Общественное объединение "Сутяжник"

Главная страница

Новости судебных дел

Судебное дело "Алина Саблина против тайной трансплантации органов"


Европейский суд по правам человека начал рассматривать дело о тайном изъятии органов в России и задал властям вопросы: (1) было ли изъятие органов в тайне от родителей жестоким и бесчеловечным обращением, нарушением семейной жизни (2) можно ли считать суд справедливым, если на судебное заседание не допустили прессу и рассмотрели дело с участием прокурора, который фактически присутствовал в заседании лишь на бумаге - дал свое заключение против истцов

 

21.09.2016

 

                                        Communicated on 21 September 2016

   THIRD SECTION

                          Application no. 4460/16
                   Yelena Vladimirovna SABLINA and others
                               against Russia
                         lodged on 28 December 2015

                             STATEMENT OF FACTS

   The applicants are:

   1.  Ms Elena Vladimirovna Sablina, born in 1971;

   2.  Ms Tatyana Mikhaylovna Biryukova, born in 1950, and

   3.  Ms Nelly Stepanovna Sablina, born in 1942.

   They   are  Russian  nationals.  The  first  two  applicants  live  in
   Yekaterinburg.  The  third applicant lives in Galdey, a village in the
   Irkutsk  Region.  The  applicants  are  represented by Mr A. Burkov, a
   lawyer practising in Yekaterinburg.

   A.  The circumstances of the case

   The  facts  of  the  case,  as  submitted  by  the  applicants, may be
   summarised as follows.

   The  first applicant is the mother of Ms Alina Sablina (Ms A.S.), born
   in  1994  but  now  deceased.  The  second and third applicants are Ms
   A.S.'s grandmothers.

   1.  Events leading to the organ removal

   On 11 January 2014 Ms A.S. was hit by a car while crossing the street,
   sustained very serious injuries and fell into a coma. At approximately
   11.20 p.m.  that  day  she  was taken to Moscow City Clinical Hospital
   No. 1  (Городская  Клиническая  Больница  No.  1  г.  Москвы - "Moscow
   Hospital No. 1"), where emergency surgery and resuscitation procedures
   were  carried  out.  Despite  those  efforts,  Ms.  A.S. remained in a
   critical condition and did not regain consciousness.

   The first applicant and Ms A.S.'s father were in constant contact with
   the doctors from Moscow Hospital No. 1 and visited their daughter, who
   remained unconscious, at least twice a day from 12 to 16 January 2014.

   On  17  January  2014 they arrived again at the hospital, but were not
   allowed to see Ms A.S. because she had been moved to an intensive care
   ward.

   Despite  the  treatment  she received Ms A.S.'s condition deteriorated
   and  on  17 January  2014  at  11.40  p.m.  brain  death was recorded.
   According to official records, her relatives were notified immediately
   about her death. The applicants do not contest that they were informed
   but  submit  that  they  were  not  provided  with  details  about the
   circumstances and cause of her death.

   On  18  January 2014 the heart and kidneys were removed from Ms A.S.'s
   body. The operation was performed from 3.42 to 5.50 a.m. by a surgical
   team  consisting  of  personnel from the Moscow Coordination Centre of
   Organ  Donation (Московский Координационный Центр Органного Донорства)
   and  the  Federal  Scientific Centre of Transplantation and Artificial
   Organs    (ФГБУ   Федеральный   научный   центр   транспланталогии   и
   искусственных органов имени академика Шумакова).

   After  the  removal  of  the  organs  the  body  was  transferred to a
   forensic-medical  mortuary  for a post-mortem examination. It does not
   appear  that  any  of Ms A.S.'s relatives were at any time informed of
   the operation or asked for their consent.

   On  11  February  2014,  in  the  context  of the criminal proceedings
   against  the  person  responsible for the traffic accident, a forensic
   examination  of  Ms A.S.'s  body  was carried out. The forensic report
   stated,  in particular, that a sterno-laparotomy had been performed on
   the body and that certain organs had been removed.

   On  15 February 2014 the first applicant obtained a copy of the report
   when  studying  the materials of the criminal case and found out about
   the organ removal.

   2.  Preliminary criminal inquiry

   In  April  2014  the  first applicant lodged a complaint with the Main
   Investigative  Department  of the city of Moscow (Главное следственное
   управление  по городу Москве), seeking an investigation into the organ
   removal.

