Уважаемая Светлана!

Данный сайт посвящен исключительно вопросам обращения в Европейский Суд по правам человека с жалобой на предположительно допущенные государствами-членами Совета Европы нарушения прав, гарантированых Конвенцией о защите прав человека и основных свобод и (или) Протоколами к ней. Даже если допустить, что Ваш вопрос фактически относится к таковым, и Вы просите оценить перспективы обращения в Европейский Суд по правам человека с жалобой на нарушения, предпложитительно допущенные властями Италии, то, к сожалению, я не могу Вам помочь, так как подобная оценка проводится только при условии предоставления копий хотя бы основных документов по делу и осуществляется только в отношении нарушений, предположительно допущенных властями Российской Федерации, о чем прямо написано здесь. Это вызвано тем, что подготовка жалобы в Европейский Суд по правам человека предполагает (среди прочего) анализ национального законодательства государства-ответчика и практики его применения, а я не являюсь специалистом в области итальянского права.

Я не исключаю, что у Вас имеются неплохие шансы по меньшей мере попробовать обратиться в Европейский Суд по правам человека с жалобой на то, что в случае выдачи Вашего мужа Беларуси он может быть подвергнут пыткам, бесчеловечному или унижающему достоинство обращению и наказанию в нарушение обязательств Италии, вытекающих из статьи 3 Конвенции. Для этого Вам следует сначала обосновать, что общая ситуация в Беларуси свидетельствует о пыточных условиях содержания под стражей лиц в ожидании суда, о несоответствующих требованиям статьи 3 Конвенции условиях отбывания наказания, равно как о преследовании людей по политическим мотивам посредством применения к ним уголовной репрессии. Затем необходимо продемонстрироваться индивидуальную ситуацию Вашего мужа, которая свидетельствует о том, что он может стать жертвой указанной выше общей ситуации, так как в отношении него скорее всего уже принято решение о заключении под стражу на время предварительного расследования (возможно, его копия представлена властями Италии), санкция статьи УК РБ, по которой ему предъявлено обвинение, предусматривает лишение свободы на длительный срок, в результате чего он может оказаться в тюрьме в пыточных условиях, он действительно преследуется по политическим мотивам (вероятно, об этом свидетельствуют имеющиеся у Вас документы, предъявленные ранее властям Бельгии). Вы также можете попробовать доказать, что в случае выдачи Беларуси Ваш муж может быть лишен права на справедливое судебное разбирательство, гарантированное статьей 6 Конвенции. Данная претензия, бучи обоснованной, также в принципе может быть предъявлена именно Италии, которая собирается экстрадировать его. Не исключено, что Италия могла допустить некоторые нарушения права на свободу и личную неприкосновенность, которое гарантировано статьей 5 Конвенции, однако явно в Вашем вопросе ничто на это не указывает и (в любом случае) подобный вывод предполагает необходимость изучения обстоятельств дела, принятых властями Италии решений, законодательства этой страны и практики его применения, о чем мы уже написали выше.

Однако самое важное, что все претензии, касающиеся возможного нарушения статей 3, 5, 6 (и любых других) Конвенции, должны быть сначала прямо высказаны итальянским национальным властями, принимающим соответствующие решения по делу, в том числе о заключении Вашего мужа под стражу и его экстрадиции. Безусловно, они должны быть подкреплены необходимыми доказательствами. Если Вы не предъявите их сначала на национальном уровне, Ваша жалоба в Европейский Суд по правам человека может быть признана несоответствующей требованию об исчерпании внутригосударственных средств правовой защиты, сформулированному в пункте 1 статьи 35 Конвенции. Поэтому Вам следует незамедлительно обратиться к итальянским юристам, которые в том числе были бы готовы оказать Вам поддержку в обращении в Европейский Суд по правам человека.

Вы также можете обратиться в Европейский Суд по правам человека с просьбой запретить властями Италии выдачу Вашего мужа Беларуси до тех пор, пока Европейский Суд по правам человека не рассмотрит его жалобу, поданную в Страсбургский Суд. Подобное ходатайство может быть направлено в Европейский Суд по правам человека даже до подачи жалобы, однако в этом случае она должна быть подготовлена вскоре после этого. Кроме того, подобное ходатайство все равно должно быть обоснованным и сопровождаться всеми необходимыми документами. Вы можете прочитать про форму и содержание подобного ходатайства здесь.

