CCPR/C/130/D/2517/2014
upheld the decision of the trial court. The author was not represented by a lawyer, although
the domestic law required that he should be assigned one.3
2.2
In 2007, the Constitutional Court ruled that cassation courts must provide defendants
with legal counsel unless they expressly refuse legal assistance. On 8 August 2013, the author
applied to the Constitutional Court regarding his right to defence in the cassation court. On
21 November 2013, the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint, stating that its 2007
decision on the obligation of courts to provide a defendant with an attorney at cassation
proceedings did not have a retroactive effect and could not be applied in the author’s case.
2.3
On 9 December 2013, the author submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court of the
Russian Federation for a supervisory review of the decision of 15 December 2003. On 30
December 2013, the Supreme Court, in a single-judge formation, denied the author’s appeal
and held that the Constitutional Court’s 2007 decision did not retroactively apply to the
cassation decision in the author’s case. On 17 February 2014, the author appealed the decision
to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court. On 11 March 2014, the Supreme Court refused to
consider the author’s appeal, since it was submitted after 1 January 2014, a deadline set by
the federal law for sentences rendered before 1 January 2013.
2.4
On 17 May 2013, the author also applied to the Constitutional Court claiming that the
provisions of article 57 (2) of the Criminal Code were discriminatory on the basis of sex and
age.4 He argued that article 57 (2) of the Criminal Code was discriminatory against men
between the ages of 18 and 65 years, like himself. In its decision of 24 September 2013, the
Constitutional Court rejected the author’s claim. The Court held that article 57 (2) of the
Criminal Code was not discriminatory, because the restrictions on imposing life
imprisonment provided for a distinction based on the principle of humanity. According to the
Court, the restrictions did not affect sentences of persons not mentioned in article 57 (2) of
the Criminal Code, which were imposed in accordance with the nature, public danger and
circumstances of the crimes committed.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 14 (3) (d)
of the Covenant, because the Supreme Court did not provide him with legal counsel during
the cassation hearing.
3.2
The author also claims that by applying article 57 (2) of the Criminal Code in his case,
the State party discriminated against him on account of his age and sex, and violated his
rights under articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 14 (1), 15 and 26 of the Covenant. He submits that such
discrimination is aimed at degrading human dignity, and by including such distinction in the
law, the legislative branch has interfered with the administration of justice by the judicial
branch.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 10 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on
the admissibility of the communication. It notes that the author’s communication was
submitted almost 10 years after his cassation appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of
the Russian Federation, on 15 December 2004. The State party notes that the author has not
provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in question. The State party argues that
submitting the communication after such a long lapse of time constitutes an abuse of the right
of submission under rule 96 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure in effect at the time
(CCPR/C/3/Rev.10; now rule 99 (c)), and requests the Committee to find the communication
inadmissible.
3
4
2
The author refers to articles 15, 16, 47 (4) (8), 51 (1) (5), 51 (3), 248 (2), 364 (3) (4) and 381(2) (4) of
the Criminal Procedure Code and articles 2, 17 (1), 18, 19 (1), 45, 48, 55 (3), 56 (3) and 123 (3) of the
Constitution.
Under article 57 (2) of the Criminal Code, life imprisonment cannot be imposed on women, on
persons who committed crimes when they were under 18 years old, or on men who are 65 years old or
older at the time when they are sentenced.