Source:

Judiciary in the Russian Federation ("Link to Chapter Politics & Law - Judiciary") [ID 20447]

For general information on the judiciary in the Russian Federation please also refer to chapter "Politics & Law - Judiciary"

Document(s): Link to Chapter Politics & Law - Judiciary

11.03.2008 - Source: US Department of State

Judges allegedly remained subject to influence from executive, military, and security forces, particularly in high profile or politically sensitive cases; investigative authority over many serious cases transferred to new body called Investigation Committee ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007") [ID 22594]

"The law requires judicial approval of arrest warrants, searches, seizures, and detentions. Judges allegedly remained subject to influence from the executive, military, and security forces, particularly in high profile or politically sensitive cases, in making decisions.

In May the government enacted a law that substantially reduced prosecutorial oversight of criminal investigations and transferred investigative authority over many serious cases from the general procuracy to a new body called the Investigation Committee. The investigation committee is formally part of the General Procuracy but its chief is appointed directly by the president, not by the general prosecutor, and it therefore operates largely independently of the General Procuracy. Beginning in September, investigators no longer needed prosecutorial approval to open criminal investigations.

In 2006 the government increased judges' salaries by nearly 40 percent in an effort to combat corruption. However, there were continued reports of judges being bribed by officials and others. During the first six months of 2006, the Supreme Qualifying Collegium of Judges reported that 39 judges were removed from the bench and 151 were given warnings. Authorities did not provide adequate protection from intimidation or threats from powerful criminal defendants."

Document(s): Open document

06.2007 - Source: Freedom House

State uses courts to protect its strategic interests and political goals; many Russians believe that they cannot get justice in Russian courts and appeal to European Court of Human Rights ("Nations in Transit 2007") [ID 20448]

For further information on judicial framework and independence please see full report

"Russia scores very poorly on ratings of judicial independence. The state uses the courts to protect its strategic interests and political goals. Many Russians believe that they cannot get justice in Russian courts and appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, where they typically win. While Russia is quick to pay the fines assessed against it, the country has been slow to reform the conditions that caused the problems in the first place. Prosecutors and investigators have been slow in adapting to the heightened requirements of convincing juries and instead have stepped up pressure to abolish jury trials. Though state interference for political and economic reasons continues to limit the independence of the courts, the procedures of the courts are improving."

Document(s): Open document

27.03.2007 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Courts in practice highly dependent on executive power; judges vulnerable to pressure and punishments; concern about political control of Supreme Court, which annulled number of not-guilty sentences by lower courts ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2007 (Events of 2006)") [ID 19370]

"While the constitution and other legislation in force guaranteed the independence of the judiciary, courts were in practice highly dependent on the executive power. Judges who handed down verdicts that did not correspond to the position of the heads of courts, who typically were under the direct influence of the executive, were vulnerable to pressure and punishments, such as disciplinary sanctions or dismissal. This was also true for judges who openly criticized the current state of affairs within the judiciary.

A growing number of not-guilty sentences passed by lower courts were annulled by the Supreme Court, raising concern about political control of the highest instance of the judicial system. The conduct of criminal proceedings was also negatively impacted by close connections between the judiciary and public prosecutors, with most courts routinely overlooking flaws in preliminary investigations. After the entry into force of a new criminal procedure code in 2002, jury trials have gradually been introduced in the country. However, this procedure was rarely used, and jury members were sometimes subject to pressure. In an open letter to President Putin, a number of jury representatives stated that they had been ”persecuted, degraded [and] belied in TV and newspapers” for seeking to ensure honest and legal verdicts and the acquittal of innocent people. In civil cases, legal proceedings were frequently lengthy, and non-execution of court decisions remained a major concern. Mistrust toward the judicial system was widespread among the citizens."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Judges allegedly remained subject to influence from executive, military and security forces, particularly in high profile or politically sensitive cases, and judiciary remained susceptible to corruption ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19300]

"Judges allegedly remained subject to influence from the executive, military, and security forces, particularly in high profile or politically sensitive cases. (…) While judges' salaries have increased significantly, the judiciary remained susceptible to corruption. Judges accepted bribes from officials and others. For the first six months of the year, the Supreme Qualifying Collegium of Judges reported that 39 judges were removed from the bench and 151 were given warnings. One NGO specializing in issues of corruption estimated that in 2005 judges received $209 million (5.9 billion rubles) in bribes annually for favorable rulings. Authorities did not provide adequate protection from intimidation or threats from powerful criminal defendants."

Document(s): Open document

07.02.2007 - Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting

According to government officials in Chechnya and relatives, high proportion of the 12,000 Chechens serving prison sentences in Russia were convicted unjustly ("Russian Prison Hell for Chechens") [ID 18540]

"Senior government officials in Chechnya as well as relatives are concerned at conditions in Russia’s jails, and say they believe a high proportion of the 12,000 Chechens serving prison sentences in Russia were convicted unjustly.

Last year, Chechen human rights ombudsman Nurdi Nukhazhiev said he believe most of these prisoners were innocent.” In 2006, Nukhazhiev received 72 complaints alleging wrongful conviction of family members. But the relatives have few mechanisms they can pursue to overturn convictions, and even lawyers are frequently denied access to their clients. 

 The issue has become so contentious that the most powerful man in Chechnya, Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, has chosen to intervene. At the end of January, he ordered one of his deputy prime ministers, Adam Delimkhanov, to investigate whether Chechens held both inside Chechnya and elsewhere in Russia were being detained legally, and promised greater government support for such individuals.

Complaints addressed to the ombudsman have started coming in from residents of Chechnya, and we are handling them jointly,” said Ismal Dadalayev, who heads the office of the deputy prime-minister in charge of security matters. “If a man is found to have been placed in prison illegally, we will take action and try to get results. “For now, the parliament of Chechnya intends to ask the State Duma of the Russian Federation to amend the current legislation so that imprisoned Chechens can be transferred back to the republic and serve their prison terms there.

