Thursday, November 17, 2011

Novaya Gazeta calls for your signatures to help Natalya Gulevich

Today Novaya Gazeta, a Russian newspaper, urged everyone who cares about the fate of Natalya Gulevich and the rule of law in Russia to leave their signature on its site, thus requiring Russian courts to release Gulevich from police custody on parole or subject to payment of a reasonable bail.

Natalya Gulevish was charged with fraud for an alleged failure to repay a loan to Nomos-Bank. She was arrested and has been held in police custody for almost a year, despite Russian law prohibiting the arrest of suspects charged with economic crimes. Due to the poor conditions of her detention, Gulevich has suffered several serious chronic illnesses, including neurogenic bladder. Notwithstanding her poor health conditions and order of the ECHR to release her immediately, the Russian domestic courts have continued to extend her detention in custody.

As a result, since March 2011, Gulevich has had to use a catheter. However, taking into account the unsanitary conditions of her detention, prolonged use of the catheter may result in an infection of the kidneys or their complete failure leading to death. Natalya Gulevich needs urgent medical treatment to restore her bladder function, which is impossible to do in police custody which lacks the necessary medication and expertise.

You can sign up for release of Natalya Gulevich from police custody by following this link http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquiries/2.html and filling in a form below an article.

For more information about Gulevich case see my previous posts of 2 November 2011 and 8 November 2011.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Russia lost three cases in the ECHR this week

On 8 November 2011 the ECHR delivered three judgments in cases against Russia: Filatov v. Russia, Sambiyeva v. Russia and Yakubov v. Russia.[1] In all three cases the ECHR found violations of the Convention and ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary damage (in case of Sambiyeva), non-pecuniary damage (in cases of Filatov and Sambiyeva), and costs and expenses (in cases of Sambiyeva and Yakubov) totaling to 86,615 Euros.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Natalya Gulevich could not pay a bond of 100 million rubles for her release

On 7 November 2011 the Moscow City Court ordered that the detention of Natalya Gulevich be extended until 2 December 2011, since she could not pay a bond of 100 million rubles (approximately 3,400,000 USD) by 7 November 2011, reports Izvestia.

Natalya Gulevish was charged with fraud for alleged failure to pay back the loan to Nomos-Bank that she took acting as a director of her company. She was arrested and has been held in police custody for almost a year, though Russian law prohibits the arrest of suspects charged with economic crimes. Because of the poor conditions of her detention, Gulevich suffered several serious chronic illnesses that require urgent treatment in a specialized hospital. However, Russian courts keep extending Gulevich’s detention in custody. For more information about Gulevich case see my previous post.

After several unsuccessful domestic proceedings regarding her detention, Gulevich’s attorneys lodged an application with the ECHR, which ordered Russia to release Gulevich immediately due to her poor health conditions. As a result of the ECHR order, on 2 November 2011 the Moscow City Court decided to release Gulevich from police custody upon the payment of a bond of 100 million rubles by 7 November. Practically Gulevich had only one day to fulfill this condition, since November 4th was a public holiday and November 5th and 6th was a weekend. Since she could not gather and pay this amount, which was practically unrealistic to do within one working day, the domestic court cancelled its order on her release and extended her detention until 2 December 2011.

Russian human rights activists are afraid that Natalya Gulevich may repeat the fate of Sergey Magnitsky and Vera Trifonova, that were also charged with economic crimes and eventually died in police custody due to serious illnesses and lack of medical assistance in detention. According to Izvestia, the human rights activists also insist that the court must release Gulevich without imposing any payment obligations on her.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

A seminar on exercise of the right to freedom of assembly

On 19 November 2011, a Russian NGO, “Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms” is conducting a seminar “Exercise of the Right to Freedom of Assembly.” The seminar will be held in Moscow, Russia.

This event is open to anyone interested in this topic.

The seminar program:

- Application of Federal Law № 54-FZ "On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets";
- Strategy and mechanisms to protect the rights to freedom of assembly in Russia;
- The standards of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of assembly;
- Guidelines of OSCE on freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

Applications for participation in the seminar should be sent by November 7, 2011 to: jurix.event@gmail.com. Applications should contain the full name, company name (if you represent an organization), e-mail address, and telephone number (optional).

The exact time and location depend on the number of participants and will be announced to participants later (10 November).

Contact telephone: +7 (495) 981-13-18.

For more information about the NGO “Lawyers for Constitutional Rights and Freedoms” please follow the link.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

The ECHR judgments in the cases of Alexandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia and Vanfuli v. Russia

Today the ECHR delivered two judgments involving ill-treatment by Russian police, the cases of Alexandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia and Vanfuli v. Russia. In my previous post dated 1 November 2011 I discussed the likely results of these cases, stating that the ECHR would sustain most of the applicants’ claims. As can be seen from the holdings of these ECHR judgments this was, in fact, the case.