Ниже я привожу подготовленное мной для одного из дел обоснование общей ситуации, касающейся условий содержания людей в местах предварительного заключения и отбывания наказания в Беларуси, а также проблем со справедливостью судебного разбирательства в этой стране. В скобках приводятся ссылки на источники. Не исключено, что Вы сможете использовать это в рамках производства по делу как в Италии, так и в Европейском Суде по правам человека, если решите обращаться в него с соответствующей жалобой.

General situation in Belarus

Numerous reports and other documents of international organizations confirm that conditions of preliminary detention, as well as conditions of serving a sentence, in Belarus amount to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, particularly, they break the standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter — the CPT). In addition, the said reports and other documents testify the practice of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in order to obtain a confession or to put strain on the persecuted for political reasons.

The CPT standards, based on its reports (CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 — Rev. 2009), include, inter alia, the following provisions concerning the conditions of preliminary detention:

«[t]he CPT attaches particular importance to… rights of persons detained by the police:…the right to access to a lawyer, and the right to request a medical examination by a doctor of his choice…;

…certain elementary material requirements [regarding physical conditions of detention] should be met: [a]ll police cells should… have adequate… ventilation…;

[t]he following criterion… is currently being used when assessing police cells intended for single occupancy for stays in excess of a few hours: in the order of 7 square meters…;

[t]he CPT has stressed on several occasions the role of judicial and prosecuting authorities as regards combating ill-treatment by the police…[,] [f]or example, all persons detained by the police whom it is proposed to remand to prison should be physically brought before the judge who must decide that issue…[;] [b]ringing the person before the judge will provide a timely opportunity for a criminal suspect who has been ill-treated to lodge a complaint… even in the absence of an express complaint, the judge will be able to take action in good time if there are other indications of ill-treatment (e.g. visible injuries; a person’s general appearance or demeanor);

…conditions of detention in police cells must meet certain basic requirements: all police cells should be clean and of a reasonable size for the number of persons they are used to accommodate, and have adequate lighting (i.e. sufficient to read by, sleeping periods excluded); preferably cells should enjoy natural light…, cells should be equipped with a means of rest (e.g. a fixed chair or bench), and persons obliged to stay overnight in custody should be provided with a clean mattress and clean blankets…[,] [p]ersons in police custody should have access to a proper toilet facility under decent conditions, and be offered adequate means to wash themselves…[,] [t]hey should have ready access to drinking water and be given food at appropriate times, including at least one full meal (i.e. something more substantial than a sandwich) every day…[,] [p]ersons held in police custody for 24 hours or more should, as far as possible, be offered outdoor exercise every day;

…the existence of an independent mechanism for examining complaints about treatment whilst in police custody is an essential safeguard…».

The standards also contain the following provisions regarding imprisonment:

«…one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of the day (8 hours or more) outside their cells, engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature…;

[t]he requirement that prisoners be allowed at least one hour of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard…;

[r]eady access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment…, prisoners should have adequate access to shower or bathing facilities…;

[t]he CPT would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding, poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet/washing facilities in the same establishment…[,] [t]he cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners;

[e]ffective grievance and inspection procedures are fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment in prisons…[,] [p]risoners should have avenues of complaint open to them both within and outside the context of the prison system, including the possibility to have confidential access to an appropriate authority…;
natural light and fresh air… are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy…».

However, the situation in Belarus does not satisfy these standards, and the practice of torture and other violations of Article 3 of the Convention is one of a systematic character. That is confirmed by the following extracts from numerous reports and other documents of international organizations. Some of the reports describe, inter alia, the situation that took place in the Minsk SIZO no. 1, in particular, in its basement, where condemned cells and some other cells are situated. The applicant has been held in one of those cells.

“13… The situation in the country [Belarus] is still characterized by harsh conditions of pretrial detention, the practice of torture and other inhuman treatment, and excessive use of force by the police…”.
(UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus, 15 January 2007, A/HRC/4/16)

“20… Such imbalance [between the powers of the prosecution and the rights of the defence] is embodied further by the abusive nature of the detention system. Physical conditions of pretrial detention are harsh. Detainees are often put under strong psychological pressure…

26. Ill-treatment continues in prisons. The Human Rights Centre “Viasna” denounced the situation of prisoners in Mazyr colony, where torture and beatings were said to be common. However, abuses reportedly take place in most Belarusian prisons and their authors enjoy substantial impunity…”.
(Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, 16 January 2006, E/CN.4/2006/36)

“49. The conditions of pre-trial detention are much worse than those of convicted persons (overcrowding, harsh conditions with severe restrictions of visits and contacts with family, no phone calls, lack of activities, and sometimes, lack of adequate facilities). In certain cases, these restrictions are imposed by law based on the crime charged, and detainees are not given the possibility to effectively challenge these measures.