 "Hussein Elsunkayev, an official who works for ombudsman Nukhazhiev, said that his office had compiled evidence of “mass violations of the rights of Chechen natives, on the grounds of ethnicity and place of origin.”"

Document(s): Open document

07.02.2007 - Source: Institute for War and Peace Reporting

Allegedly there is widespread abuse of Chechens held in Russian prisons; there are claims that many were convicted on false charges ("Russian Prison Hell for Chechens") [ID 18581]

Document(s): Open document

01.2007 - Source: Schweizerische Flüchtlingshilfe

Increasing number of Russian citizens who file complaint with European Court of Human Rights; since 1998 33’072 Russians have filed complaints in Strasbourg against their state; in 158 verdicts up to date European judges have decided with few exceptions that Russia has abused human rights ("Nordkaukasus; Entwicklungen in Tschetschenien sowie in Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkarien, Inguschetien und Nordossetien") [ID 18687]

"Dass die Gewalten in der Russischen Föderation in der Praxis eng verbandelt statt getrennt sind, ist spätestens seit der Yukos-Affäre hinlänglich bekannt. Weil sie von den eigenen Gerichten aus politischen Gründen keine Gerechtigkeit erwarten können, gelangen immer mehr russische StaatsbürgerInnen – unter ihnen viele TschetschenInnen an den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. Auf die Strassburger Richter rollt geradezu eine Lawine russischer Beschwerden zu: Seit die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, die den Weg nach Strassburg öffnet, am 5. Mai 1998 in Russland in Kraft trat, haben sich in Strassburg 33’072 RussInnen über ihren Staat beschwert. Allein im Jahr 2005 reichten RussInnen in Strassburg ein Viertel aller Klagen überhaupt ein. Zwar wird die überwältigende Mehrzahl abgelehnt – wegen Formfehlern, oder weil der Rechtsweg nicht ausgeschöpft wurde. Gleichwohl standen im vergangenen Herbst 1617 Klagen gegen die russische Regierung zur Entscheidung an. In bisher 158 Urteilen stellten die europäischen Richter mit wenigen Ausnahmen fest, dass der russische Staat die Menschenrechte verletzt hatte – und sie verurteilten den Kreml zu symbolischen Strafzahlungen."

Document(s): Open document

03.09.2006 - Source: Human Rights Watch

Procedural irregularities and allegations of mistreatment in prosecution of 2 former Guantanamo detainees for explosion of gas pipeline ("Ex-Guantánamo Detainees Get Faulty Trial") [ID 16948]

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Rating for judicial framework unchanged at 5.25; judges and lawyers pressured by authorities; case against Khodorkovsky reduced popular trust in independence of court system ("Nations in Transit 2006") [ID 15812]

"The high-profile case against Yukos leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the predictable guilty verdict cast a long shadow over the court system as a whole, reducing popular trust in its independence. The Kremlin clearly used the legal process, including attacks on Khodorkovsky's lawyers, to serve its political purposes. Judges unfortunately have little ability to resist pressure from the administration on key decisions. Nevertheless, the number of people appealing to the courts is increasing, and they are frequently able to win decisions against the state. The penal system is also in need of attention, as prisoners are slashing themselves with razor blades in a desperate protest against their treatment and living conditions in prisons. Russia's rating for judicial framework and independence remains unchanged at 5.25. Russian judges need to demonstrate that they are free of executive influence. There are also warning signs that advances of the previous years, such as the use of jury trials, may be overturned.
(…)
Beyond high-level meetings, the federal authorities have a variety of ways to pressure the judges. In 2004, Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov suggested changing the qualifications for defining who could serve as a judge, a proposal the judges ultimately succeeded in blocking. In 2005, he suggested moving the courts to St. Petersburg. Longtime observers of Russia's courts, like Pennsylvania State University Distinguished Law Professor William Butler, claim that it often seems that whenever the Kremlin wants to exert pressure on the judges, a proposal appears that would make their lives more difficult. On December 21, Zorkin publicly opposed moving the courts.
The authorities have also sought to put more pressure on lawyers involved in high-profile cases. After the Yukos trial, the procurator sought to disbar Khodorkovsky’s lawyers for "drawing out" the trial. However, the Moscow Lawyers Chamber qualification commission found no reason to punish them. Yukos lawyer Svetlana Bakhmina was held in pretrial detention after her arrest in December 2004 for allegedly participating in a criminal group organized by Khodorkovsky to take over local oil companies. Robert Amsterdam, a human rights lawyer and member of Khodorkovsky's legal team, was expelled from Russia in September for alleged visa irregularities.
Despite the obvious political purposes to which the courts can be put, they have advanced in some areas. Commercial lawyers report an improvement in the arbitrazh system. New criminal and civil codes as well as criminal procedures have been adopted, and many aspects of the new legislation are implemented in practice. In contrast with the past, defendants must now be brought before a judge within 48 hours. Judges, not prosecutors, issue arrest warrants, and jury trials are now available for defendants in serious cases."

