Mr. M., a convicted Roma from Astrakhan region serving prison term,\u00a0has appealed to ADC “Memorial” with a claim of unjust criminal\u00a0prosecution and conviction. His lawyer has forwarded to ADC “Memorial”\u00a0copies of the convict’s court materials and a letter from him, \u00a0which\u00a0had evidence of obvious violations of rights of the claimant both\u00a0during the investigation and the court hearings.
\nSince all the Russian court instances ruled against the appeals of the\u00a0claimant, Mr. M. appealed to the lawyers of ADC “Memorial” with a\u00a0request to present his case to the European Court of Human Rights. In\u00a0spite of the fact that ADC “Memorial” learnt about this case already\u00a0during the final stages of the appeal in Russian courts and although\u00a0communication with the claimant was difficult due to the act that he\u00a0was in prison, an appeal was prepared by ADC “Memorial” based on\u00a0violation of articles 6 and 14 of the Convention on human Rights (ban\u00a0of discrimination) and forwarded to the European Court of Human Rights\u00a0in late April 2013.
\nAccording to the materials of the criminal case, Mr. M. was convicted\u00a0by Leninsky district court of Astrakhan based on article 162 (section\u00a02) of the Russian Criminal Code to serve a prison sentence of 5 years\u00a0and 6 months and a penalty of Rb 20,000. At the same time, according\u00a0to the lawyer of Mr. M. both the criminal investigation and the court\u00a0procedures were carried out with violation of the right of the\u00a0claimant to a just court procedure, which is proven by the documents\u00a0of the case, and there is evidence of discrimination based on\u00a0ethnicity of the claimant.
\nAs it becomes evident from the materials of the criminal case and\u00a0court procedures, “evidence” was picked in order to effectively accuse\u00a0the claimant. The victim of the investigated crime claimed that he was\u00a0attacked by “a Roma”, which defined the circle of potential suspects –\u00a0Roma people living in the area, where the crime was committed. The\u00a0basis for the detention of the claimant, Mr. M., was a certificate to\u00a0the effect that he had been previously convicted for a similar crime,\u00a0which in the end turned out to be false due to the misspelling of his\u00a0last name. Nevertheless this document remained in the materials of the\u00a0case. This fact was documented by Mr. M.’s lawyer. All the other\u00a0pieces of evidence collected by the investigators were aimed at\u00a0proving the guilt of Mr. M., not trying to find the perpetrator of the\u00a0particular crime. Even the testimonies of the victim of the crime and\u00a0one of the witnesses, which served as the basis for prosecution, can\u00a0be put in doubt:
\n– The testimony of Mr. N., a witness, that Mr. M. has sold him a\u00a0mobile telephone were refuted by the witness himself in the course of
\nthe court hearings. Nevertheless the court only took into\u00a0consideration the testimonies made by the witness during the\u00a0investigation stage.<\/p>\n
– The victim of the crime, Mr. A., in the course of the court hearings\u00a0has expressed uncertainty that it was Mr. M. in particular who had\u00a0attacked him, because he claimed that “all Roma look the same” to him.\u00a0But the court has interpreted this uncertainty against the \u00a0rosecuted,\u00a0although it has stated in the verdict that “there were some doubts\u00a0about the prosecuted as the real attacker”.\u00a0The verdict of the court based on these pieces of evidence was made in\u00a0violation of the Article 6 (section 2) of the Convention on Human\u00a0Rights: all the uncertainties in proving guilty were interpreted\u00a0against the prosecuted. The pieces of evidence provided by the\u00a0attorney of the prosecuted, which included testimonies of his alibi on\u00a0the part of 10 Roma persons, were refused by the court. The course of\u00a0court hearings documented in the verdict and the latter claim made by\u00a0the lawyer of the prosecuted, demonstrates lack of impartiality in thecourt hearings. The same has happened in considering the case in the\u00a0courts of appeal and cassation.<\/p>\n
The case of the convicted Mr. M. could be considered as a violation of\u00a0Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention because the ruling on\u00a0prosecution of a person was made based on his ethnicity. The convicted\u00a0person belongs to a vulnerable group of population based on his\u00a0ethnicity – Roma people, which in Russia often are victims of various\u00a0types of discrimination. As was stated in the Third report on the\u00a0Russian Federation of the European Commission Against Racism and\u00a0Intolerance, in Russia there exist “serious problems etween the\u00a0officers of the law enforcement agencies and Roma people. Some issues\u00a0