TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): Not only did the intensity of the criminal activity go up considerably, but also the character of crimes changed.
GR1 (Government): The statistics for the period from 1988 till 1992, which was submitted to the court in August 2013, shows that the number of individuals dying as a result of crimes rose seven times.
GR1 (Government): The number of serious crimes grew almost 2 and 1 times.
GR1 (Government): The number of crimes committed by groups of persons almost doubled.
GR1 (Government): The number of crimes committed with the use of firearms increased almost 3 and 1 half times.
GR1 (Government): The number of killings and incidents for intentional confliction of serious bodily injuries more than doubled.
GR1 (Government): The number for registered robberies grew almost 4 times.
GR1 (Government): As a result, the number of cases of escapes from courtrooms and attacks against law enforcement officers, judges, witnesses, and victims also rose considerably.
GR1 (Government): Although the situation has improved significantly since that time, the statistics on the instances of escapes, attacks, and self-mutilation committed in the courts during convoying and in detention facilities show that the use of security barriers in respect of detained defendants in courtrooms remains justified.
GR1 (Government): The presence of convoy officers and bailiffs does not stop even less dangerous criminals from escaping or inflicting harm to themselves or their other people.
GR1 (Government): It should be borne in mind that the use of security barriers in respect of the persons accused of the most serious crimes considerably increases the level of safety and order in courtrooms.
GR1 (Government): Obviously, the prevention of any attempts on the part of a detained defendant to break free is a lot safer than stopping him after a successful attempt to do so.
GR1 (Government): This is especially true when a courtroom is full of visitors.
GR1 (Government): One should not overlook that when a person accused of having committed violent crimes stays behind a barrier, witnesses, victims, and other participants of the proceedings feel more secure, relief from strain, and judges and prosecutors do not get distracted from performing their primary functions.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, detained defendants feel safe.
GR1 (Government): For example, from their enraged victims, and they are free to take a comfortable posture and even walk behind the barriers since their movements are not restrained by wrist or ankle shackles.
GR1 (Government): Turning to the issue of lawfulness or the use of security barriers in courtrooms, I would emphasize that there are no international instruments either prohibiting placement of detained defendants behind security barriers in courtrooms or setting requirements to the construction of such barriers.
GR1 (Government): In Russia, the relevant requirements are fixed in the court building design rules and the directions to police convoy officers.
GR1 (Government): All suspects and accused who are held in detention shall be convoyed to courthouses by police officers and shall be placed behind a security barrier in the courtroom.
GR1 (Government): Although placement behind a security barrier in the courtroom is used in respect of all suspects and accused held in detention, the procedure for choosing their corresponding measure of restraint serves as a sufficient guarantee against arbitrariness and indiscriminate use of the security measure in question.
GR1 (Government): The importance of the measure of restraint in the form of detention and the extension of its terms are accompanied by strong procedural guarantees enshrined in the Court of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which correspond to provision Article V of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Namely, the availability of legal assistance and the personal participation of the suspect or the accused in the corresponding court hearing shall be enshrined.
GR1 (Government): The relevant proceedings shall be advertiserial.
GR1 (Government): They shall be conducted by an impartial judge, ensuring equality of the parties.
GR1 (Government): Any court decision concerning the measure of restraint shall be subject to appeal.
GR1 (Government): A measure of restraint cannot be automatically imposed on every suspect or accused without the assessment of the individual circumstances of his situation, such as the seriousness of the charges, the information on his personality, age, health condition, family status, and occupation.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, detention is an extraordinary measure of restraint imposed only on the person suspected or accused of having committed the most serious crimes and posing significant danger to society, and only if it is impossible to use the different, milder measure of restraint.
GR1 (Government): It cannot be imposed on a person suspected or accused of having committed non-violent crimes against property connected with internecine business activity or crimes in the sphere of economic activity unless that person has not permanent place of residence in the territory of the Russian Federation, has breached the previously imposed measure of restraint, or absconded.
GR1 (Government): The statistics on the proportion between the total number of defendants on trial in Russia and those of them who are kept in detention proves the fact that about 55% of all defendants on trial are not held behind security barriers in courtrooms.
GR1 (Government): Speaking of the design of the security barrier, I would note that previously only metal grid barrier design was described in the building rules, while the new building rules, which have been enforced since July 2013, provide for the installation of glass cabins as well.
GR1 (Government): The replacement of metal grid barriers with glass cabins is not obligatory.
GR1 (Government): Nevertheless, some of the Russian courts have already completed such replacements on their own initiative, and this process started back in 2004.
GR1 (Government): However, seeing the court's task is not to examine the relevant legislation in the abstract, but rather to assess the impact of the relevant measures on the applicants in the specific circumstances of their situation, let me turn to the merits of the present case.