Document(s): Open document

07.2006 - Source: Freedom House

Judges often lack necessary training, salaries are not commensurate with responsibilities; high conviction rates in criminal cases, 25 - 50 percent of jury acquittals overturned by higher courts ("Nations in Transit 2006") [ID 15817]

"Judges often lack the training necessary to fulfill all the new functions expected of them. The Council of Europe found that judges' salaries are not commensurate with their responsibilities, making them vulnerable to corruption and outside pressure. Conviction rates remain very high in criminal cases. Where juries are involved, about 15 percent of the cases result in acquittal, but between 25 and 50 percent of jury acquittals are overturned by higher courts, often on technicalities. When the acquittal is overturned, the defendant then faces a new trial that will presumably return the "correct" decision. Jury trials are particularly unpopular with procurators and judges, who do not always believe in the presumption of innocence and must now work much harder to present and examine the evidence against the defendant. Proposals to limit the use of such trials are becoming more frequent.Defendants still have fewer rights than in Western systems. They are often held in pretrial detention when bail or house arrest might be more appropriate. Additionally, defense lawyers are generally barred from collecting evidence during a criminal investigation, judges routinely declare defense testimony inadmissible at trial, and prosecutors can appeal acquittals or sentences they deem too lenient. In the United States, only defendants can appeal a verdict. In trials such as the one against police accused of abusing citizens in the city of Blagoveshchensk, the authorities have apparently sought to intimidate witnesses."

Document(s): Open document

23.05.2006 - Source: Amnesty International

Judgements of European Court of Human Rights released in February 2005 in first six Chechnya-cases; Russian government found guilty of violating several fundamental rights ("Annual Report 2006") [ID 15383]

"In February the European Court of Human Rights released its judgments in the first six cases from the Chechen Republic to reach the Court. The Court ruled that in these cases the Russian government had violated the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the rights to an effective remedy and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The cases brought by the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre concerned the Russian federal forces’ indiscriminate aerial bombing of a civilian convoy of refugees fleeing Grozny in October 1999; the “disappearance” and subsequent extrajudicial execution of five individuals in Grozny in January 2000; and the indiscriminate aerial and artillery bombardment of the village of Katyr-Yurt in February 2000."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Although there were a number of indications of judicial independence, the judiciary did not consistently act as an effective counterweight to other branches of the government ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46144], [ID 11213]

"The law provides for an independent judiciary, and there were a number of indications of judicial independence; however, the judiciary did not consistently act as an effective counterweight to other branches of the government. The law provides for strengthening the role of the judiciary in relation to the prosecutor general by requiring judicial approval of arrest warrants, searches, seizures, and detentions (see section 1.d.). Judges allegedly remained subject to influence from the executive, military, and security forces, particularly in high profile or politically sensitive cases. While judges' salaries have increased significantly, the judiciary remained susceptible to corruption. Judges accepted bribes from officials and others. From 2001 to 2004, 196 judges were fired for unprofessional behavior, 513 received "warnings," 12 were convicted of criminal offences. One NGO specializing in issues of corruption estimated that in 2005 judges received $209 million (5.9 billion rubles) in bribes annually for favorable rulings.
Authorities did not provide adequate protection from intimidation or threats from powerful criminal defendants."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Limitations on length of detention ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46144], [ID 11214]

"Under the law an individual may be taken into custody for 48 hours without court approval if arrested at the scene of a crime, provided there is evidence of the committed crime on the individual's person or in his house or when the crime victims or witnesses identify the person as a perpetrator. Otherwise, a court-approved arrest warrant is required. According to statistics provided by the Supreme Court's Judicial Department in 2004, courts approved approximately 91 percent of arrest requests from law enforcement authorities. A detainee is then typically taken to the nearest police station where a detainee should receive a warning of his rights, and police are obliged to write an official protocol signed by the detainee and the police officer within three hours of detention, which states the grounds for the detention. The police must interrogate the detainee within the first 24 hours, but prior to the interrogation the detainee has the right to meet with an attorney for 2 hours. No later than 12 hours after a detention, the police must notify the prosecutor and the detainee's relatives about the detention unless a prosecutor's warrant to keep the fact of detention secret is obtained. The detainee must be released after 48 hours, either subject to bail conditions or on their own recognizance, unless a court decides to keep the person in custody in response to a motion filed by the police no later than 8 hours before the expiration of the 48 hour detention period. The defendant and his/her attorney must be present at the court hearing.

The law specifies that within two months of a suspect's arrest, police should complete their investigation and transfer the file to the prosecutor for arraignment, although a court may extend the criminal investigation for up to six months in "complex" cases. With the personal approval of the prosecutor general a judge may extend that period up to 18 months."

Document(s): Open document

08.03.2006 - Source: US Department of State

Limitations on lenght of detention generally respected; reports that the police obtained defense counsels friendly to the prosecution ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2005") [#46144], [ID 11215]

"These limitations on detention were generally respected; however, there were reports of occasional violations of the 48-hour time limit following an arrest. Most frequently, the authorities failed to write the official protocol of detention within three hours after the actual detention and held suspects in excess of detention limits. In addition there were reports that the police obtained defense counsels friendly to the prosecution. These "pocket" defense counsels allowed interrogation of their clients. The general ignorance of legal rights by both citizens and their defense counsels contributed to the persistence of these violations. The government continued to engage in public education programs to inform citizens of their rights and responsibilities under the law, such as the right to a lawyer and the obligation to serve on juries. The Council of Judges together with the Supreme Court and the Russian Information Agency Novosti continued an educational program called "Public Trust" that explained the work of the judicial system and citizens' rights."

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

The judiciary suffers from corruption, inadequate funding, and a lack of qualified personnel ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41473], [ID 11110]

"The judiciary suffers from corruption, inadequate funding, and a lack of qualified personnel. After the judicial reforms of 2002, the government has made progress in implementing due process and holding timely trials. Since January 2003, Russia’s reformed criminal procedure code has provided for jury trials throughout the country, but the legislature has voted to postpone introducing jury trials in certain areas by up to four years because of financial and technical difficulties. The new code also gives the right to issue arrest and search warrants to the courts instead of prosecutors, and it abolishes in absentia trials. After the Belsan attack, Putin declared his intention to establish full control over an office in the Supreme Court that supervises the hiring and removal of judges. Human Rights Watch called the proposal “another erosion of the independence of the judiciary.”"

