The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Shkurdinand Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicants complainedof the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, which reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights …<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him …\u201d<\/p>\n 7. The general principles to be applied in cases where a prosecution witness did not attend the trial and his statements previously made by him were admitted as evidence are well-established in the Court\u2019s case law (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no.\u00a09154\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0100-31, ECHR 2015). In Schatschaschwili, the Court found a violation on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the two key prosecution witnesses examined at any stage of the proceedings (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0161-65).<\/p>\n 8. Turning to the circumstances of the present case and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Even leaving open the question as to whether there were good reasons for the key witnesses\u2019 non-attendance, it considers that the fact that the applicants were not provided with an opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses weighs heavily in the balance in the examination of the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. The Court also takes into account that there is nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that there was any effort on the part of the national judicial authorities to make use of any counterbalancing measures to compensate for the difficulties experienced by the applicants on account of the admission of the witnesses\u2019 untested statements as evidence.<\/p>\n 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257\/12, \u00a7\u00a081, 12\u00a0December 2017), the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes a sufficient just satisfaction in the present case.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Darian Pavli —————-<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n Charges convicted of<\/strong><\/td>\n Summary of the nature of the witness evidence<\/strong><\/td>\n 15\/07\/2019<\/td>\n 1978<\/td>\n Omsk<\/td>\n 17\/01\/2019<\/p>\n Aggravated rape<\/td>\n Victim\u2019s V. testimony about the sexual crime<\/td>\n 21\/07\/2019<\/td>\n 1965<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 22\/01\/2019<\/p>\n sexual abuse of a minor<\/td>\n Victim stated that the applicant had not committed any crime against her<\/td>\n 28\/12\/2019<\/td>\n 1949<\/td>\n Balashikha<\/td>\n 17\/07\/2019<\/p>\n Article 132 of the Criminal Code (sexual abuse of a minor)<\/td>\n V.V. described two episodes of abuse; his testimony was the only direct evidence against the applicant<\/p>\n The applicant complains that he was never able to put questions before the victim; he also claims that the courts failed to counterbalance the limitations to his defence rights (see, in particular, D. v. Finland, no.\u00a030542\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 50-52, 7 July 2009 (with further references))<\/td>\n
\nCASE OF SHKURDIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 42046\/19 and 2 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n27 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention
\n(unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n Final domestic decision<\/strong><\/p>\n Witness absent from trial (indicated by initials)<\/strong><\/p>\n Reasons for absence<\/strong><\/td>\n Steps taken to compensate for the witnesses\u2019 absence<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 42046\/19<\/p>\n Dmitriy Nikolayevich SHKURDIN<\/strong><\/p>\n Natalya Viktorovna Sokolova<\/p>\n Omsk Regional Court<\/p>\n V.<\/p>\n Unknown reasons for absence<\/td>\n none<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 42107\/19<\/p>\n Vladimir Vladimirovich DOLGUSHEV<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Supreme Court of Russia<\/p>\n D.<\/p>\n minor age, victim of a sex crime, absence of a teacher\/psychologist for questioning the victim in court<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 2961\/20<\/p>\n Mikhail Aleksandrovich KISLOV<\/strong><\/p>\n Sotnikov Dmitriy Valeryevich<\/p>\n Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n V.V.<\/p>\n minor age, victim of a sex crime<\/td>\n V.V. was questioned at the pre-trial stage by the investigator in the presence of his guardian and a psychologist, the video recording of his questioning was viewed in the courtroom<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n