   On   4   July   2014   an   investigator   from  the  Zamoskvoryetskiy
   Inter-district  Investigative  Department  (Замоскворецкий межрайонный
   следственный  отдел)  informed  the first applicant that there were no
   grounds  to  initiate criminal proceedings owing to the absence of any
   evidence  that  a  crime  punishable  under Article 120 of the Russian
   Criminal  Code  (coercion  to  human  organ  and  tissue  removal  for
   transplantation   purposes)   had  been  committed.  The  investigator
   examined  the events and concluded that the operation had been carried
   out  in  accordance  with  domestic  law.  It was established that the
   doctors  had had no information that Ms A.S. or her relatives had ever
   opposed  organ  removal  and therefore the doctors had operated on the
   presumption  of  consent.  The removal had been carried out only after
   brain  death  had  been  duly recorded and had been on the basis of an
   authorisation by a senior medical official.

   3.  Administrative inquiry

   On  7  April  2014  the  first  applicant  filed  a complaint with the
   Healthcare  Control  Service  (Федеральная  служба  по надзору в сфере
   здравоохранения)

   On 4 June 2014 the first applicant was informed that an administrative
   review had been undertaken with respect to Moscow Hospital No. 1. Some
   minor  violations had been detected, but none of them made the removal
   of her daughter's organs illegal.

   4.  Civil proceedings

   (a)  Proceedings before the first-instance court

   The  applicants then brought civil proceedings against the Moscow City
   Health  Department  and the medical institutions involved in the organ
   removal  before  the  Zamoskvoretskiy  District  Court of Moscow ("the
   District Court") seeking compensation of non-pecuniary damage.

   On  23  December 2014 Moscow Hospital No. 1 applied at the preliminary
   stage  of  the  proceedings  to  have  the  trial  held in camera. The
   applicants  objected.  On  the same day the District Court granted the
   application.  The  court  ordered that everyone but the parties to the
   dispute  should be excluded from the preliminary and trial hearings in
   order  to  protect  confidential  information  about Ms A.S.'s medical
   treatment.

   On  11  February  2015 the applicants applied to the District Court to
   open the trial partially and exclude the public only when confidential
   information  was  being  examined.  The application was dismissed. The
   court reiterated that the exclusion of the public was justified by the
   necessity   to   prevent   the   disclosure  of  confidential  medical
   information.

   On  the  same  day  a  public  prosecutor entered the proceedings. She
   objected  to  the  applicant's application for a partially open trial.
   Apart  from  that  occasion,  the public prosecutor did not attend the
   preliminary hearings and made no statements.

   On  2  March  2015  the applicants applied to the court to exclude the
   prosecutor  from  the  proceedings.  The  applicants  state that their
   application was left unexamined.

   On  6  April  2015  the  first  trial  hearing  took place and all the
   evidence  and  witnesses were examined. The prosecutor was not present
   at that hearing.

   On 7 April 2015 during closing remarks at the second and final hearing
   the prosecutor again appeared and made a brief statement in support of
   the   defendants'   position.  In  particular,  she  stated  that  the
   applicants'  claims  were groundless and should be dismissed. She also
   added  that the doctors' actions had been lawful as no breaches of the
   law had been revealed by previous investigations.

   (b)  The first-instance court's judgment

   On 7 April 2015 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims in
   full.

   The  District  Court  examined  the  relevant  Russian legislation and
   quoted,  word  for word, the interpretation of that legislation by the
   Constitutional Court of Russia in its decision no. 459-O of 4 December
   2003.

   The  District  Court  went  on to note that the removal of organs from
   Ms A.S.'s  body  had  been  performed in accordance with domestic law.
   Neither  at  the time of her death nor at the moment of the extraction
   of  her organs for transplantation purpose had any of A.S.'s relatives
   or  their  legal representatives notified the medical personnel at the
   hospital  about any objections that she or they might have had to such
   an act. The doctors had had no legal obligation to seek the consent of
   Ms   A.S.'s   relatives.   Moreover,   contrary   to  the  applicants'
   allegations,  the  procedure  for  removal, as established by law, had
   been  complied  with:  the  extraction  had  been  authorised  by  the
   competent  medical  officer  and had taken place after brain death had
   been  duly  recorded. In support of that conclusion the District Court
   referred  to  the  results  of the preliminary criminal investigation,
   which had not revealed any breaches of the law.

   Lastly,  the District Court rejected the applicants' argument that the
   Russian  law  on  organ  transplantation  was  incompatible  with  the
   Convention,  stating  that  there  had  been no judgment on the matter
   against Russia.