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Increasing number of cases; however concerns about independence of judges ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710], [ID 11114]

"157. The general absence of legal culture and the citizens' overall distrust towards the courts is however not only a heritage of Soviet times: it is due also to the poor quality of the judiciary system as a whole. Although their salaries have been significantly raised, most judges in the country have very bad working conditions. The court staff is underpaid, many court buildings are in urgent need of repair, and we have been told that many courts in the country do not receive sufficient funds to pay for telephone or electricity bills. According to Russian Axis92, only 1.77% of the 2004 budget appropriations are foreseen for the judiciary whereas 11.68% are spent on law enforcement agencies and ensuring the State's security93.

158. On a more positive note, we were told that the number of case brought before courts of general jurisdiction had increased from one million eight years ago to six million in 2004. This seems to indicate, contrary to what is stated above, that people turn to the courts more often than before, which can be interpreted as a growing sign of confidence in the judiciary. This means however that the judges, who were already ill equipped and overworked94, now have more and more cases to deal with and that the average time to decide cases has increased, which in turn lowers the credibility of the judiciary. The fact that the newly adopted legislation, especially in criminal proceedings, provides for strict time limits to be observed is also putting quite a lot of strain on the judiciary. We were told that it was very easy to start disciplinary proceedings against any judge since every single one of them had violated or was likely to violate strict procedural time limits because of his excessive work load.

159. Under the constitution, judges of the three highest courts (Constitutional court, Supreme Court and Supreme arbitration court) enjoy life tenure (up to the age of 65, with the exception of the judges of the Constitutional Court) and are appointed by the Federation Council after nomination by the President. The President directly appoints judges of all other federal courts upon submission of the Supreme Court or Supreme arbitration court chairman, as stipulated by the Law on Judges' Status.

160. The chairman and vice-chairman of all Federal courts are appointed95 by the President for a renewable term96 of six years, upon proposals made by the chairman of the Supreme Court (or the Supreme arbitration court), after consulting the supreme qualification board. This appointment procedure allegedly gives the Presidential administration the means to influence all major court decisions because by definition court chairmen appointed by the executive are more likely to abide either by orders directly received from the Kremlin ("telephone justice") or to try and deliver decisions which would not upset the executive.

161. This suspicion is also nourished by the fact that it's up to the chairman of the court to "allocate responsibilities among his deputies and also among the other judges sitting on the court" (Article 6 § 2 of the Federal law on the status of judges). Moreover, according to the Federal law on the bodies of the judicial community97, the chairman of the court can request the (supreme) qualification board to remove a judge for a disciplinary offence.

162. It is of fundamental importance in a state governed by the rule of law that the judiciary enjoys the confidence of the public and that it is seen as an independent and impartial authority, in particular vis-à-vis the executive. In this respect we have been informed of some worrying developments, which might cast a shadow on the independence of the judiciary."

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code allows witnesses to bring their own attorneys to interviews conducted by the police; duration of detention without access to counsel or family members limited ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710], [ID 11216]

"320. It is probably too early to assess whether the recent amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code have solved all problems relating to the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, especially as regards the role of the Prokuratura and the principle of equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention.

321. We note however with satisfaction that in June 2003, the Criminal Procedure Code was again amended to permit "witnesses" to bring their own attorneys to interviews conducted by the police. This amendment was designed to address the police practice of interrogating suspects without the presence of counsel under the fiction that they were witnesses, and then after incriminating statements were obtained, declaring the suspects to be defendants. This is a welcome development.

322. Furthermore, the Criminal Procedure Code now limits the duration of detention without access to counsel or family members and renders statements given in the absence of a defence attorney unusable in court; however, there were reports that these reforms were being undermined by the police practice of obtaining "friendly" defence counsel for these interviews and the overall ignorance by defence counsel of these provisions. Despite the Code, courts remained reluctant to exclude evidence allegedly obtained through coercive means.

323. Judges generally freed suspects whose confessions were taken without lawyers present or who were held in excess of detention limits. The Supreme Court overturned a number of cases in which lower court judges granted permission to detain individuals on what the Supreme Court considered being inadequate grounds."

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Trials against Mr Khodorkovskiy, Mr Lebedev and Mr Pichugin raise serious concerns as to their fairness ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710], [ID 11217]

"324. The case of once the biggest Russian oil company Yukos and its chief executives is a milestone in the Russian rule of law development. The trials conducted against Mr Khodorkovskiy, Mr Lebedev and Mr Pichugin raise serious concerns as to their fairness. In its Resolution 1418 (2005), the Assembly noted the following shortcomings: delays in obtaining the prosecutor's permission to enter into contact with their clients, denial of access of Mr Lebedev's defence lawyers to the courtroom during the hearing deciding on his pre-trial detention, search and seizure of documents in the defence lawyers' offices, summons of lawyers for questioning on their clients' cases and alleged eavesdropping against defence lawyers, unjustified restrictions on the publicity of certain court proceedings, denial of bail, etc.

325. We regret that the Assembly Resolution went unheeded and new allegations of rule of law violations are reported. In particular, we are disturbed by the news that the deputy head of the Yukos legal department Mrs Svitlana Bakhmina, who was arrested in December 2004, is still in detention on remand178"

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

"Supervisory review" still entails risk of judicial decisions being quashed repeatedly; but improvments in the field of criminal justice ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710], [ID 11218]

"326. Under the current legislation, the Prosecutor and other officials, including the Presidium of the Supreme Court, may lodge an application for supervisory review (пересмотр в порядке судебного надзора) of any final and binding judgment delivered by a court either for substantive or formal reasons. In the case of Ryabykh v. Russia, the European Court of Human Rights held on 24 July 2003 that a judicial system which entails the risk of final and binding judicial decisions being quashed repeatedly179 by a higher court on an application made by a State official is in itself incompatible with both the principle of legal certainty and the "right to a court" enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. This principle of legal certainty requires, among other things, that where the courts have finally determined an issue, their ruling should not be called into question.

