CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 February 2022   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56326/18 Rustam Mustafayevich KERIMOV against Russia lodged on 16 November 2018 communicated on 8 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was found guilty of sale and illegal possession of drugs and sentenced to imprisonment. The conviction in respect of drug sale was based notably on pre-trial statements of witness M., who had not been questioned in court. The conviction in respect of possession of drugs was based on a record of a personal search and seizure of a sachet of amphetamine. The applicant alleges that the sachet had been planted on him by the police after the arrest. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see Sakit Zahidov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   51164/07, §§   42-59, 12   November 2015)? In particular,   (a)     Were the applicant’s arrest and bodily search conducted in accordance with domestic rules of criminal procedure? When was the applicant provided with legal assistance? Why was the record of the applicant’s arrest not made on the day of his arrest?   (b)     Did the national courts address the applicant’s arguments as regards the quality of evidence obtained during his bodily search?   2.     Was the applicant able to examine prosecution witness M., as required by Article   6   §   3   (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v.   Germany [GC], no.   9154/10, §§   100 ‑ 31, ECHR 2015)?