CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 13 November 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 71693/17 Vitaliy Alekseyevich KHARDIN against Russia lodged on 21 March 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for an attempted drug dealing in conspiracy and illegal possession of drugs and his allegation that his conviction was based to a significant extent on his self ‑ incriminating statement 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 this statement but the domestic courts re ‑ introduced it at trial through the interview of the police officers and the attesting witnesses who testified that during the strip search the applicant had confessed to drug dealing. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Having regard to his conviction on 30 January 2017 by the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region, as upheld on 22 March 2017 by the Rostov 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 28 May 2016 (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 witnesses at trial about the statement made by the applicant in the course of the strip search on 28 May 2016 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)? -     did the use of this statement irretrievably prejudice 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)?