327. Following the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure on 1 February 2003, we note with satisfaction that the time period for lodging an application for supervisory review180 in civil cases has been limited to one year (Article 376) and that the list of State officials empowered to lodge such an application has been significantly narrowed (Article 377). These developments clearly reveal the Russian authorities' serious efforts to bring the domestic law and practice in compliance with the Convention standards. Further measures are, however necessary to prevent new similar violations. Indeed a relatively large number of state officials can still ask for the quashing of final court judgments on what appears to be basically the same open grounds181 as before, i.e. when there is "a significant breach of the law".

328. As regards the further reforms required, these ought to aim at increasing the capacity of the court system to provide high quality justice within the framework of ordinary proceedings, so as to avoid having recourse to extra-ordinary remedies to achieve this result. Reforms might also consider strengthening the capacity of the Supreme Court and of appellate courts to guarantee a correct and uniform application of the law.

329. In the field of criminal justice the situation was improved by the enactment of the new code for criminal procedure. According to Chapter 48 of the Code, the prosecutor can lodge a motion for a supervisory review and the accused (suspect, convict, acquitted) or victim – a supervisory complaint with regard to a final court judgment (resolution or ruling) without any time limits and on excessively open grounds. However, Article 405 now guarantees that as a result of the supervisory review of a sentence the status of the convict can not be aggravated182.

330. Along with the supervisory review, the Code envisages the possibility of re-opening the proceedings due to emergence of new or newly discovered circumstances within one-year limit in cases where an acquittal sentence was passed or the case was closed (there are no time-limits if the proceedings are re-opened for the benefit of convict). The latter procedure is generally in line with Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the ECHR and Committee of Ministers Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 on the re-examination or re-opening of certain cases at the domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights."

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Excessive length of procedure remains a problem ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710], [ID 11219]

"331. In many member States of the Council of Europe183, excessive length of procedure has been one of the main complaints brought before the Court. The Russian Federation is no exception: a number of judgments have already found Russia in violation of article 6 § 1 of the Convention on this point184, in particular because under the existing legislation, final judgments could repeatedly be quashed by way of the supervisory review."

Document(s): Open document

03.06.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Parliamentary Assembly

Non execution of domestic judgments remains a major problem ("Honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation [Doc. 10568]") [#32710], [ID 11220]

"332. Another major problem which the Russian authorities will have to address is the non execution of domestic judgments, which was at issue inter alia in the cases of Burdov (May 2002) and Timofeyev (23 October 2004). The Court reiterated in the Timofeyev judgment that "Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6"."

Document(s): Open document

19.05.2005 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Irregularities at espionage cases against well-known researchers ("Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America, Report 2005 (Events 2004)") [#32117], [ID 11221]

"Developments in espionage cases against well-known researchers reflected a broader problem of due process violations within the Russian judicial system. In a number of cases initiated by the Federal Security Service (FSB), researchers with contacts abroad have been charged with spying despite evidence indicating that they have used only non-classified information in their work. The cases have typically dragged on for years and have been characterized by serious procedural irregularities. Among the victims of this “spy mania” are historian Igor Sutyagin and physicist Valentin Danilov.

• The case of Igor Sutyagin, who was initially arrested in 1999 for allegedly passing classified military information to foreign citizens, was transferred to the Moscow City Court in 2003. After repeated delays, this court found Sutyagin guilty of high treason in a closed trial in April 2004 and sentenced him to 15 years in a strict regime colony. This was the longest prison term imposed for high treason in Russia since Soviet times. The trial against Sutyagin was characterized by numerous irregularities. While the judge in charge of the case was replaced in February 2004 without any satisfactory explanation, the new judge barred the jury from hearing relevant exculpatory evidence, excluded key questions of fact from its deliberations and omitted central issues from the interrogatory questions that the jury used in formulating its verdict, such as whether Sutyagin had handed over classified information to foreign sources, whether he had the intent of doing so and whether his actions had damaged national security. In a joint statement together with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Public Committee for the Protection of Scientists, the IHF and the MHG expressed concern regarding the ruling and called for a retrial in full accordance with international fair trial standards. However, in August, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the defense, which requested a new trial because of procedural violations, and upheld the verdict by the Moscow City Court. The Supreme Court did not offer any justification for its decision. As of the end of the year, Sutyagin was serving his sentence in a maximum security prison.

• Valentin Danilov, who was arrested in 2001 on suspicion of providing secret information about space technology to China while working as a researcher at a state university, was acquitted in a jury trial at a Krasnyoarsk court in December 2003. However, in response to a petition by the prosecution, the Supreme Court dismissed the acquittal on procedural grounds in June 2004 and sent the case for retrial. The Supreme Court delivered its seven-page decision after only 15 minutes of deliberation and many observers voiced the suspicion that the decision had been prepared in advance. The IHF expressed its deep concern at the decision, saying that it failed to see how the minor technical matters cited by the prosecution in its petition could be considered to have unduly influenced the jury’s verdict. In November 2004, another Krasnoyarsk court found Danilov guilty of disclosing classified information to representatives of a foreign state as well as fraud and sentenced him to 14 years in prison. The verdict was reached although no new evidence to support the charges against Danilov was presented to the court in the course of the proceedings. Thus, the verdict was based merely on an expert report from 1999, which – contrary to the law – was not written by people who were experts in the specific area where Danilov conducted research but by people who were only superficially familiar with it. A number of well-known scientists have maintained that the findings of Danilov’s research have been in the open domain for several years and do not constitute classified information."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Courts suffer from the staff shortages; judges´ salaries increase ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11117]

"37. Indeed, in the course of my visit, the judges to whom I spoke complained about the serious shortage of staff. They considered that there were not enough judges and registry staff for the judiciary to perform its function satisfactorily.

