CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 2 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4092/13 Murodbeg Kholnazarovich MURODOV against Russia lodged on 3 December 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for illegal possession of drugs and his allegation that his conviction was based to a significant extent on his self-incriminating statements made in the absence of a lawyer during his strip search ( see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, ECHR   2008 and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   50541/08 and 3 others, ECHR 2016). The applicant subsequently denied these statements but the domestic courts re-introduced them at trial through the interview of the police officers and of the attesting witness who testified that during the strip search the applicant had confessed of having possessed drugs for personal use. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Having regard to his conviction on 15 March 2012 by the Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region, as upheld on 28 June 2012 by the Moscow Regional Court, has there been a breach of Article   6 §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention on account of the use at trial of the applicant’s self ‑ incriminating statement made during his strip search on 29 September 2011 (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, §§ 260-62, 274, 280-94, 301-11, ECHR 2016, )? In particular, -     was the questioning of the police officers and of the attesting witness at trial about the statements made by the applicant in the course of the strip search on 29 September 2011 in compliance with domestic legislation, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in its decision no. 44-O of 6 February 2004 (compare Titarenko v. Ukraine , no.   31720/02, § 87, 20 September 2012, Truten v. Ukraine , no. 18041/08, §   69, 23 June 2016, contrast Hovanesian v. Bulgaria , no. 31814/03, § 37, 21   December 2010)? -     whether the use of this statement irretrievably prejudiced the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (compare Pakshayev v. Russia , no. 1377/04, § 31, 13 March 2014, contrast Chukayev v. Russia , no. 36814/06, § 103, 5 November 2015)?