50. The prison system is not under the authority of the Minister of Justice but of the Interior, involved in the investigation of most cases. This means that those who hold prisoners are not completely separated from those who have an interest in the investigation. The Working Group was under the impression that harsh conditions of pre-trial detention are imposed so as to facilitate the outcome of the investigation, and that the task of those in charge is to actively support the achievement of this goal. Pre-trial detention regime is the same for all detainees, men, women and minors alike.

51. In this context, the whole system is designed to favour self-incrimination. The Working Group gathered information suggesting that, from the very moment of arrest and the beginning of detention, detainees are often put under strong psychological pressure to incriminate themselves in the crime they are accused of. The conditions in pre-trial detention centres being as harsh as they are, self-incrimination is a safe passport to prison colonies, where living conditions improve. If a person challenges the system or his or her detention, he or she is kept longer in a pre-trial detention centre, and the more complicated a case becomes, the more pre-trial detention is extended. This is why detainees consider that collaborating with the investigators will speed up the proceedings and conclude the preliminary investigation expeditiously…”.
(Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Addendum. Mission to Belarus, 25 November 2004, E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3)

“Amnesty International has credible evidence that, under great pressure to solve crimes, police investigators still resort to forced confessions. In an interview with Amnesty International in October 2008 Boris and Oleg described how police used various methods to force them to confess to murder including physical and psychological pressure, and beatings by cell-mates…

…The conditions in which the prisoners are kept exacerbate the inherently cruel, inhuman and degrading experience of waiting for the death penalty to be carried out. Prisoners condemned to death in Belarus are reportedly held in basement cells in SIZO No. 1 in Minsk. The cells for condemned prisoners are reportedly in the basement. Officials would not confirm to Amnesty International whether this was the case. In an interview with Amnesty International in 2004, Oleg Alkaev sketched a death row cell in SIZO No. 1 in Minsk and described the conditions as they were at the time he was director. The cells are 3 – 3.5m wide and 4m long and contain a toilet with a tap over it. The toilet is not screened. The cells contain metal beds which are screwed to the floor, a small shelf for personal items such as toothbrushes, hair brushes and tobacco, and a window near the ceiling which is not just barred, but covered with a metal screen. This is described by Oleg Alkaev as a “Soviet invention … which prevents any normal access to air or sunlight.” In addition, the window has metal bars in front to prevent anybody approaching the window closely. The cells are at basement level and there is very little natural light. The electric light is left on day and night. The lawyer defending Syarhey Marozaw was unable to visit his client in the cell, but his client told him that it was unheated and very damp…

Amnesty International knows of very few cases where allegations of torture or other ill-treatment have been investigated effectively, independently and impartially. When considering Belarus’ third periodic report to the UN Committee against Torture, the Committee deplored the “pattern of failure of officials to conduct prompt, impartial and full investigations into the many allegations of torture reported to the authorities, as well as a failure to prosecute alleged perpetrators…”.
(Amnesty International. Ending Executions in Europe: Toward Abolition of the Death Penalty in Belarus, 2009)

“In the course of the visit to the Republic of Belarus, the mission members received substantial evidence of the use of torture and ill-treatment during criminal… investigations. Individuals suspected of or charged with committing crimes… are often subjected to beatings. Collected evidence demonstrates that cases of torture are not unusual among Belarusian law enforcement bodies.

The UN HRC expressed its particular concern with prison conditions, noting such problems as over-crowding, placement in punitive isolation cells, decrease of food rations for those kept in such cells, planting of “pressmen” (special law enforcement agents who beat and torture inmates to obtain confessions and testimonies), and prison conditions for capital convicts…

The Committee against Torture expressed its concern with the following problem:

substantial evidence of the use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and punishment by governmental officials or with their knowledge,

over-crowding, bad nutrition, lack of hygiene and medical care, and wide-spread tuberculosis in prisons and pre-trial detention facilities.

According to reports received by the Human Rights Center “Viasna” and FIDH, preliminary detention conditions in Belarus are the same as prison conditions. Most frequently respondents complained of overcrowded cells, widespread anti-sanitation, low quality of food and unsatisfactory medical care.

…[I]n some many-stage cases detainees were kept in such conditions for 2 – 2.5 years…”.

In particular, interviews with ex-detainees and other witnesses of the conditions of preliminary detention show that the cells are overcrowded and it can be less then a square meter of space per person there, many detainees have practically no access to day light, the toilet in many cells is just a hole in the ground, separated with a curtain, which the detainees hang up on their own. The quality of food is described as “very bad”, “impossible to eat”, the quality of water in detention centres is extremely bad, the “detainees suffer from stomach disorders and their teeth crumble”. There is a lack of ventilation and fresh air in the cells. The detainees have an opportunity to shower once a week. Sometimes healthy detainees and those who suffer from infectious diseases are placed in mass cells together. As regards to the practice of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, one of the ex-detainees says: «Beatings. They conduct searches: the guards run into a cell, put everybody against the wall and hit them on the legs with truncheons, canes or other items. One of the punishments: they put a person with his face against the wall and force him to keep his arms and legs apart for four hours. If a person complains about the beatings, guards will always say that the detainee «fell down on his own» or has been beaten by the inmates.

“Detainees are taken to court buildings together, in specially equipped vehicles which have several mini-cells separated from each other by the bars. In transit male detainees are hand-cuffed. Sometimes, depending on the route and the number of detainees in the vehicle, they may have no food or drink for a long time regardless of the climate conditions. Detainees are taken to court buildings before breakfast. In the court they are not given any food or water, thus many of them end up with no food or water for the whole day…

During mass arrests the situation deteriorates because many people are tried at the same time. Detainees are transferred in over-crowded vehicles, where they cannot sit down. They have to sit and wait in trucks which are not heated in the winter and not ventilated in the summer…

All capital convicts are kept in the basement of the Minsk pre-trial detention facility on Volodarskogo street. They stay in the death ward for a period of six months to a year and a half. While preparing this report the Mission was able to determine the duration of the stay in the death ward for Sergei Morozov, Valeri Gorbatii and Igor Danchenko. Their sentence came into force on October 9, 2007, and they were executed on February 5, 2008, i.e. they spent just under four months awaiting death. According to the Chairman of NGO “Pravovaia Initsiativa” (Legal Initiative), Dr. Philippov, who visited two death wards during 1990 – 2000, the size of one of them was 2 by 3 meters, the other one was a little bigger. Each of the cells had two bunk beds, a bed-side chest for personal belongings, and a hole in the ground for a toilet that was not in any way separated from the rest of the cell. No daylight penetrates the death cell, but a lamp bulb is on 24 hours a day…

The only international legal remedy available for those whose rights were violated by Belarusian state bodies is an individual complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee, which can decide on violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Up to now, the UN Human Rights Committee has examined only one case regarding prison conditions in Belarus, Bandajevsky v. Belarus (UNHRC, Yuri Bandajevsky v. Belarus, Comm. no. 1100/2002, 28 March 2006). The UN Human Rights Committee concluded that there was a violation of Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the Applicant did not have any access to a bed or means of personal hygiene and sanitation…”.
(International Federation for Human Rights: Conditions of Detention in the Republic of Belarus / international fact-finding mission, June 2008)

“Unsatisfactory conditions in detention facilities were comparable to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in many cases.

As a rule, there were less than two square meters of space per person (including a place to sleep) in the detention facilities and prisons, people were held in dirty cells lacking of ventilation, without necessary means of personal hygiene. It was reported that prisoners had to sleep in turns because of lack of means of rest. They did not have enough food and not always received the necessary medication.

Cruel and inhuman treatment was usually reported by participants of peaceful demonstrations, as well as by those kept in militia stations, places of confinement, mental asylums, and tuberculosis hospitals. Torture and inhuman treatment were specifically complained of by persons held in places of confinement under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior.

The Belarusian Helsinki Committee received from prisoners many complaints of the conditions in places of confinement, particularly, in detention centres. Penal administration’s illegal actions, notably, ill-treatment of convicts, were reported as well. There were allegations of torture practice. Judging by the reports given, the material conditions in prisons are notable for lack of food, medication, and high tuberculosis, syphilis, and AIDS incidence.

The conditions of imprisonment have not improved in any respect during 2007-2008. Conditions in colonies are contrary to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules. Prisoners have repeatedly appealed against the conditions both in prisons and detention centres to the BHC [hereinafter – the Belarusian Helsinki Committee].

