G3 v Russia

The applicant held a senior position in the Department of Justice in her Region. An external audit of the department was conducted and the embezzlement of assets was subsequently established.

On 25 February 2000 criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicant and almost immediately thereafter, she was arrested and taken into custody. She was questioned as a suspect in the case and availed herself of the right to silence. She applied for release on bail.

On 29 February 2000, an investigator refused to release the applicant and on 1 March 2000, the investigator ordered the applicant's detention on remand. This order was approved by a deputy prosecutor who referred to the danger of the applicant absconding, obstructing the truth and influencing witnesses who had been her subordinates and to the gravity of the charges against her.

On 6 March, the applicant appealed to the court in respect of her pre-trial detention. The application was examined by a judge on 10 March 2000. The applicant requested her release in view of her poor health and the fact that she had family commitments and a good reference from her former place of work. The judge, however, confirmed the lawfulness of her continued detention based on the "evidence in the applicant's case file". The Criminal Section of the Regional Court upheld the decision. In the meantime, formal charges of embezzlement and abuse of power were brought against the applicant.

The applicant was detained between 19 April 2000 and 20 June 2000 on the ground that she might flee the trial or bring pressure to bear on witnesses while at liberty. The applicant's challenge to this order on the grounds that she could not hinder the investigation because the audit was already completed on 13 April was dismissed. On 21 June, the regional prosecutor ordered the extension of the applicant's detention until 10 August 2000. The applicant again appealed against the decision on the grounds of poor health and that she could not influence an investigation which was already completed. Again, her appeal was dismissed.

Following further extensions of the period of her detention pending trial, the applicant was kept in prison until 6 February 2001 when she was convicted by two lay assessors of embezzlement, forgery and abuse of power and sentenced to 6 ½ years' imprisonment and the confiscation of her property. On 23 May 2001, the Regional Court upheld the sentence, having lifted the charges against the applicant on 3 counts by reference to a limitation period. On September 2002, the applicant was released on parole.

From 28 February until 6 February 2001, the applicant was detained in a remand centre. Between 28 February and 28 May 2000, the applicant was kept in a cell measuring approximately 24 m² and holding 10 detainees. The cell was damp and cold, there was a concrete floor and a single window. All the other detainees smoked. Meals were scarce and of poor quality.

The applicant submits that she suffered from heart, gastrointestinal and gynaecological illnesses. A ward medical officer examined her only once and stated that she was fit. Subsequent requests for medical examinations were repeatedly refused by the ward authorities. The applicant also claims that she had no proper medical treatment and that her medicine was taken away from her by the ward authorities. On 28 May 2000, the applicant was transferred to a smaller cell which she shared with one other detainee.

On 3 March 2000, the investigator ordered the seizure of the applicant's flat pending trial. On 28 July 2000, the applicant applied to the court stating the flat was the only housing for her family and was therefore immune from seizure. On 8 August 2000, the Town Court found in the applicant's favour and lifted the seizure.

The applicant maintains that the conditions of her pre-trial detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant also claims that she was subjected to forced labour during her imprisonment after conviction, in violation of Article 4. She also complains that under Article 5(1) and 5(3) of the Convention that there were no reasonable grounds for her arrest and for her continued pre-trial detention, which lasted too long.

The applicant complains that her applications for release were examined by the same two judges on most occasions and that for this reason the review of her pre-trial detention was not exercised by an independent and impartial judicial body.

The applicant complains that her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were violated in relation to the interim seizure of her flat.

Finally the applicant relies on Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention, stating that her detention on remand was intended by the authorities as a pressure to force her to admit to the imputed offences.

An application was lodged with the Court in March 2001.