38. This situation is accounted for by the fact that, throughout the 1990s, very little money was allocated to the courts. The situation is, admittedly improving. In the mid-1990s the only 20% of the real financial needs of the judicial system were budgeted for. According to the information given to me, funding has increased steadily over the last five years, although it is still inadequate. The funds allocated to the judicial system under the federal budget have increased by 30%.

39. Judges‘ salaries, which had, in keeping with tradition, remained low since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have been increased. This strikes me as a crucial development. […]
40. A district judge‘s salary is currently between 12,000 and 15,000 roubles a month, while an urban/regional judge earns between 23,000 and 25,000 roubles. This salary is not in keeping with the responsibilities shouldered by judges, who expressed their concern about the matter to me. lt is of prime importance that judges should receive a respectable salary. In addition, this should remedy the problem of corruption that exists within the judiciary – an issue raised by all those to whom I spoke.

41. The increase in pay, although it is a very welcome development in itself, has not been sufficient to achieve the objectives set by those responsible for the reform. If justice is to be administered effectively and quickly, the number of judges must be in keeping with the country‘s needs, which would appear far from being the case today. Proceedings before the courts are excessively lengthy, partly because of the lack of personnel. While this problem is common to most European countries, it is flagrant in Russia. I can therefore only welcome the Russian authorities‘ declared determination to increase the number of judges significantly. According to those we spoke to, the process is under way. While the total number of judges was 18,000 in 2001, the Supreme Court announced in 2002 that it wanted to recruit an extra 30,000 judges, and steps have apparently already been taken to this end."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Need to strenghten the independence of the judiciary ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11118]

"44. The authors of the reform made provision in the Status of Judges Act for a number of rules designed to strengthen the independence of judges. Given the historical context in which the reform is taking place, the Act does not merely introduce changes, but completely reorganises the profession. For instance, as we have seen, judges now enjoy security of office until the age of 65. Furthermore, a professional judicial body has been set up to monitor judges‘ work and decide on the eligibility of judges. It performs a number of administrative tasks and manages judges‘ careers. Its purpose is to avert the risk of administrative pressure on judges.

45. Another important step that has been taken to strengthen the independence of the courts vis--vis the Executive has been the creation of a new centralised System for funding the courts under the aegis of the Supreme Court. The financing of courts is thus no longer supervised by the Ministry of Justice, as used to be the case. This is certainly a welcome development, though it might yet be taken a stage further. Indeed, according to the information given to me, some of the buildings housing the courts still belong to the Ministry of Justice and not to a body attached to the Supreme Court. lt seems to me that this de facto situation risks, in the context of the ongoing reform, affecting the independence of the judiciary.

46. The Status of Judges Act also provides for the disciplinary responsibility of judges and lays down the principle ofjudges‘ immunity. They are afforded broad immunity in order to ensure that they can practise their profession freely. Although on paper this immunity is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that judges work in a serene climate, it is not always fully applied.

47. At the same time, it is important that the judiciary should itself embrace the spirit behind the reform. According to the numerous representatives of civil society and barristers I met, most of the courts continue to take a punitive line. I was able to observe that very few people are acquitted: in fact, the number is actually considerably lower than in the early years of the reform. According to the statistics provided by the Supreme Court, 3 89,080 people were sentenced in the first six months of 2004, while only 3,797 were acquitted. According to certain NGO representatives I talked to, this trend is accounted for by the persistence of certain traditions and beliefs within the judiciary. Some judges would appear to think that to acquit someone who has been detained on remand – often for a very long time – would discredit the organs of the Prokuratura and cause tensions between the two judicial institutions."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Corruption undermining the judiciary ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11119]

For a documentation of individual cases please refer to the original document

"49. Lastly, I should like to refer to a delicate issue that is often raised in Russian society, and which was frequently brought to my attention during my visit. Many of those with whom I spoke referred to the problems of corruption undermining the judiciary. […] The work undertaken since 1996 by the Council of Europe, and notably by the GRECO, shows the importance of formulating common responses to this problem. I would not wish to enter into a domestic debate on issue as delicate corruption. I note, however, that combating corruption is one of the main concerns of several leading politicians. The Head of State, for instance, has referred to the problem on several occasions in his speeches. I can only reiterate my calls for the firmest possible measures to combat this scourge, so that the Russian courts at last inspire confidence among the country‘ s citizens."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Bad condition of many court premises; factual restriction on the public attending hearings ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11120]

"53. I took a particular interest during my visit in the physical condition of the courts, for many members of civil society with whom I spoke repeatedly drew my attention to problems in this area. The situations I observed varied considerably not only from region to region but from court to court, so great were the disparities in their material conditions.

54. A number of general comments can nevertheless be made. First, most of the buildings housing the courts are dilapidated and need rebuilding. They are often old premises unsuited to the needs of modern courts. The limited funds that have been made available are insufficient to make permanent improvements.

55. Some premises I visited were fully in keeping with European standards. Such, for instance, was the Supreme Court of the region of Khabarovsk. Others left something to be desired. For example, when I met NGOs in the city of Khabarovsk, I was told that the premises of the city‘s district courts required urgent improvements. The Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court was singled out on several occasions. I was told that the premises were very cramped and dilapidated, and that this made the task of the judges and barristers difficult. In addition, the situation apparently affected court proceedings: those facing criminal charges and parties to civil proceedings had little room, and the public was quite simply unable to attend trials for want of seats in the court room. This is by no means an isolated example.

