European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nina Vajić, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Peer Lorenzen,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 22 October 2008, 29 January and 30 July 2009 and 11 February 2011 respectively,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are all Russian nationals. They are currently serving a life sentence in Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.

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

A.  The circumstances of the case

1.  Mr Khamtokhu

Mr Alsan Bachmizovich Khamtokhu is a Russian national who was born in 1970.

On 14 December 2000 the Supreme Court of the Adygeya Republic found him guilty of multiple offences, including escape from prison, aggravated assault on police officers and illegal possession of firearms, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

On 19 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.

On 26 March 2008 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the appeal judgment of 19 October 2001 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for a fresh consideration.

On 30 June 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The court reclassified some of the charges against him. The earlier imposed life sentence remained unchanged.

2.  Mr Lebetskiy

Mr Yuriy Aleksandrovich Lebetskiy is a Russian national who was born in 1986.

On 4 October 2007 the Perm Regional Court found him guilty of three counts of murder, theft and robbery and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 30 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld his conviction on appeal.

3.  Mr Suzdalev

Mr Anatoliy Gennadyevich Suzdalev is a Russian national who was born in 1972. On 3 September 2008 the Kurgan Regional Court found him guilty of four counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 5 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal.

4.  Mr Aksenchik

Mr Artyom Aleksandrovich Aksenchik is a Russian national who was born in 1985.

On 28 April 2010 the Tomsk Regional Court found him of three counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 12 August 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal.

B.  Relevant domestic law and practice

The Criminal Code (Article 57) provides as follows:

“1.  Life imprisonment may be imposed for particularly serious offences against life and ... public safety.

2.  Life imprisonment may not be imposed on women, persons who were under eighteen years of age at the time they committed an offence and men who were at least sixty-five years old at the time the verdict in the case was pronounced.”

The Constitutional Court repeatedly declared inadmissible complaints about unconstitutionality of Article 57 of the Criminal Code and its discriminatory nature. In particular, in decision no. 466-O of 21 December 2004, the Constitutional Court indicated as follows:

“The provisions of Article 57 ... of the Russian Criminal Code banning imposition of life imprisonment in respect of the categories of persons indicated in the said Article are based on the principles of justice and humanism and allow [the sentencing court] to take into account the social, age and physiological characteristics of different categories of persons in order to realise the aims of the criminal punishment in a democratic and law-based society in a more comprehensive and effective manner.

...

The laws imposing [criminal] liability and punishment regardless of the character of a guilty person, and other circumstances which are objectively and reasonably justified and ensure an adequate legal assessment of the danger of the offence and of the person who committed it ... would be contrary to the constitutional prohibition of discrimination and principles of justice and humanism set forth the Constitution.

The legislative provisions challenged by the applicant ensure the differentiation of criminal liability and cannot be considered as incompatible with the constitutional principles and rules or infringing on human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.”

COMPLAINTS

Referring to Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, the applicants, who were sentenced to life imprisonment, complain that they were subjected to discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis other categories of convicts which are exempt from imposition of life imprisonment as a matter of law.

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them were unfair and that the sentences imposed were too harsh.

THE LAW

Article 5

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a)  the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court...”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

(a)  In so far as the complaint lodged by Mr Yu. Lebetskiy is concerned, the Court reiterates that it may only deal with the matter within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken or the event occurred. The applicant introduced his application on 29 January 2009 while the criminal proceedings against him had ended on 30 January 2008.

It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

(b)  The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the discrimination complaints lodged by Mr Khamtokhu, Mr Suzdalev and Mr Aksenchik and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of the Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

The Court examined the remainder of the complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.

It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the first, third and fourth applicants’ complaint concerning alleged discriminatory treatment;

Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.

Søren Nielsen Nina Vajić
Registrar President