des instances internes, oui, c'est vrai, le gouvernement s'est réservé ce droit dans les observations écrites.
GR2 (Government): Malheureusement, on admet qu'on aurait dû informer la Grande Chambre. Malheureusement, les instances internes n'ont pas identifié de pratique sur les deux articles.
GR2 (Government): J'espère que mon intervention a répondu aux questions posées par les membres de la Grande Chambre. Je vous remercie de votre attention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, madame.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je remercie les comparons qui ont assisté à la...
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): qui ont assisté la Cour par leurs interventions et leurs réponses à ces questions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of Khamtokhu and Aksenchik versus Russia.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The first application was lodged by Mr. Aslan Khamtokhu on 22 October 2008 under Article 34 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The second application was lodged by Mr. Ertyom Aksenchik on 11 February 2011.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): They are Russian nationals who were born in 1917 and 1985, respectively.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applications were allocated to the first section of the court pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 27 September 2011, a chamber of the first section decided to join the proceedings in the two applications, declared the case partly admissible, and communicated the complaint about the alleged discrimination in the sentencing procedures to the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 13 May 2014, the court declared the case admissible.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 1 December 2015, the chamber decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favor of the Grand Chamber.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 7 March 2016, the president of the Grand Chamber granted leave to equal rights trusts to submit written comments as a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 1.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The court decided to grant the right to a third party by virtue of Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The respondent government are represented by Mr. Georgy Matyushkin, the representative of the Russian Federation of the European Court of Human Rights, assisted by Mrs. Olga Ocheretyanaya, advisor.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Counsel Mrs. Anna Maralyan, Mrs. Nadezhda Yermolayeva, and Mrs. Eleonora Davidyan, who are assisted by Mrs. Karina Moskalenko, advisor.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome groups of judges and lawyers from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Russia and Ukraine, and the judge from Germany who are on a study visit to the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mrs. Matyushkin for the applicants will speak first, followed by Mrs. Yermolayeva and Mrs. Davidyan, and then Mr. Matyushkin for the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Bosnian and Russian has been authorized for the benefit of visiting groups.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call now Mrs. Maralyan.
AP1 (Applicant): this case involves two Russian nationals, Mr. Aslan Hamtarov and Mr. Arsen Aksyanchuk,
AP1 (Applicant): who are serving life sentences imposed in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
AP1 (Applicant): This law permits such sentences to be imposed only on men and only between the ages of 18 to 65.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants complain that their sentence to life imprisonment contradicts the requirements of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as they, being male convicts of 30 and 26 years of age at the moment of conviction, fell within the category of the persons who could be sentenced to life imprisonment according to the Russian legislation.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants claim that there is no objective and reasonable justification for treating them differently from the categories of convicts for whom life imprisonment is not permitted under the national law.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, treating them differently based on their gender and age is discriminatory and violates the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President, within the time provided to the applicants,
AP1 (Applicant): I would first demonstrate that the applicants' claim fall within the ambit of Article 5 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): And for that reason, Article 14 requires that the difference in treatment have objective and reasonable justification.
AP1 (Applicant): In addition, I will address the issue of marginal appreciation.
AP1 (Applicant): Next, Mr. Malayeva will demonstrate
AP1 (Applicant): the lack of justification for the difference in treatment of men aged 18 to 65 and women, as well as men over 65.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. Malayeva will also discuss the principle
AP1 (Applicant): of individualization of punishment.
AP1 (Applicant): Finally, Mr. Vidyan will bring to the court's attention
AP1 (Applicant): certain specific features of life imprisonment regime in the Russian Federation that have to be taken into account in resolving the issues presented in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): As an initial matter, the applicants strongly object to the government's characterization of what the applicants seek in the case.
AP1 (Applicant): We reiterate that they do not ask the authorities for the imposition of stricter punishment on anyone.
AP1 (Applicant): Rather, since the government has commendedly already extended humane treatment to women, children, and men over 65 years of age, the applicants simply seek the same humane treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): Further, it is utterly irrelevant to assert, as the government does, that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of a violation of the convention, as no separate issue rises under Article 5.1A of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants do not claim violation of Article 5 of the convention, but rather violation of their rights under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5 of the convention, as they are excluded solely on the basis of their gender and age from the humane treatment of categories of convicts who are protected from the most severe type of punishment in the Russian Federation, life imprisonment.
AP1 (Applicant): We rely on the court's well-established case law, according to which the application of Article 14 of the convention does not presuppose the violation of one of the substantive rights protected by the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): What is necessary and also sufficient is that the facts of the case fall within the ambit of one or more of the articles of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In the case at hand, we claim that the facts of the present case fall within the ambit of Article 5 of the convention, as the court has long recognized that the right to liberty under Article 5 of the convention contemplates the physical liberty of the person.
AP1 (Applicant): The case of Clift versus United Kingdom provides one example that is of particular relevance to the present case, because the court sustained a claim that discrimination as to the length of sentence in a penal institution amounts to violation of Article 5 taken together with Article 14.