   Only the operative part of the judgment was pronounced publicly.

   (c)  Proceedings before the appellate and cassation courts

   The applicants appealed against the judgment to the Moscow City Court.
   On  30 June 2015 that court fully upheld the reasoning of the District
   Court  and  dismissed the appeal. The Moscow City Court also concluded
   that  the  decision to hold the trial in camera had been in conformity
   with both domestic law and the Convention.

   On  15  October  2015  the Presidium of the Moscow City Court found no
   breaches  of  either  material  or  procedural  law  and  refused  the
   applicants' leave to lodge a cassation appeal.

   On  27  November 2015 a judge at the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed
   an  application by the applicants to refer the case for consideration.
   The  judge  agreed  with  the conclusions of the lower courts that the
   applicants had not been entitled to compensation for the lack of prior
   notification  about  the removal of the organs because it had not been
   against the law.

   Neither court decision was published in full.

   5.  Proceedings before the Constitutional Court

   On  27  July  2015 the applicants issued a separate set of proceedings
   before   the  Constitutional  Court  of  Russia  ("the  Constitutional
   Court").  They  challenged the compatibility of the policy of presumed
   consent  enshrined  in  section  8 of the Transplantation Act with the
   Russian Constitution and the Convention. They referred, in particular,
   to  the  cases  of  Petrova  v. Latvia (no. 4605/05, 24 June 2014) and
   Elberte v. Latvia (no. 61243/08, 13 January 2015).

   In its decision no. 224-O of 10 February 2016 the Constitutional Court
   found  the  applicants'  complaint  inadmissible.  It  concluded that,
   contrary to what was alleged by the applicants, the policy of presumed
   consent  in  the  sphere of organ donation for transplantation purpose
   was  not, in itself, incompatible with either the Russian Constitution
   or  international  instruments  and  practice.  More specifically, the
   Constitutional  Court  observed  that such a policy aimed at saving as
   many  human lives as possible by increasing the number of donor organs
   suitable  for transplantation. It further noted that the principles of
   presumed  content  had  been  clearly  formulated  in section 8 of the
   Transplantation  Act,  which  had been duly published, with the result
   that  all  individuals concerned, including the applicants, were aware
   of  the  policy  and  able to restrict organ extraction post mortem if
   they wished to do so.

   The  Constitutional  Court  went  on  to  observe that in its decision
   no. 459-O  of 4 December 2003 it had already found the existing policy
   in the field constitutional, but had pointed to the necessity for more
   detailed  regulations,  in  legal  acts and other instruments, for the
   procedures  to be followed by an individual or his or her relatives to
   express  their  will regarding organ donation. It had also pointed out
   in  that  decision  that it was necessary to increase public awareness
   about existing policy and the relevant legal rules. The Constitutional
   Court  observed  that  its recommendations had been implemented in the
   Health  Protection  Act  of  21  November 2011. Section 47 of that Act
   established  a  detailed  procedure  for  how  a  person or a person's
   relatives   could   express  their  views  on  organ  transplantation.
   Moreover,  the Russian Healthcare Ministry had recently prepared a new
   draft  law  on  organ  donation  and  transplantation,  which had been
   submitted  for  nationwide  public  discussion  and  debate. The final
   version  of  that  act  would  take  into  account  the results of the
   discussion  and  debate.  Once  adopted the act would further increase
   transparency  and  public  awarness  of  the  particularities of organ
   extraction  post  mortem  and  provide  even  greater  protection from
   arbitrariness.

   In  the  light  of  those  considerations,  the  Constitutional  Court
   concluded  that  the  existing  national  legislation in the field was
   sufficiently   clear  and  accessible,  and  established  sufficiently
   detailed  procedures  to  be  followed  by an individual or his or her
   relatives  to  express  their  will  on the matter. The applicants, in
   essence,  had  requested that the existing policy be changed, but that
   was outside the court's jurisdiction.

   B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

   1.  The Transplantation Act

   Federal  Law  no. 4180-1 "On the Transplantation of Organs and/or Body
   Tissues"   of  22  December  1992  (Федеральный  Закон  от  22.12.1992
   No. 4180-1  "О  трансплантации органов и (или) тканей человека" - "the
   Transplantation Act") provides in paragraph 2 of its preamble that the
   transplantation  of  organs  and/or  body  tissues can be used to save
   lives  and  help  someone  recover  and  that  it must be performed in
   compliance with Russian laws and international human rights standards,
   respecting  the  principles proclaimed by the international community.
   The  interests of a particular individual are to prevail over those of
   society and science.

