THIRD SECTION
CASE OF STAFEYEV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 32984/06)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
8 December 2020
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Stafeyev v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Dmitry Dedov,
 Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 32984/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Stafeyev (“the applicant”), on 20 June 2006;
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints raised in the present application concerning the lack of effective legal assistance in particular on appeal as well as the poor quality of the video link before the Supreme Court and to declare inadmissible the remainder of that application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 November 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns the lack of an effective legal assistance on appeal. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1978 and is detained in Kharp. He was represented by Mr E. Markov, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg, France. On 13 February 2014 the applicant was granted legal aid. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. On 19 February 2001 the corpses of the Sh. family (a man, his wife and their thirteen-year-old son) were found in their flat and criminal proceedings were opened into this fact. Apparently, the family was killed on 18 February 2001. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEInquiry into the murder of the Sh. family

6. On 15 November 2004 the applicant was placed in detention following his conviction for another crime. 7. On 16 November 2004 the applicant’s fingerprints were included into the database of the Ministry of the Interior. 8. On 8 December 2004 the police officers in charge of investigating the murder of the Sh. family were informed that the fingerprints detected in the family’s flat matched the applicant’s ones. 9. On 9 December 2004 police searched the applicant’s flat and found several objects corresponding to the items stolen from the victims’ flat. 10. On 8, 9 and 10 December 2004 the police officers visited the applicant in the detention facility and questioned him informally about murder of the Sh. family. 11. Eventually, the applicant confessed to the murder. According to the applicant, he confessed on 10 December 2004 under duress exercised by the police officers. According to the Government, on 8 December 2004 the applicant made a spontaneous and voluntary admission of his guilt. 12. On 10 December 2004 at 3 p.m. the applicant was informed of his rights. He waived his right to a lawyer. 13. On the same day the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in the absence of a lawyer. He reiterated his previous confession. 14. On 16 December 2004 the applicant was again interviewed as a suspect in the absence of a lawyer, whose services he had waived. He again reiterated the previous confession. 15. On 20 January 2005 in the course of a hearing on the restraint measure the applicant, assisted by a lawyer, retracted his previous confession. The applicant’s trialFirst-instance court proceedings

16. On 15 September 2005 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court declared the applicant’s statements given on 10 and 16 December 2004 inadmissible on the ground that they were made in the absence of a lawyer and further retracted at trial. The Regional Court reached a different conclusion as regards the applicant’s confession made on 8 December 2004. 17. At trial the applicant denied his guilt and maintained that he indeed had visited the Sh. family but on 16 February 2001 and not on 18 February 2001. He added that his confession had been made under duress. 18. On 14 December 2005 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of three counts of murder, robbery and destruction of property and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In particular, it based its judgment on the following:
–  the expert’s conclusion that the applicant’s fingerprints were found in the victims’ flat;
–  the record of the search at the applicant’s home where the items subsequently identified as having belonged to the victims were found;
–  the statements of the police officers who had visited and spoken to the applicant in the detention facility and according to whom the applicant had first denied his involvement in the murders, but then had voluntarily confessed to the murders after being told that his fingerprints had been found at the crime scene;
–  the applicant’s confession made on 8 December 2004. Appeal proceedings
19. On 14 November 2005 the applicant’s lawyer, who had assisted him at trial, appealed. The appeal claim was seventeen pages long and raised different factual and legal issues. 20. On 30 March 2006 the lawyer was informed that the appeal hearing would take place on 15 May 2006. 21. On an unspecified date the applicant was transported to a detention facility in Moscow in order to participate in the appeal hearing. 22. On 15 May 2006 the applicant’s lawyer did not appear at the appeal hearing and the applicant, who was present, requested to be provided with a new lawyer. The Supreme Court of Russia assigned lawyer R. to assist the applicant and adjourned the hearing to 29 May 2006. 23. On 23 May 2006 R. visited the applicant in the detention facility in Moscow. According to the applicant, the authorities of the detention facility limited his communication with R. to fifteen minutes and the guard repeatedly interrupted their communication. 24. On 25 May 2006 the applicant submitted to the authorities of the detention facility in Moscow his request to the Supreme Court to be granted an additional meeting with R., as the time afforded by the authorities of the detention facility was insufficient. According to the Government, the case‑file materials do not contain any information that the applicant made the relevant request to the Supreme Court on that date. At the same time the Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s request written on the letterhead of the detention facility and dated 25 May 2006, registered by the detention facility as outgoing correspondence on 26 May 2006, and received by the Supreme Court, according to its postmark, on 5 June 2006. 25. On 29 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the Regional Court. R. was present at the hearing. The applicant participated via video link. 26. According to the applicant, in the course of the appeal hearing he asked the Supreme Court to admit his request of 25 May 2006 to the case file, which was refused. 27. According to the Government, on 30 and 31 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the poor quality of the video transmission and about the insufficient time he had to consult R. on 23 May 2006. 28. According to the certificate issued by the deputy head of the IT department of the Supreme Court on 28 August 2013, no video transmission failures had been recorded in the course of the appeal hearing on 29 May 2006. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
29. The relevant domestic law is summarised in the case of Ichetovkina and Others v. Russia (nos. 12584/05 and 5 others, § 11, 4 July 2017), with further references. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 3 (c) IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS
30. The applicant complained about the lack of effective legal assistance on appeal in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c), which reads as follows:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ... 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
... (c)  to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require[.]”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

31. The Government may be understood as pleading non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant did not raise his complaint in due time about insufficient time afforded to consult his new lawyer R. either before or at the appeal hearing. In this regard they indicated that the materials of the appeal proceedings contained no information that on 25 May 2006 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to provide him with an additional consultation with R. They further indicated that on 3 July 2006 the Supreme Court received the applicant’s complaints made on 30 and 31 May 2006, that is after the appeal hearing, requesting an additional consultation with R. The Government further submitted that they could not provide the Court with the record of the appeal hearing before 3 May 2011, domestic law did not provide for a standard issuing of such a document. 32. The applicant maintained that on 25 May 2006 he had submitted through the detention facility to the Supreme Court his request to be provided with an additional consultation with R. He brought his request to the attention of the Supreme Court during the appeal hearing in which he pleaded via video link. On 29 May 2006 he also brought a copy of his request of 25 May 2006 with him and asked the Supreme Court to admit his request into the materials of the appeal hearing, but was denied.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation