EIT:ssa suuren jaoston kuuleminen venäläistapauksessa

9.9.2014 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto järjesti suullisen kuulemistilaisuuden jutussa, jossa oli kyse elinkautisvangin tapaamisoikeuksista sukulaistensa kanssa.

Valituksessa on kyse etenkin siitä, että valittaja sai tuomionsa ensimmäisen 10 vuoden aikana tavata sukulaisiaan enintään neljän tunnin ajan kerrallaan.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The applicant, Andrey Khoroshenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a life sentence. Having been convicted of murder and sentenced to death penalty in 1995, his sentence was changed to life imprisonment in 1999.

The case concerns, in particular, Mr Khoroshenko’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in a special regime correctional colony, namely the fact that he was not allowed to receive long-term visits – of more than four hours – by relatives. In August 2004, he lodged a complaint with the Russian Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of the ten-year ban on long-term family visits for convicts sentenced to life imprisonment contained in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. He alleged that those conditions had a discriminatory effect on him and breached his right to respect for private life. The Constitutional Court rejected his complaint.

Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Khoroshenko complains that during the first ten years of his detention in a special regime correctional colony he was not allowed to receive long-term family visits. He further complains, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), that civil proceedings which he had brought against his legal counsel, for improper performance, were not fair, in particular because Mr Khoroshenko was absent from the hearing in the case. He also alleges breaches of Article 6 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of, in particular, the civil proceedings which he brought against the prosecutor’s office and the Ombudsman.