GR1 (Government): According to the court's case law, an issue under Article III of the Convention on account of lawful placement of the defendant behind a security barrier in the courtroom may arise only in the presence of certain aggravating circumstances, primarily when it leads to public exposure exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, the lawfulness and validity of the applicant's detention do not seem to be questioned by the court.
GR1 (Government): At the same time, the applicants did not belong to a category of well-known public figures whose appearance in the courtroom behind a security barrier could seriously affect their reputation.
GR1 (Government): The criminal case against them was not a high-profile nature.
GR1 (Government): While the proceedings might have received certain local media coverage, its effect and extent can in no way be compared to those found in the relevant cases already examined by the court, namely the cases of Rameshvili and Kokrekidze against Georgia and Khodorkovsky and Lebedev against Russia.
GR1 (Government): Moreover, in July 2013, the applicants submitted to the court an extract from the court hearing record which shows an example of the presiding judge taking into account the position expressed by the defense and dismissed the request of the mass media representatives for video recording.
GR1 (Government): The applicants also presented a copy of a lawyer's request on May 2013, which contained the information about a new report showing the moment of the applicant's release from detention after the reading out of the jury verdict and obviously having no negative impact on the applicant's reputation.
GR1 (Government): There is no evidence to confirm the fact that the applicant's trial was attended by general public.
GR1 (Government): Even witnesses and victims were refusing to comply with the court's suppositions and to take part in the court hearings out of fear of revenge.
GR1 (Government): The Russian Federation authorities also doubt that the applicant's relatives visited any of the hearings, especially given the fact that the trial took place in the city of Magadan while all the defendants come from the village of Senegordia, which is located 500 kilometers away.
GR1 (Government): And there used to be no regular transportation on that route.
GR1 (Government): It is equally important that the security considerations were sufficiently well-founded in the present case.
GR1 (Government): During the criminal proceedings in question, the applicants were accused of having committed violent crimes and had quite a history of violent crimes committed in organized groups, but that time.
GR1 (Government): Later, Mr. Sviyoyenko was found to have
GR1 (Government): been a member of a longstanding, large-scale organized criminal group since 1990.
GR1 (Government): Both applicants had negative characteristics from the place of their residence.
GR1 (Government): In such circumstances, the fears repeatedly expressed by the victims and their witnesses looked reasonably real to the Magadan Regional Court.
GR1 (Government): Besides, given all the available information about their personalities, way of life, and previous convictions of the applicants, the Russian Federation authorities are convinced that the placement behind a security barrier could in no way have humiliated the applicants in their own eyes, aroused in their feelings of fear, anguish, and inferiority, or had an impact on their powers of concentration and mental alertness.
GR1 (Government): As it follows from the court hearing record, the applicants were freely and actively participating in the proceedings without any sign of fear or embarrassment.
GR1 (Government): In such circumstances, the placement of the applicants behind a security barrier in the courtroom clearly didn't reach the minimum level of severity necessary for this treatment to be in breach of Article III of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): Its effect on the applicants didn't go beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with the justified use of a legitimate security measure.
GR1 (Government): Turning to Article VIII of the Convention, I would recall that while the Court does not exclude the possibility that there might be circumstances in which Article VIII could be regarded as affording protection in relation to conditions during detention which do not attain the level of severity required by Article III, there are no court's judgments finding a violation of Article VIII of the Convention on account of the placement of detained defendants behind a security barrier in the courtroom.
GR1 (Government): In case the Court finds no violation of Article III of the Convention in the present case, but decides that there has been an interference with the rights of applicants under Article VIII Para I of the Convention on account of their placement behind a security barrier in the courtroom, the Russian Federation authorities state that the security measure in question was applied in accordance with the law and was necessary in a democratic society in the interest of public safety for the prevention of disorder or crime, as well as for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as it is required by Article VIII Para II of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The Russian Federation authorities are also of the opinion that the placement of the applicants behind a security barrier in the present case has no breach either the fair trial guarantees or the principle or the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article VI Para I and II of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): For instance, nothing suggests that the security measure in question made it completely impossible for the applicants to communicate confidentially and freely with their lawyers or to communicate freely with the court, although certain limitations were inevitable in this regard.
GR1 (Government): They didn't complain that their legal assistance became ineffective due to their placement behind a security barrier.
GR1 (Government): As it follows from the court hearing record, the applicants were actively participating in their criminal proceedings by, among other things, making comments, giving or refusing to give testimonies, examining witnesses, co-defendants, and victims, lodging motions and requests.
GR1 (Government): Thus, the security arrangements in question didn't place the applicants at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis their prosecution and didn't significantly limit their opportunities in defending the case effectively.
GR1 (Government): As for the presumption of innocence, it should not be overlooked that a security barrier is an ordinary security measure introduced approximately 20 years ago and applied to all the defendants in criminal cases who are held in detention.
