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. 5616/13 Aleksandr Nikolayevich KONOREV against Russia lodged on 15 January 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for illicit making of drugs and his allegation that his conviction was based to a significant extent on his self-incriminating explanations made in the absence of a lawyer during his arrest and 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 that he had made any explanations during his arrest and strip search, but the domestic courts used them at trial through the interview of the police officers and the attesting witnesses who testified that during the arrest and strip search the applicant had confessed to the crime. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Having regard to his conviction on 29 August 2012 by the Zavodskiy District Court of Saratov, as upheld on 1 November 2012 by the Saratov 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 explanations made during his arrest and strip search on 12   July 2012 (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 explanations made by the applicant in the course of his arrest and strip search on 12 July 2012 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 these explanations 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)?