The Belarusian Helsinki Committee has obtained much evidence,… [among others,] the following:
the cells are badly heated, and the temperature there gets close to 0 °C during colds;
the cells are not equipped with beds and bed sheets; the prisoners have to sleep on wooden platforms not having any blankets or pillows;
…prison food is of very low quality, causes dyspepsia, stomach and peptic disorders”.

The Report cites a lot of allegations of those been held in custody:

“The conditions are inhuman. I think they equate with torture. Lighting is very bad. A light bulb covered with a dusty lampshade is on during day and night. Windows are closed up with metal sheets having a few holes. The only thing it allows to see is whether there is day or night. When I was in a temporary detention centre (hereinafter – the TDC) there were from 2 to 22 persons held on 20 square meters. Detainees were escorted to toilet 2 times a day, in 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. 3 uncovered toilet sinks were the toilet facilities. Also, there was a 40 liter aluminium tank (parasha) covered with chip board [that was used as a toilet facility] in each cell. The detainees were allowed to carry it out only once a day. The smell was disgusting. The detainees washed in the toilet as well. 3 cold water taps. No personal care items…”;

“In fact, the conditions in the TDC are tortuous. They are designed to humiliate. Parasha is carried out only when preparing to a visit of the authorities, the rest of the time it is supposed to stay filled-up. Ventilation is turned on only after receipt of many requests from detainees… It is dark in there. People eat with spoons that are not having handles. A person has to soak fingers into food in order to spoon it up. It’s revolting…”;

”Sanitary code was not observed at all. Lice, bugs, from 15 to 16 persons held on 17 square meters of space. We slept in 3 turns. Ventilation – an open window in winter, window frames without glasses from April. Only cold water…”.
(Human Rights Situation in Belarus: Report of the Republican Non-Governmental Human Rights Organization “Belarusian Helsinki Committee”, 2007-2008)

The reports of international organizations stress on frequent violations of the right to fair trial:

“10… The judicial system is still subservient to the executive branch…

14. Furthermore, it is alleged that judges virtually never refer to the Constitution or international treaties when they hand down rulings and that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are often ignored. Trials are often held behind closed doors without adequate justification, and representatives of human rights organizations are denied access to courts to monitor hearings. Punishments are often totally disproportionate. The right to appeal is limited as the Supreme Court acts in many cases as the court of first instance, leaving no possibility for appeal… Concerns were expressed regarding respect for their right to a fair trial…”.
(UN Human Rights Council: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus, 15 January 2007, A/HRC/4/16)

“…[I]ssue of concern expressed in the report is the imbalance detected between the powers of the prosecution and the rights of the defence. This imbalance, in an inquisitorial system, seems not to be in conformity with international standards, which require that the whole investigation be conducted in an adversarial manner. Lawyers do not benefit automatically from the right to examine the investigation file, to be present during the gathering of evidence, or to look at all elements of proof against his or her client until the prosecutor formally transmits the case to the court. Even during trial, lawyers find it hard to counter-prove certain evidence since technical expertise is all under the control of the Prosecutor’s Office. The Working Group was repeatedly told that, as a result, there are few cases in which criminal defendants are found not guilty…

44. The Working Group notes with concern that the procedures relating to tenure, disciplinary matters and dismissal of judges at all levels do not comply with the principle of independence and impartiality of the judiciary…

45. The Working Group is also concerned at the “Measures to improve the operation of the legal and notary professions in the Republic of Belarus” (Presidential decree No. 12 of 3 May 1997), which imply restrictions to access and practice of the legal profession and are not in conformity with the Basic Principles related to the role of Bar Associations. The Working Group is especially concerned at the exorbitant powers attributed to the Minister of Justice to control the exercise of the legal profession…

47. This position [that the independence of the Bar Association and the rights of defence are protected by law and that there were no impediments to practice in the profession ] was not shared by other lawyers the Working Group met, especially those engaged in defending the rights of political opponents and human rights defenders. According to many of them, Bar Association officials do not reflect the position of the majority of practicing lawyers. They clearly stated to the Working Group that the procedure of renewing licences to practice is used as a means of pressure, that the executive power often intervenes in the process and that the legal profession does not have a good reputation because of the limited role of lawyers in criminal proceedings…”.
(Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Addendum. Mission to Belarus, 25 November 2004, E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3)

“…Amnesty International has received credible evidence of the violation of the presumption of innocence in death penalty cases, the use of torture and ill-treatment to extract confessions, which have subsequently been admitted as evidence in trials, which fail to meet international standards of fairness, and the failure to provide adequate appeal procedures…

Amnesty International has received many credible reports which demonstrate that the presumption of innocence is not respected in practice…

…In February 1999, Yury Sushkov, a court judge from Babruysk district, who fled to Germany and claimed asylum, reportedly commented on the requirement of court judges to produce verdicts of guilt, even in the absence of sufficient evidence, and the widespread practice of forcing detainees to sign confessions through torture or other ill treatment.

In many of the cases that Amnesty International has come across, detainees have only been able to speak to their lawyers in the presence of police officers…

In practice, judges frequently declare trials closed or resort to other tactics to avoid public scrutiny, and not just in death penalty cases…

…[A]ll lawyers involved in recent death penalty cases have been asked to sign an undertaking that they will not divulge any information about the trial…

Failure to comply with such undertaking is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or up to six months’ imprisonment. Amnesty International is concerned that the idea of state security is being used in Belarus to close trials to the public and to avoid public scrutiny in a way which exceeds the restrictions permissible under international law. The practice of declaring trials closed to the public on the basis of state secrets impinges on the possibility of a fair trial. It means that the judicial process is not subject to public scrutiny. The public has a right to know how justice is administered, and what decisions are reached by the judicial system. Public trials are particularly important in death penalty cases where lives are at stake…

Article 370 Part 6 of the [Belarusian] Criminal Procedural Code states: “Sentences of the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to cassational appeals…”
(Amnesty International. Ending Executions in Europe: Toward Abolition of the Death Penalty in Belarus, 2009)

“The fact that courts were under control of executive authorities resulted in the sense of indifference towards the meaning of judiciary independence. The vicious methods for assignment, promotion, and disciplinary sanction, together with service conditions, violate the international and regional standards of judiciary independence.

Belarusian judicial system is incompatible with the principles of independence, competence, impartiality, justice, which impinges on the right of Belarusian nationals to an effective remedy.

Regardless of the fact that the principle of adversarial trial has been introduced to the Belarusian legislation, in practice the prosecutorial bias is still the essence of Belarusian criminal procedure. The rate of acquittals in criminal procedure still does not exceed 0,2%”.
(Human Rights Situation in Belarus: Report of the Republican Non-Governmental Human Rights Organization “Belarusian Helsinki Committee”, 2007-2008)

“…The system of exercising pressure to obtain self-incrimination in pre-trial detention and the over-reliance of judges on the evidence, statements and protocols of the investigator make it impossible to challenge charges in this type of case. Lack of effective internal control, and moreover, external control, such as the one that could be exercised by independent institutions, nullify the possibility of holding those fabricating cases accountable…”.
(Commission on Human Rights: Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Addendum. Mission to Belarus, 25 November 2004, E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.3).

С уважением,

Олег Анищик

Уважаемая Анна!

По Вашему описанию в принципе невозможно понять, о каком конкретном праве идет речь, какой закон был применен в Вашем деле, с какой мотивировкой суды отказали в удовлетворении Ваших требований, равно как иные обстоятельства дела.

Однако если Вы хотите обратиться в Европейский Суд по правам человека с жалобой на нарушения статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод, гарантирующей право на справедливое судебное разбирательство, и (или) статьи 1 Протокола N 1 к Конвенции, гарантирующей право на уважение собственности, которые предположительно были допущены судами в 2008 году, то Вами пропущен предусмотренный пунктом 1 статьи 35 Конвенции шестимесячный срок, начинающий течь с даты вынесения кассационного определения (от 2008 года).

Также обращаем внимание, что, по мнению Европейского Суда по правам человека, отказ в пересмотре вступивших в законную силу решений «по вновь открывшимся обстоятельствам» не является нарушением статьи 6 Конвенции (ключевые решения по этому вопросу – это решения бывшей Комиссии по правам человека по делам «Х. против Австрии» (X. v. Austria, жалоба N 7761/77) от 8 мая 1978 года и «Руиз Матеос и другие против Испании» (Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, жалоба N 24469/94) от 2 декабря 1994 года, сохраняющие свое значение).

С уважением,

Олег Анищик

Уважаемая Анна!

Мы уже разъяснили Вам, что производство, связанное с рассмотрением заявления о пересмотре дела по вновь открывшимся обстоятельствам, по мнению Европейского Суда по правам человека, не охватывается гарантиями статьи 6 Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод, предусматривающей право на справедливое судебное разбирательство. Поэтому, независимо от принятого решения, такое производство не может быть несправедливым в смысле статьи 6 Конвенции.

С уважением,

Олег Анищик