GR1 (Government): Besides, as it follows from the court hearing record and the directions to the jury, the presiding judge repeatedly drew the jurors' attention to the fact that the placement of the applicants in detention did not evidence their guilt.
GR1 (Government): What is more important, the fact that the jurors in the criminal proceedings in question were not affected by the placement of the applicants behind a security barrier is unavocably confirmed by the complete acquittal of Mr. Svinarenko
GR1 (Government): and the partial acquittal of Mr. Slednev.
GR1 (Government): Speaking of Mr. Svinarenko's acquittal,
GR1 (Government): the Russian Federation authorities state that he cannot claim to be a victim of the violation of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the criminal proceedings due to the following reasons.
GR1 (Government): According to the court case law, when alleged violation has already occurred, subsequent events can give rise to a loss of the status of victim, provided that the national authorities have acknowledged either expressly or in substance and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention.
GR1 (Government): The Russian Federation authorities consider that the acquittal of Mr. Svinarenko
GR1 (Government): and the recognition of his right to rehabilitation constitute an acknowledgement in substance of any breach committed during the criminal prosecution.
GR1 (Government): The recognition of the right to rehabilitation also constitute redress, since it allows an acquitted person to seek monetary compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from any aspect of his criminal prosecution.
GR1 (Government): It is also of relevance of Mr. Svinarenko
GR1 (Government): has been acquitted in full, not partially, and that his claims for compensation have been granted, although the amounts awarded to him have been reduced based on the assessment of his specific situation and the absence of certain confirming documents.
GR1 (Government): In other words, he has been relieved of any effects to his disadvantage after his acquittal.
GR1 (Government): Lastly, the Russian Federation authorities consider that the same logic equally applies to any alleged violations resulting from Mr. Svinarenko's placement behind a security
GR1 (Government): barrier in the courtroom.
GR1 (Government): Such a conclusion is based on the fact that the application of his security measure is a direct consequence of his imposition of a measure of restraint in the form of detention.
GR1 (Government): And any damage, including moral suffering resulting from the imposition of measures of restraint in criminal proceedings, can also be recovered through the rehabilitation procedure.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Matyushkin.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I thank the representatives of the parties for their interventions, and I would now like to ask or to invite the judges of the Grand Chamber to put any questions they may have to the parties.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And I see Judge De Gaetano has a question, so please, Judge De Gaetano, if you could put the questions before the parties.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): One question addressed to the Council for the Government.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): In the statistics you supplied with your letter, which the Government submitted with its letter of the 27th August 2013, there was a table indicating, among others, the incidents occurring in courtrooms as such.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): And there were incidents of a number of escapes from courthouses, a number of attacks on court staff, and a number of incidents of self-mutilation in courthouses for the period 2009-2013, which for the courthouse incidents, the figures are 4, 14, 20, 16, and 18.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): Could the Council for the Government explain these incidents in the courthouse?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): What is meant by self-mutilation?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): Could you give some examples of what is meant here by incidents of self-mutilation in the courthouse?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): And I refer to the figures, I repeat, 4, 14, 20, 16, and 18.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you. Any other questions?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So the court will now rise for 15 minutes, following which the parties will return for a second round of short pleadings to respond to the submissions in the first round and to answer Judge de Gaitano's question.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So the hearing is suspended.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Please be seated. The hearing is now resumed and I call Mr. Palchinskii.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Palchinskii, please.
AP1 (Applicant): Согласно прецедентам суда, для того, чтобы подпадать под действие статьи третьей конвенции, плохое обращение должно достичь минимального уровня жестокости.
AP1 (Applicant): Оценка этого уровня жестокости зависит от всех обстоятельств дела.
AP1 (Applicant): Для того, чтобы выяснить, являлось ли обращение унижающим человеческое достоинство по смыслу статьи третьей конвенции, необходимо рассмотреть вопрос о том, имелась ли цель оскорбить и унизить заявителя, что было отмечено в постановлении Европейского суда по делу Пирс против Греции.
AP1 (Applicant): И затрагивала ли, рассматривая в этой связи мера, личность заявителя, несовместимым со статьей третьей конвенции, образом. Это отмечено в постановлении
AP1 (Applicant): Европейского суда по делу раненых против Финляндии, ну и в ряде других постановлений.