   Section  8  ("Presumption  of  consent  to extraction of organs and/or
   tissues") provides that the extraction of organs and/or tissues from a
   human  body  is  not allowed where a medical institution has been made
   aware  that  the  deceased  during  his or her lifetime, or his or her
   close  relatives  or legal representative, have opposed the extraction
   of that person's organs or body tissues after his or her death for the
   purposes of transplantation.

   Section 10 ("Authorisation of extraction of organs and/or tissues from
   a  dead  body") provides that the extraction of organs from a deceased
   person  can be performed only after authorisation by the chief medical
   officer of a relevant medical institution.

   2.  The Health Protection Act

   Federal  Law  no.  323-FZ  "On  the  Basic Principles of Public Health
   Protection in the Russian Federation" of 21 November 2011 (Федеральный
   Закон  от  21.11.2011 No. 323-ФЗ "Об основах охраны здоровья граждан в
   Российской  Федерации"  -  "the  Healthcare  Act") provides in section
   47(6)  that  every  mentally competent adult person is allowed, either
   orally  in  the  presence  of  witnesses or in writing (certified by a
   notary  or  the  chief  medical  officer of a medical institution), to
   express  his or her consent or to oppose organ removal from his or her
   body after death.

   Section  47(7)  provides  that  where  the  deceased  has expressed no
   opinion  on  organ  extraction,  his  or her spouse or close relatives
   (children, parents or grandparents) can oppose transplantation.

   Section  47(9)  states  that  all  the  information  received  from an
   individual  in  accordance  with  section  47(6)  of  the  Act must be
   included in his or her medical file.

   Section  47(10)  prohibits  performing  organ  removal where a medical
   institution  is  aware  that  a  deceased  person  during  his  or her
   lifetime,  or  his  or  her close relatives or a legal representative,
   have   opposed   the   extraction   of  organs  or  body  tissues  for
   transplantation purposes.

   3.  Decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia

   In  decision  no.  459-O  of  4 December 2003 the Constitutional Court
   found  that the policy of presumed consent as established in section 8
   of   the   Transplantation   Act   was  compatible  with  the  Russian
   Constitution,  in  so  far  as  the  latter  guaranteed  the  physical
   integrity  of  the  bodies  of  both  the  living  and  the  dead. The
   Constitutional  Court  pointed  out  that  presumed consent had been a
   legitimate   legislative  choice  based,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the
   consideration  that  it  was inhumane, before surgery or other medical
   intervention,  or at the moment of informing an individual's relatives
   about  his  or  her  death,  to  ask  at  the same time whether it was
   possible  to take out their loved one's organs for transplantation. On
   the  other  hand,  the state of modern medical science did not make it
   possible  to  find out the opinion of an individual's relatives on the
   matter  after  death within the time-limit short enough for preserving
   organs  for  transplant.  The  court  further  noted  that  the  legal
   provisions  in  the  field  had  been  duly  published  and  had  been
   accessible,  and that everyone in Russia could express, in one form or
   another his or her objection to organ removal, including in a document
   certified by a notary.

   At  the  same  time  the Constitutional Court noted that more detailed
   regulation  was  still  necessary  in legal acts and other instruments
   regarding  questions  relating to allowing an individual or his or her
   relatives  to  exercise  their  right  to express their will regarding
   organ  donation.  The  system  of  informing  the general public about
   regulation in that area needed to be further developed and enhanced.

   C.  Relevant international documents

   1.  Council of Europe documents

   On  11  May  1978  the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
   adopted  Resolution  (78)  29 on harmonising the legislation of member
   states  relating to the removal, grafting and transplantation of human
   substances.  It  recommended that the governments of the Member States
   ensure  that their laws conform to the rules annexed to the resolution
   or  adopt  provisions  conforming  to those rules when introducing new
   legislation. Article 10 of this Resolution provides:

   "1.  No  removal  must  take  place  when there is an open or presumed
   objection  on  the  part  of  the deceased, in particular, taking into
   account his religious and philosophical convictions.

   2. In the absence of the explicit or implicit wish of the deceased the
   removal  may be effected. However, a state may decide that the removal
   must  not  be  effected  if,  after  such reasonable inquiry as may be
   practicable has been made into the views of the family of the deceased
   and  in  the case of a surviving legally incapacitated person those of
   his  legal representative, an objection is apparent; when the deceased
   was   a   legally  incapacitated  person  the  consent  of  his  legal
   representative may also be required."

