CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s89DB49F5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF TRETYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 33610/18 and 21 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 4 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tretyakov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Mattias Guyomar,   Kateřina Šimáčková , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 14 March 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. JURISDICTION 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos.   40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 7.     The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 8.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 9.     In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 12.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-58, 22 May 2012, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), concerning detention in a metal cage during court hearings; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia , nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§   123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article   3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia , no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13   February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121-22, 10 April 2018 and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018, regarding unlawful detention; Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, as regards conditions of transport of detainees and lack of an effective domestic remedy in that respect; Chaldayev v. Russia , no.   33172/16, §§   69 ‑ 83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; and Mukhin v. Russia , no.   3642/10, §   77-147, 14   December 2021, concerning conviction for making calls to participate in extremist activities. 13.     In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of effective domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms (compare Valyuzhenich v. Russia , no. 10597/13, § 27, 26 March 2019). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Pastukhov and Yelagin v. Russia, no. 55299/07, 19 December 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaint raised under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of domestic remedies relating to the use of metal cages and other security arrangements in the courtrooms; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 April 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Period of detention Court which issued detention order/examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     33610/18 16/07/2018 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich TRETYAKOV 1986 Preobrazhenskaya Oksana Vladimirovna Strasbourg 14/03/2018 to 28/03/2019 Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, Primorskiy Regional Court 1 year(s) and 15 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - the applicant transported on numerous occasions in “stakan”-type single-prisoner cubicles from 14/03/2018 to 26/10/2018,   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - the applicant was detained as a suspect in excess of 48 hours from 14/03/2018 to 16/03/2018,   Art. 10 (1) - various restrictions on the right to freedom of expression - the applicant posted a note in his Telegram channel, commenting an article of a famous journalist about peaceful and violent protests; he was convicted of a criminal offence for calls to participate in extremist activities; final decision: Primorye Regional Court on 26/06/2019,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 3,900     13453/19 06/06/2019 Igor Aleksandrovich DONTSOV 1969     06/09/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Moscow City Court 5 year(s) and 11 day(s)   the applicant is charged with misappropriation of budgetary funds - "white collar" crime; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; collective detention orders; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   5,000     29435/19 24/05/2019 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich MARTYNOV 1972 Matyushin Mikhail Vladimirovich Moscow 01/02/2017 to 06/02/2019 Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow; Moscow City Court 2 year(s) and 6 day(s)   collective detention orders; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;   2,100     33453/19 19/06/2019 Reyal Kyamal ogly RASULOV 1992 Fleganov Aleksandr Fedorovich Petrozavodsk 15/08/2015 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Petrozavodsk Town Court of Karelia Republic, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic 7 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 2 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   5,000     35997/19 25/06/2019 Vyacheslav Valeryevich KRUGLOV 1989 Khudyakov Aleksandr Kuzmich Sergiyev Posad 05/03/2019 to 19/07/2019 Sergiyev-Posad Town Court; Moscow Regional Court 4 month(s) and 15 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   1,000     36343/19 25/06/2019 Oleg Viktorovich KRASNOV 1982 Mamedova Yelena Anatolyevna Samara 28/02/2017 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Samarskiy District Court of Samara, Samara Regional Court, Leninskiy District Court of Samara 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 20 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;   5,000     37080/19 01/07/2019 Sergey Dmitriyevich ZAKHAROV 1994 Shogin Mikhail Igorevich Petrozavodsk 25/05/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Karelia Republic, Supreme Court of the Karelia Republic 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   4,400     37151/19 02/07/2019 Mikhail Aleksandrovich FOMIN 1976 Simonenkov Igor Nikolayevich Moscow 20/06/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Tverskoy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 28 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; collective detention orders   4,300     37841/19 11/07/2019 Nikita Valentinovich KOLESNIKOV 1965 Slyunin Vladimir Vladimirovich Moscow 17/05/2018 to 12/08/2019 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;   1,300   38127/19 18/07/2019 Vasiliy Pavlovich SUKHORUKOV 1960 Kolosovskiy Sergey Vyacheslavovich Yekaterinburg 30/01/2019 to 27/01/2020 Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court 11 month(s) and 29 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - unrecorded detention between 30/01/2019 at 3.30 pm, and 31/01/2019 at 12.15 a.m.; raised on appeal 1,300   38221/19 25/06/2019 Aleksandr Yuryevich SAFONOV 1974 Aleksandrov Andrey Vitalyevich Moscow 29/05/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Basmannyy District Court of Moscow, Moscow City Court 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 19 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van, transit cell, from 31/05/2018 to 24/05/2019, 0.5 sq. m per inmate, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient electric light,   Art. 3 - use of metal cages and other security arrangements in courtrooms - during hearings on extension of pre-trial detention term at the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow from 31/05/2018 to 24/05/2019 9,750   38695/19 12/07/2019 Van Kuyen TRAN 2019 Kamakin Maksim Ivanovich St Petersburg 06/10/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court 3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 11 day(s)   failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed Art. 3 - use of metal cages and other security arrangements in courtrooms - Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 30/04/2019, on 03/07/2019; St Petersburg City Court on 11/06/2019,   Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - lengthy review of detention:   Dzerzhinskiy District Court, 11/06/2019, appeal lodged on 03/05/2019, appeal decision by the St Petersburg City Court on 11/06/2019 9,750   38843/19 05/07/2019 Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich MEZIN 1988     08/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Industrialnyy District Court of the Perm Region, Perm Regional Court 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 9 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; white collar crime; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding   3,800   39194/19 20/07/2019 Dmitriy Vladimirovich BOGACHEV 1972     27/11/2016 to 20/01/2019 Vyborgskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region, Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Leningrad Regional Court 2 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 25 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice       2,200   41384/19 26/07/2019 Artem Dmitriyevich BELOV 1985 Martynov Vyacheslav Anatolyevich Monastyrshchina 04/02/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Novomoskovsk Town Court of the Tula Region, Tula Regional Court     3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 13 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   3,800   41579/19 29/07/2019 Kirill Alekseyevich ADAMOV 1988     28/02/2018 to 15/07/2019 Tsentralnyy District Court of Chita, Zabaykalye Regional Court 1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 18 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; collective detention orders   1,500   41874/19 26/07/2019 Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich PISAREV 1986 Denisov Dmitriy Arkadyevich Astrakhan 21/04/2018 to 18/06/2019   20/06/2019 to 16/09/2019 Trusovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 29 day(s)   2 month(s) and 28 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; "white collar" type crime; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice Art. 3 - use of metal cages and other security arrangements in courtrooms - Trusovskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan, Astrakhan Regional Court (in person and by video conference from a remand prison); multiple hearings between 21/04/2018 and 05/12/2019,   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - van (Astrakhan / Volgograd / Pyatigorsk) 4 journeys between 24/12/2019 and 09/01/2020, cramped individual compartment ("glass"),   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport 9,750   57670/19 10/01/2020 Aleksandr Vasilyevich PETROV 1982     25/09/2019 to 16/01/2020 Moskovskiy District Court of Tver, Tver Regional Court 3 month(s) and 23 day(s)   use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint;   1,000   59300/19 08/11/2019 Lidiya Yuryevna PODREZOVA 1991 Alimova Gulmira Kuatovna Novosibirsk 07/06/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Regional Court 3 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 10 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint   3,400   6556/20 17/01/2020 Dmitriy Valeryevich GUSAKOV 1983     18/07/2017 to 29/08/2022 Sestroretskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, St   Petersburg City Court, Kalininskiy District Court of St   Petersburg, Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; collective detention orders Art. 8 (1) - restrictions on family visits in pre-trial facilities - SIZO-1 St   Petersburg; refusal of long-term family visits; in 2018, 2019 the applicant’s mother requested a long-term visit with him but faced a refusal on the ground that long-term visits are not provided for by the national law,   Art. 14 - in conjunction with art. 8 - discriminatory treatment compared with convicted prisoners as regards duration of short-term family visits and absence of long-term family visits 6,500   52695/20 17/06/2021 Ilya Leonidovich VYGUZOV 1978     27/07/2018 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Industrialnyy District Court of Izhevsk, Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtia More than 4   year(s) and 7 month(s) and 19 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed   4,800   53402/20 01/07/2021 Viktor Vladimirovich KACHAYEV 1992     30/11/2019 - Pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court, and possibly as of 16/09/2022 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, Krasnoyarsk Regional Court 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 18 day(s)   fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention:   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 08/07/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 10/08/2021;   Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, 29/10/2021, appeal decision by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 30/11/2021 3,500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.