56. According to many reports, a large number of Russian courts are chronically short of space and need renovating or rebuilding. In some cases, this situation is apparently at the root of the ban on the public attending hearings. In the region of Krasnodar, for instance, some courts carry out a sort of pre-selection of members of the public who want to attend hearings. lt would seem that the ushers at the entrance to the courts turn some people back on the basis of instructions they have been given. Some justify such practices by the existence of written rules. This situation is unacceptable and must be remedied without delay."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Restricted access to free legal aid; problems concerning the official assignment of defence councils ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11222]

"79. Among the problems affecting the proper administration of justice and the legal profession, one of the most often mentioned was the issue of free legal aid and the official assignment of defence counsels. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, anyone against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted is entitled to assistance from a lawyer. If someone cannot afford the services of a lawyer, the Code provides that a defence counsel must be officially assigned to him or her. This is in keeping with the Convention, Article 6.3.c of which stipulates that a defence counsel must be officially assigned when the interests of justice so require.

80. Although the Code of Criminal Procedure is categorical when it comes to the award of legal aid, this right would not always appear to be enforced. Section 26 of the law governing the profession of barrister defines the conditions under which free legal aid is awarded. They are quite restrictive: legal aid is assigned only to citizens whose income does not exceed the “survival minimum“ threshold or who are plaintiffs in welfare support disputes, veterans of the Great Patriotic War (the Second World War), Russian citizens appealing for a retirement pension or victims of political repression asking to be rehabilitated. Everyone else must pay for the services of a lawyer.

81. The representatives of civil society pointed out that the services of a lawyer were very expensive for someone on an average income. Those who received only the “survival minimum“ income, the threshold adopted as a reference in the above-mentioned law, or fractionally more, faced day-to-day economic problems which, in any event, prevented them from being able to afford the services of a lawyer. The threshold seems, therefore, to be extremely bw if everyone is to be guaranteed access to the services of a lawyer. Unfortunately, the majority of the Russian population is currently in financial straits, and this does nothing to facilitate access to the courts. And yet it is usually this category of people who have the greatest need of such access.

83. […] The barristers with whom I spoke stressed that numerous problems still arose in the course of the procedure for the official assignment of a defence counsel.

84. The presence of a lawyer is compulsory in a number of situations, for example when people are taken into police custody or detained on remand. In such cases, the person arrested has the right to choose a lawyer and, if he or she expresses no preference, a lawyer is designated automatically at the request of the authority concerned. According to the barristers I met, there are two problems. The person they have to defend often cannot afford to pay them, and the authorities concerned do not have the means to pay their fees and, if they do so, they pay only a small proportion of them.

85. […] During my visit to a prison in Irkutsk, a prisoner raised this very problem, but from a different angle. He told me that in some cases lawyers are officially assigned but the client still has to pay for their services. And it sometimes happens that the fees are compulsorily obtained even though the customer is not always satisfied with the services provided.

87. Furthermore, it seems that existing legislation provides for the possibility of voluntarily forfeiting the services of a lawyer, even in a criminal case. I think this creates too great a risk that someone will not be effectively defended, not to mention the risk of abuse and pressure on the part of the authorities, which can never be ruled out."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Excessive length of procedure remains a problem ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11223]

"57. In connection with the courts, the problem of backlogs and the excessive length of time taken to deal with cases cannot be overlooked. The Russian courts are no exception, and the representatives of civil society and the lawyers I met complained about the situation. That said, the delays are particularly prelavent during investigative pahse of criminal cases, which lengthens the time for which prisoners are held on remand, but I shall come back to this point below."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Concerns relating to the deprivation of liberty; imprisonment remains a norm ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11224]

"105. lt should be pointed out here that concerns relating to the deprivation of liberty were raised repeatedly by those I spoke with, representing both civil society and the legal profession. All drew my attention to a tradition inherited from the Soviet era in which imprisonment was considered to be the normal, indeed almost only, appropriate measure. This almost automatic tendency to see every problem from a criminal perspective from the very outset is very worrying. At Krasnodar, representatives of an NGO working with young people in difficulty said that the courts resorted to custodial measures almost as a matter of course. Over the previous three years, for example, this NGO had secured the release of 65 young persons in police custody for a ten-day period, because there was a clear lack of evidence to justify such a measure or, indeed, the opening of a criminal investigation at all.

106. Although Article 98 of the CCP offers a wide range of alternatives to remand in custody, such as undertakings not to leave the territory (as defined by the court) or compulsory residence orders, they are rarely offered. Imprisonment remains the norm."

Document(s): Open document

20.04.2005 - Source: Council of Europe - Commissioner for Human Rights

Detained persons are often not informed about their rights and get no legal aid ("Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to the Russian Federation, 15-30 July 2004 and 19-20 September 2004 [CommDH(2005) 2]") [#32581], [ID 11225]

"112. Arrested persons are taken to a police station, which is when the inquiries begin. The initial investigations are crucial and can affect the subsequent course of the proceedings. After questioning, arrested persons may be released or placed in police custody. If there is sufficient evidence, a criminal inquiry may be launched. The courts may then order placement in and transfer to a SIZO.

113. The first hours after arrest are extremely important. As well as influencing the subsequent proceedings, they can also affect suspects‘ psychological balance and their physical and mental health. lt must be borne in mmd that persons who are arrested and detained are presumed innocent, and their rights must be respected. They should therefore be informed as soon as possible of their rights and the remedies available to them. Yet, it appears from my conversations with detained persons that they were given very little information.