   In  relation  to  organ  and  tissue removal from deceased persons, an
   Additional  Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine
   on  Transplantation  of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin was adopted
   (Council  of  Europe  Treaty Series no. 186). On 1 May 2006 it entered
   into  force  in respect of the States that had ratified it. Russia has
   neither signed nor ratified this Protocol.

   The relevant Articles of the Additional Protocol read:

                             Article 1 - Object

   "Parties  to  this  Protocol shall protect the dignity and identity of
   everyone and guarantee, without discrimination, respect for his or her
   integrity  and  other  rights  and fundamental freedoms with regard to
   transplantation of organs and tissues of human origin."

                    Article 16 - Certification of death

   "Organs  or  tissues  shall not be removed from the body of a deceased
   person  unless  that person has been certified dead in accordance with
   the law.

   The  doctors  certifying  the  death of a person shall not be the same
   doctors  who participate directly in removal of organs or tissues from
   the  deceased  person,  or  subsequent  transplantation procedures, or
   having  responsibilities  for  the  care  of potential organ or tissue
   recipients."

                   Article 17 - Consent and authorisation

   "Organs  or  tissues  shall not be removed from the body of a deceased
   person  unless  consent  or  authorisation  required  by  law has been
   obtained.  The removal shall not be carried out if the deceased person
   had objected to it."

                     Article 19 - Promotion of donation

   "Parties  shall  take all appropriate measures to promote the donation
   of organs and tissues."

   Explanatory  Report  to  the  Additional Protocol to the Convention on
   Human  Rights and Biomedicine concerning Transplantation of Organs and
   Tissues of Human Origin specifies:

   "100.  The  removal  of  organs  or  tissues  can  be carried out on a
   deceased  person who has not had, during his/her life, the capacity to
   consent  if all the authorisations required by law have been obtained.
   The  authorisation may equally be required to carry out a removal on a
   deceased  person  who,  during  his/her  life,  was  capable of giving
   consent  but  did  not  make  known  his  wishes regarding an eventual
   removal post-mortem.

   101.  Without  anticipating  the  system to be introduced, the Article
   accordingly  provides  that if the deceased person's wishes are at all
   in  doubt, it must be possible to rely on national law for guidance as
   to  the  appropriate procedure. In some States the law permits that if
   there is no explicit or implicit objection to donation, removal can be
   carried  out.  In  that  case,  the  law  provides means of expressing
   intention,  such  as  drawing  up  a  register of objections. In other
   countries, the law does not prejudge the wishes of those concerned and
   prescribes  enquiries among relatives and friends to establish whether
   or not the deceased person was in favour of organ donation.

   102.  Whatever  the  system,  if  the  wishes  of the deceased are not
   sufficiently  established, the team in charge of the removal of organs
   must  beforehand  endeavour  to obtain testimony from relatives of the
   deceased.  Unless  national law otherwise provides, such authorisation
   should not depend on the preferences of the close relatives themselves
   for  or  against  organ and tissue donation. Close relatives should be
   asked  only  about the deceased person's expressed or presumed wishes.
   It  is  the expressed views of the potential donor which are paramount
   in  deciding whether organs or tissue may be retrieved. Parties should
   make  clear  whether  organ  or  tissue  retrieval can take place if a
   deceased  person's wishes are not known and cannot be ascertained from
   relatives or friends."

   2.  Other relevant international law instruments

   WHO Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation
   (endorsed  by  the  sixty-third  World Health Assembly in May 2010, in
   Resolution WHA63.22) specify in Guiding Principle 1:

   "Cells,  tissues and organs may be removed from the bodies of deceased
   persons for the purpose of transplantation if:

   (a) any consent required by law is obtained, and

   (b) there is no reason to believe that the deceased person objected to
   such removal."

   Commentary on Guiding Principle 1 provides:

   "Whether  consent  to procure organs and tissues from deceased persons
   is  "explicit"  or  "presumed"  depends  upon  each  country's social,
   medical  and  cultural  traditions,  including  the  manner  in  which
   families  are involved in decision-making about health care generally.
   Under   both   systems  any  valid  indication  of  deceased  persons'
   opposition  to  posthumous  removal  of their cells, tissues or organs
   will prevent such removal.