AP1 (Applicant): Даже отсутствие публичности не обязательно препятствует тому, чтобы определенное наказание подпадало под эту категорию. Может быть достаточно
AP1 (Applicant): того, чтобы жертва была унижена в собственных глазах, даже если наказание не выносится публично, что было отмечено в постановлении Европейского суда по делу ДГ против Ирландии.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы полагаем, что в данном случае, поскольку уголовное дело заявителей рассматривалось судом присяжных, а процедура рассмотрения уголовного дела в суде присяжных, она также урегулирована специальными нормами специальной главой уголовно-профессуального кодекса Российской Федерации, и в данном случае Верховный суд, и эти нормы, они значит говорят о том, что любая негативная информация в отношении подсудимых не может доводиться до суда, поскольку суд присяжных будет решать судьбу этих людей. Он
AP1 (Applicant): не должен знать, если что-то было негативное, в том числе криминальная история, если она была, если человек является алкоголиком, наркоманом и прочие вещи, они недопустимы. В данном случае
AP1 (Applicant): мы утверждаем и обращаем внимание суда на то обстоятельство, что да, может быть эта информация не доводилась посредством прочтения каких-то документов, но ведь сама демонстрация подсудимых в металлической клетке, по нашему мнению, это есть уже воздействие, это уже есть информация, доведенная посредством демонстрации, информация только негативного характера, и такая информация не может у суда присяжных не вызывать предубеждение в отношении подсудимых, а естественно у подсудимых, которые понимают, что их демонстрируют присяжным как лиц опасных для общества, как уже преступников, они конечно не могут в связи с такими обстоятельствами не испытывать унижения и не испытывать неловкости, не испытывать страдания в тот момент, когда им нужно сосредоточиться на защите своих прав, тем более, что им приходилось защищаться в данном случае от совершенно необоснованных обвинений, как показали три оправдательных приговора в отношении, в частности, моего заявителя.
AP1 (Applicant): Я хочу несколько слов, выслушав выступление представителя Российской Федерации, еще сказать по поводу сказанного значит относительно отсутствия транспортного сообщения между поселком Сенегурья и городом Магаданом.
AP1 (Applicant): Российская Федерация утверждает, что ни родственники, ни знакомые не могли присутствовать. Я хочу
AP1 (Applicant): обратить внимание о том, что я еще значит 8 апреля 2009 года направляя в суд значит возражение на меморандум господина Матюшкина от 18 февраля 2009 года, приложил к своим возражениям справку, из содержания которой следует, что между Сенегурьем и между Магаданом, это справка в автопредприятии, взял, которая осуществляет перевозки.
AP1 (Applicant): Существует автобусное сообщение и там указана периодичность и оно до сих пор существует и существовало на момент рассмотрения дела, поэтому эта информация она не совсем правильная.
AP1 (Applicant): Ну что касается утверждения, что боялись заявителей, боялись свидетелей, боялись мести, по нашему мнению мы в общем-то полностью разделяем позицию высказанную судом постановление от 11 декабря прошлого года, что ссылки на страхи свидетелей очень расплывчатые и не содержат конкретной информации о том, кто и кого из заявителей опасался и оправданы ли эти опасения.
AP1 (Applicant): По нашему мнению, вот эти заявления от граждан, которые вызывали суд, были написаны ими или для того, чтобы избежать необходимости ездить в суд за 600 километров, это очень большое расстояние у нас на севере, тем более, или же они писались под диктовку полицейских, которые сопровождали этот уголовный процесс.
AP1 (Applicant): Да, что касается обоснования необходимости содержания моего подзащитного свинаренка в металлической клетке в зале суда, тем обстоятельством, что он в 2011 году, 30 мая был осужден, как указал представитель Российской Федерации, то он осужден был по уголовному делу номер 53 387, возбужденному в отношении его после второго оправдательного приговора.
AP1 (Applicant): И в своих замечаниях от 8 апреля 2009 года я указал, что по мнению свинаренка указанное уголовное дело результат незаконного уголовного преследования со стороны правоохранительных органов. И кроме того, нам представляется
AP1 (Applicant): странным, когда обосновывается необходимость содержать человека в клетке перед судом присяжным, обосновывается это приговором, постановленным через несколько лет после того судебного разбирательства.
AP1 (Applicant): То есть, как это... еще не было этого
AP1 (Applicant): события, он еще не был признан, он только через два года был осужден.
AP1 (Applicant): А содержали его сегодня, потому что вот когда-то будет там что-то, какое-то событие негативное. Мне представляется это
AP1 (Applicant): не совсем правильным. Европейский суд
AP1 (Applicant): по остановлению Калашникова против Российской Федерации отметил, что государство должно принимать меры к тому, чтобы лицо содержалось под стражей в условиях, которые совместимы с уважением человеческому достоинству.
AP1 (Applicant): Как отметил Европейский суд в постановлении по делу Кудла против Польши, обращение человеком считается унижающим достоинство, если оно таково, что вызывает в жертвах такого обращения чувство страха, страдания неполноценности, которые заставляют их ощущать себя униженными и попранными.
AP1 (Applicant): Мы полагаем, в данном случае заявители чувствовали себя в тех условиях, в которых им приходилось защищаться перед судом и присяжных именно таким образом.
AP1 (Applicant): Теперь, что касается того, что мой доверитель был удовлетворен полностью в процессе реабилитации после оправдания.