Gultyayeva v Russia

Facts
Following an external audit of the Department of Justice of the Sakhalin Region that revealed embezzlement of budgetary assets, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, the head of the department, on 25 February 2000. On 28 February 2000, the applicant retained a lawyer and shortly thereafter was arrested and taken into custody as a suspect. Her application to be released on bail was denied.

On 1 March 2000, she was remanded in custody for fear that she might abscond or obstruct investigations by influencing witnesses - her former subordinates. On several occasions between 1 March 2000 and 6 February 2001, her detention was extended and appeals against the extensions denied on the basis that she might abscond or obstruct investigations. However, between 25 October 2000 and 4 November 2000, the applicant was held without the authorisation of a judge or prosecutor simply on the basis that her criminal case had been referred to court for trial.

Challenging her continued detention, the applicant particularly stressed that she could in no way hinder investigations since the audit had been completed by 13 April 2000. She also cited the poor conditions of her detention and the consequent deterioration of her health. The latter claims were rejected as groundless and unsubstantiated. A town court judge declined a subsequent request by her counsel, on 8 August 2000, for her to be examined by an independent medical authority.

On 6 February 2001, the applicant was convicted of embezzlement, forgery and abuse of power and sentenced to six years in prison.

Judgment
The ECtHR found the applicant’s detention in the remand centre had amounted to degrading treatment, violating Art. 3 ECHR. Additionally, it found that there had been no lawful basis for her detention from 25 October 2000 to 4 November 2000. This amounted to a violation of Art. 5(1)(c). Relying on Art. 5(3), the applicant complained of excessively long pre-trial detention. The ECtHR concurred finding a violation. The ECtHR observed that in prolonging the applicant’s pre-trial detention in custody, the authorities had repeatedly invoked the same reasons. The courts had a duty to assess, after a time, whether the grounds relied on by the judicial authorities continued to justify the denial of liberty.

Gultyayeva_judgment

The above judgment is taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm

The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.