   Given  the  ethical  importance  of consent, [presumed consent] system
   should  ensure that people are fully informed about the policy and are
   provided with an easy means to opt out."

   COMPLAINTS

   The  applicants  complain  under Article 8 of the Convention that they
   were  denied an opportunity to express their opinion on the extraction
   of organs from their relative's body. They further submit that Russian
   laws  on  organ  transplantation  are  ambiguous  and  do  not provide
   sufficient  protection  from arbitrariness, therefore enabling doctors
   to  perform  the  removal  without  informing the relatives or seeking
   their consent.

   The applicants further complain under Article 6 of the Convention that
   the  civil  proceedings in their case were held in camera and that the
   court  decisions  were not pronounced publicly in full. The applicants
   further  submit that the participation of a public prosecutor in those
   proceedings on the defendants' side breached the principle of equality
   of arms.

                          QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

   1.  Did  the  removal of Ms A.S.'s organs without her prior consent or
   that of the applicants constitute an interference with the applicants'
   right  to  respect  for  their  private and/or family life, within the
   meaning  of Article 8 of the Convention? The Government are invited to
   comment on this question in respect of the grandmothers and in respect
   of the mother separately.

   If so,

   (a)  Was that interference "in accordance with the law"?

   In particular, what was the legal basis for that interference?

   Did  the  relevant  Russian  legislation,  as in force at the material
   time,   meet  the  requirements  of  clarity  and  foreseeability?  In
   particular,  were  there disagreements among the competent authorities
   as  to  the  scope  and interpretation of Russian legislation on organ
   transplantation  (see  Elberte  v. Latvia,  no. 61243/08, S: 113, ECHR
   2015)? Also, was any system of informing the general public about that
   legislation,  and/or  regulation in that area, in place, in accordance
   with  the  Russian  Constitutional  Court's  decision  no.  459-O of 4
   December 2003?

   Did  the  relevant Russian legislation as in force at the time provide
   sufficient protection against arbitrariness?

   (b)  Did that interference pursue a legitimate aim?

   (c)  Was   that   interference  "necessary",  within  the  meaning  of
   Article 8 S: 2 of the Convention?

   2.  Have  the  applicants  been  subjected to inhuman and/or degrading
   treatment  in  breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the
   removal  of  A.S.'s  organs  without  her prior consent or that of the
   applicants?

   3.  Did  the  applicants  have  a  fair  and  public  hearing  in  the
   determination  of  their  civil rights and obligations, as required by
   Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention?

   In particular:

   (a)  Were  the  restrictions  on  the  applicants'  right  to a public
   hearing  and  pronouncement  of  a  judgment,  as  provided in Article
   6 S: 1,  necessary  and  justified in the circumstances of the present
   case?  If not, was there a breach of the relevant guarantee of Article
   6 S: 1?

   (b)  Was  the  principle  of equality of arms respected as regards the
   participation  of  a  public  prosecutor in the civil proceedings (see
   Batsanina  v. Russia,  no.  3932/02,  S:  27,  26 May 2009; Korolev v.
   Russia  (no. 2), no. 5447/03, S: 33, 1 April 2010; and Menchinskaya v.
   Russia,  no.  42454/02, 15 January 2009)? Was there any examination of
   the  applicants'  application  of 2 March 2015 to the Zamoskvoryetskiy
   District  Court  of  Moscow  to  remove the public prosecutor from the
   proceedings?  If  so,  the Government are invited to provide a copy of
   the relevant decision.

   (c)  Was  the public pronouncement of the operative parts of the court
   decisions  in  the applicants' case sufficient to satisfy the relevant
   requirement  of  Article  6 S: 1  (see  Malmberg and Others v. Russia,
   nos. 23045/05,  21236/09,  17759/10 and 48402/10, 15 January 2015, and
   Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008)? If not, was there
   a breach of the relevant guarantee of Article 6 S: 1?

   10 SABLINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS

   SABLINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS 9


Если вы хотите поддержать нашу деятельность, то введите в поле ниже сумму в рублях, которую вы готовы пожертвовать и кликните кнопку рядом:

рублей.      


Поделиться в социальных сетях:

  Diaspora*

Комментарии:

Добавить комментарий:

Ваше имя или ник:

(Войти? Зарегистрироваться? Забыли пароль? Войти под OpenID?)

Ваш e-mail (не обязателен, если укажете - будет опубликован на сайте):

Ваш комментарий:

Введите цифры и буквы с картинки (защита от спам-роботов):