AP1 (Applicant): Equally irrelevant is the government's reference to the case law on Article 3 regarding the life imprisonment, because the applicants did not raise a claim of violation of Article 3 of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): now I would like to turn to the question whether there has been a violation of Article 14 of the convention taken in conjunction with Article 5.
AP1 (Applicant): Article 14 of the convention guarantees enjoyment of rights and freedoms set forth in the convention without discrimination.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicants contend that imposition of life imprisonment only on male convicts aged 18 to 65 is discriminatory on the grounds of age and sex.
AP1 (Applicant): In other words, under the provisions of Article 57 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the applicants, due to their gender and age, were treated less favorably than persons who were convicted of similar and comparable crimes, but were of a different gender and of a different age.
AP1 (Applicant): And this constitutes discriminatory difference of treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): The court has ruled in a number of cases that discrimination means treating differently persons in relevantly similar situation without an objective and reasonable justification.
AP1 (Applicant): In the present case, the government had the burden to demonstrate reasons that could justify the difference in the sentences policies under Article 57 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
AP1 (Applicant): Whether they discharge this burden will be addressed in detail by Ms. Irma Leiva.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, and most importantly, the court has established through its case law that the notion of discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the convention includes cases where a person or group is treated without proper justification, less favorably than another, even though the more favorable treatment is not called for by the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): In this regard, we refer to the case of Kavkaris versus Cyprus.
AP1 (Applicant): In the instant case, the criminal legislation of the respondent state voluntarily prohibits application of life imprisonment in regards of women, children, and men over 65.
AP1 (Applicant): The non-discrimination principle dictates that the category to which the applicants belong, male between 18 to 65, are entitled to the same treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): The last issue that I would like to turn to is the applicability of the marginal appreciation as insisted by the government.
AP1 (Applicant): As the court ruled in a number of cases, including Glore versus Switzerland and Kuytyn versus Russia, the scope of the marginal appreciation of the member state varies according to the circumstances, the subject matter, and its background.
AP1 (Applicant): And hence, the final decision as to the observance of the court's requirements rests with the court.
AP1 (Applicant): Further, this court held in the case of Rangelov versus Germany that while examining questions of detention, the court should exercise close scrutiny.
AP1 (Applicant): To assess whether the Russian Federation should enjoy certain marginal appreciation in regard of the issue at stake, we would like to bring to the court's attention the statistics of the Council of Europe member states.
AP1 (Applicant): Only three Council of Europe countries, namely Albania, Azerbaijan, and Russia treat differently men and women in regard to life imprisonment.
AP1 (Applicant): As to the difference in treatment between the male convicts aged 18 to 65 and those over 65, only Russia makes the differentiation.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to invite Mr. Malayev
AP1 (Applicant): to present our position regarding the adequacy of the Russian government's justifications for the difference in treatment of different categories of convicts in respect of the imposition of life imprisonment.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Please, Mrs. Yermolayeva.
AP3 (Applicant): Mr. President, Honorable Charges,
AP3 (Applicant): as my colleague Ms. Anna Mavralyan indicated,
AP3 (Applicant): I will discuss the issues of lack of justification of the difference in treatment between the applicant and the other categories of convicts in relation to their gender and age under Article 57 of the Russian Criminal Code.
AP3 (Applicant): We believe that proper consideration of the case requires that each justification offered by the government be scrutinized in relation to each category of convicts separately.
AP3 (Applicant): As the Court held in the case of Abdulaziz Kabalis and Valkandali, very weighty reasons would have to be advanced before a difference of treatment on the ground of gender could be regarded as compatible with the Convention.
AP3 (Applicant): In the present case, the government failed to demonstrate such weighty reasons, and hence, the difference in sentencing policies applicable to men and women amounts to gender prejudice, and it is nothing but the product of outdated and traditionalist view on the social role of women.
AP3 (Applicant): This Court attaches much weight to the consensus among the Council of Europe member states regarding an issue at hand.
AP3 (Applicant): The national laws of 44 out of 47 contracting states do not differentiate between male and female convicts regarding the imposition of life sentence.
AP3 (Applicant): As mentioned, the three exceptions are Albania, Azerbaijan, and Russia.
AP3 (Applicant): Thus, the approach taken in Article 57 of the Russian Criminal Code is not consistent with affirmed European consensus and has little support among the Council of Europe member states.
AP3 (Applicant): It is worth noting that outside Council of Europe, only two states have total ban of life imprisonment for female convicts while providing this term of impunishment for male.
AP3 (Applicant): It is Belarus and Uzbekistan.
AP3 (Applicant): In justifying the difference in treatment between male and female convicts, the government dwells to the woman's supposed special social role in comparison with that of man.
AP3 (Applicant): As reflected in the Court's case law, such prejudice and stereotypes about men's and women's roles in recreation maintenance of families are not sufficient justification for different treatment of men in comparison with women.
AP3 (Applicant): In the grand chamber judgment in the case of Constantine Markin, the court has recognized the gradual but clear evolution of society towards more equal sharing between men and women of responsibilities for upbringing of their children.