114. Under current legislation, arrested persons are entitled to the assistance of a lawyer. However, from the accounts I heard, the reality is quite different and very few persons spontaneously request a lawyer. In the majority of cases, the lawyer is appointed ex officio and appears on the scene only later, after the procedure has already got under way. In the meantime, suspects are not informed of their rights. Admittedly, when I visited the Krasnoflotsky district police station in Khabarovsk, I saw extracts of the CCP setting out the main rights of detained persons pinned to the wall, which is a good start. However, these provisions are not understood by everyone, particularly those who are not versed in the law. In other words, they are only accessible to a very small minority of detained persons.

115. 1 therefore consider it desirable to supply all detained persons with an explanatory booklet setting out their basic rights and describing the most frequent situations and problems they are likely to encounter. Such booklets are well known in Russia and are generally called pamiatka. Such a step would strengthen existing arrangements, such as the statutory posting up of legal provisions, and supplement the information and advice available to detained persons. lt might also act as a restraint on police and curb any temptation to use violence. I believe that it would be beneficial to give bar associations and NGOs a role in drafting these documents. They might also usefully be translated into several foreign languages. This applies particularly to border areas, where there is a greater likelihood of finding foreign detainees, with no information to help them to defend themselves.

116. In addition, since we have received significant complaints about the availability of free legal aid and court appointed lawyers, it would be appropriate for the bar associations to establish a proper system of emergency assistance on which the police could call when the need arose. If necessary, such services should be subsidised by the state."

Document(s): Open document

26.01.2004 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Researcher at the Institute of USA and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Science, is the target of politically-motivated treason charges/ Russian authorities are depriving him of his right to a fair trial and to be free of arbitrary arrest ("Researcher at the Institute of USA and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Science, is the target of politically-motivated treason charges/ Russian authorities are depriving him of his right to a fair trial and to be free of arbitrary arrest") [#18981], [ID 11227]

Document(s): Open document

07.11.2003 - Source: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights

Torture, ill-treatment and inhuman and degrading treatment are commonly employed in order to get a confession to a crime. Most frequently, such methods are used before the official interrogations begin within the framework of the so-called “operative-investigative activity” (ORD) ("Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment") [#17377], [ID 11229]

"Torture, ill-treatment and inhuman and degrading treatment are commonly employed in order to get a
confession to a crime. Most frequently, such methods are used before the official interrogations begin
within the framework of the so-called “operative-investigative activity” (ORD). ORD basically entails
collecting information about the criminal and the crime. By law, its outcome may not serve as
evidence, but can only help law enforcement agencies to identify and obtain evidence. However, in the
course of ORD, law enforcement officials frequently subject an individual to torture or ill-treatment in
order to obtain information about accomplices and possible traces of the crime, location of property
appropriated in an unlawful fashion, etc. ORD is always conducted secretly: the methods used are not
published and they are practically outside of the court control. In addition, the criminal procedure law
does not apply to ORD, meaning that the subject of ORD does not have the right to be represented by
an attorney and does not enjoy any other rights provided by the Criminal Procedure Code to suspects
and defendants. After having received the necessary information through ORD, law enforcement
officers usually conduct official investigative actions such as searches, interrogations, etc. which are
formally in compliance with the requirements of the procedural law."

Document(s): Open document

04.2002 - Source: UK Home Office

UK Home Office: Judges remain subjected to influence from executive, military and security forces ("Country Assessment - April 2002") [#7107], [ID 11125]

"The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, but while it is undergoing reforms and there are signs of limited independence, the judiciary does not yet act as an effective counterweight to other branches of government. The judiciary is divided into three branches: the courts of general jurisdiction, subordinated to the Supreme Court; the arbitration court system, under the High Court of Arbitration; and the Constitutional Court. Over 90% of all civil and criminal cases are heard by the municipal courts, the lowest level of the general jurisdiction courts. (…) Judges remain subject to influence from the executive, military and security forces, especially in high profile or political cases. The judiciary also lacks resources and is subject to corruption. Low salaries and scant prestige make it difficult to attract talented new judges and contribute to the vulnerability of existing judges to bribery and corruption. Judges frequently return poorly developed cases to the procurator's office for further investigation rather than dismiss them and offend powerful procurators, who have the power to review all such decisions themselves. Furthermore, the Independent Council of Legal Expertise has reported that defence lawyers are increasingly the targets of police harassment, including beatings and arrests. Professional associations at both the local and federal levels report abuses throughout the country and charge that police are trying both to intimidate defence lawyers and to cover up their own criminal activities."

Document(s): Open document

04.2002 - Source: UK Home Office

UK Home Office: People detained without observing mandated procedures ("Country Assessment - April 2002") [#7107], [ID 11234]

"4.20. There are credible reports that police throughout the country detain people without observing mandated procedures, and fail to issue proper arrest warrants or receipts for confiscated property. This is especially true for people from the Caucasus. Furthermore, reports indicate the use of physical abuse by officers during such arrests. Police are also reported to plant drugs and other false evidence as pretexts for arrests, and to arrest and detain people based on their political views and religious beliefs.


4.21. According to the Constitution, arrests, police detention, and searches require judicial approval, but the Constitution also states that until the Criminal Procedure Code is brought into conformity with the Constitution, existing legislation, which provides for the Procuracy rather than courts to approve arrests and searches, remains in effect. In the absence of measures to implement the procedural safeguards contained in the Constitution, suspects are often subjected to uneven and arbitrary treatment by officials acting under the Criminal Procedure Code and presidential decrees. Procurators are able to issue orders of detention without judicial approval and police detain suspects for up to 48 hours without a warrant. There have also been credible reports that persons have been detained far in excess of the permissible periods for administrative offences, in some cases so that police officials can extort money from friends or relatives. The practice of detaining individuals arbitrarily for varying periods of time, both within and in excess of permissible periods, is common, and often resolved only with bribes. Some authorities have taken advantage of the system's procedural weaknesses to arrest people on false pretexts for expressing views critical of the government."

Document(s): Open document