Case of Alexandra Dmitriyeva:

In this case the applicant alleged violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. [For more information about the facts of the case see my previous post of 1 November 2011].

The ECHR sustained all the claims of the applicant and held that there had been a violation of:

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

A gravely ill Russian business woman, Natalya Gulevich, has to pay 100 million rubles to be released from police custody

Today the Moscow City Court made a decision to release a gravely ill Russian business woman, Natalya Gulevich, from police custody provided that she pays a bond of 100,000,000 rubles (approximately 3,400,000 USD) before 7 November 2011, reports Radio Svoboda.

Natalya Gulevish was charged with fraud. Allegedly, as the director of her company, she took a loan from Nomos-Bank and failed to pay it back. Her defense attorneys claim that Gulevich was a victim of “raider attacks.” Thus, allegedly the affiliates of Nomos-Bank seized the buildings owned by her company and located in the center of Moscow with a total market value about 120,000,000 USD. As a result she was arrested and has been held in police custody in Moscow for almost a year, regardless of the direct prohibition of the Russian law to hold suspects charged with economic crimes.

At the time of her detention, Gulevich suffered several serious chronic illnesses such as neurogenic bladder, which requires a catheter, spinal hernia, and high blood pressure which creates the risk of a stroke. Additionally, her uterus has been removed. Doctors claim she needs treatment in a specialized hospital. However, neither her serious illnesses nor the requirements of Russian law prohibiting the detention of suspects charged with economic crimes could stop Russian courts from extending Gulevich’s detention in custody several times.

In the beginning of October 2011 Gulevich’s attorneys lodged an application with the ECHR after which the ECHR urgently ordered Russia to implement an interim measure in this case, namely to release Gulevich immediately. The ECHR also asked Russia to explain why Gulevich was taken into custody after the entry into force of the Russian law prohibiting detention of suspects charged with economic crimes.

As a result of the ECHR order to apply urgent interim measures in the Gulevich case, the Moscow City Court delivered a decision today in which it held that Gulevich could be released from police custody upon the payment of a bond of 100 million rubles by 7 November. Taking into account that 4 November is a public holiday in Russia and that 5 and 6 November is the week-end, Gulevich would have to deposit this amount not later than 3 November in order to be released. Thus, the court gave her only one day to fulfill this condition, which is unrealistic, taking into account that her husband is a military retiree with a pension of 11 thousands rubles per month.

Given the above, the Moscow City Court decided to take formalistic approach towards implementation of the ECHR’s interim measures by showing its readiness to release Gulevich and admitting that her detention is illegal, but at the same time setting such conditions for her release that are impossible to fulfill in practice.

Earlier the Court has ordered Russia to implement similar interim measures in the case of Aleksanyan v. Russia. However, Russia failed to comply promptly with the Court’s order which resulted later in the applicant’s death (for more information about this case see my post of 4 October 2011).

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

More ECHR judgments concerning ill-treatment by Russian policemen are forthcoming

This week on 3 November 2011, the ECHR will deliver 2 judgments in cases of Aleksandra Dmitrieva v. Russia (App. No. 9390/05) and Vanfuli v. Russia (App. No. 24885/05)[1]. Both applicants alleged, inter alia, violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention due to ill-treatment by the police and the lack of effective investigations of the incidents.

Aleksandra Dmitrieva is a Russian national from St. Petersburg. She is in her sixties and disabled. On 8 December 2001 she was allegedly beaten by policemen who had come to her flat to question her son when she tried to block the door to her son’s room. After that she was taken to the local police station where she spent about 20 hours without food, a bed, or any medical assistance. After she was released, she was not brought before a judge or otherwise interrogated. Besides ill-treatment by the police, the applicant complained about the conditions of the cell for the detainees referring to Article 3 of the Convention. She also alleged that her arrest and detention were in violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, and that the police entry into her flat violated her right to respect for private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant also claimed a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). 

The second applicant, Vladimir Vanfuli, is a Russian national born in 1974. He lives in the Zabaykalskiy Region. He was charged with some motorway robberies. The applicant claimed ill-treatment while in police custody, namely: that on 3 October 2002 policemen allegedly beat him in order to make him confess to committing the above mentioned crime. In August 2004 the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Besides the ill-treatment in police custody, the applicant claimed that there was a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention due to several shortcomings of the criminal proceedings against him.

In both cases the applicants referred to the events that took place in 2001-2004, a period when reform of the criminal procedure was in its initial stage and major reforms concerning police and detention conditions had not been adopted yet in Russia. In this connection I do not exclude that the ECHR may sustain the majority of the applicants claims. The findings of the ECHR in both cases will be published later this week on the site of the blog.


[1] According to the information published on the official site of the ECHR: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/Homepage_EN