AP3 (Applicant): This approach was also enshrined at the international level in Article 5 of CEDAW.
AP3 (Applicant): And the committee recently expressed its serious concern about situation when the stereotypical perception is articulated and promoted by the state authorities.
AP3 (Applicant): The credibility of the government's position based on perception of social role of women is further undermined by lack of plausible explanation of the balance between the prospective goal of the difference in treatment and means employed.
AP3 (Applicant): In particular, we do not see any possible way that a woman's reproductive function is supported and protected by banning life imprisonment and permitting imprisonment for 30 years on a woman aged 18.
AP3 (Applicant): It is certainly a great psychological difference for those two terms of imprisonment for a person of any gender.
AP3 (Applicant): But it cannot make much difference for a woman's reproductive function if she spends all her childbearing years in prison.
AP3 (Applicant): The government also asserts that women are more psychologically vulnerable than men to the hardships of detention.
AP3 (Applicant): In the absence of any scientific basis for this generalization, it is nothing but another gender stereotype.
AP3 (Applicant): It is not disputed that imprisonment itself is an ordeal.
AP3 (Applicant): But it is an ordeal for any person, regardless sex.
AP3 (Applicant): Both genders include individuals of different degrees of vulnerability.
AP3 (Applicant): And in particular vulnerable position are the inmates sentenced to life imprisonment.
AP3 (Applicant): And my colleague, Ms. Eleonora Davidian,
AP3 (Applicant): will illustrate this.
AP3 (Applicant): Further, the government cites Article 6.5 of ICCPR.
AP3 (Applicant): But in fact, this provision, which prohibits imposition of death penalty upon pregnant women, supports the applicant's case.
AP3 (Applicant): The focus of these concerns is primarily the future child and then psychological peculiarities of a woman and her situation.
AP3 (Applicant): In contrast, Article 57 exempts all women from life imprisonment, whatever their personal circumstances are.
AP3 (Applicant): The psychological peculiarities of pregnant women and above-mentioned concerns might be the matter of individualization of criminal punishment, rather than legislative generalization of sentencing policies.
AP3 (Applicant): In sum, neither the social role, reproductive functions, nor any special qualities of women as a group can be regarded as justifiable grounds for providing more favorable treatment of all female convicts, but denying the same treatment for males.
AP3 (Applicant): We submit that the court's concerns, which motivated its findings in the case of Stek and others, are also not applicable to the case.
AP3 (Applicant): Further, we claim that difference in treatment based on age may give rise to discrimination, as in the case of Schwitzgebell.
AP3 (Applicant): Here, we distinguish between minors and senior convicts.
AP3 (Applicant): As to minor convicts, we acknowledge and accept international standards of criminal proceedings, which prohibit life imprisonment for them.
AP3 (Applicant): Out of the considerations of humane attitude, we by no means call upon the government to impose life sentences on minor convicts, but we do insist that government applies similar humane approach to everyone.
AP3 (Applicant): Whereas the difference in treatment in comparison with senior convicts is not supported by any scientific studies and research.
AP3 (Applicant): The government's reference to the alleged diminished responsibility of all persons aged 65 is scientifically null.
AP3 (Applicant): Moreover, if all persons over 65 are considered as irresponsible and unable to foresee duly the consequences of their conduct, the fact that persons over 65 are eligible under Russian law for certain important public offices, such as that of judge of the Constitutional Court of Russia, who can hold their office till 75, also undermines the government's generalization.
AP3 (Applicant): In addition, we refer to the official statistics of World Health Organization, which shows that the average life expectancy in Russia is equal to 65 years for male and 73 years for female.
AP3 (Applicant): Indeed, poor conditions of penitentiary institutions in Russia definitely reduce life expectancy of the inmates.
AP3 (Applicant): Hence, even if the life imprisonment is imposed on a man, for instance, aged 40, he has illusory chances for early release on parole after serving 25 years.
AP3 (Applicant): Whereas imposition of any term of imprisonment for a particular serious offenses, which is eight years at minimum, and serving this term in specific prison condition, will make the chances of release for the senior person illusory even in theory.
AP3 (Applicant): Thus, we claim that setting the age limit at 65 is arbitrary and does not reflect the social realities of Russia.
AP3 (Applicant): We also refer to the worldwide and European consensus on the matter.
AP3 (Applicant): Russia remains the only country among the members of the Council of Europe which has legislative ban on the imposing of life sentence on seniors.
AP3 (Applicant): Similar provisions can be found only in two criminal legislation worldwide.
AP3 (Applicant): And again, it's Belarus and Uzbekistan.
AP3 (Applicant): As to persons over 65, the age may in certain cases be considered as a mitigating circumstance, depending on the individual circumstances of the case.
AP3 (Applicant): A convict's age may be also considered as a ground for remission from punishment.
AP3 (Applicant): Thus, the goal of individualization of criminal punishment should be achieved by judicial sentencing discretion, rather than legislative generalization.
AP3 (Applicant): We conclude that the applicants do face unjustified difference in treatment as compared with a man over 65.