CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ THE RIGHT OF APPEAL IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ȃ CASEǧLAW OF ECtHR … proceedings against them were conducted in breach of the guarantees of Article 6 ECHR and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The applicants were members of the main opposition parties in the presidential election. The International Election Observation Commission was concerned about the electoral process, against which mass protests were held in the country and opposition parties sought to trigger a referendum on confidence in the government. The facts were that the applicants had been invited to the police station although, according to the official record, they had been brought in for the purpose of seizing illegal ammunition and administrative proceedings had been initiated against them. Subsequently, the applicants were brought before the court, and in the proceedings before the court they were sentenced to 7 days’ administrative detention for illegal possession of ammunition. On the last day of detention, they were brought before the Court of Appeal and convicted of disobeying the orders of the police officers and a sentence of 7 days’ administrative detention was imposed. The applicants complained that they had no right to appeal their conviction. The ECtHR therefore considered it necessary to review this issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The Government submitted that there was a right of review, although the applicants argued that the rights of appeal were inadequate and confused. The ECtHR noted that the applicants in this case were convicted in the same manner as in Galstyan , in which the ECtHR concluded that the applicant did not have an appeal procedure available to him that would satisfy the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, thus there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. The ECtHR thus maintained its preliminary ruling. The ECtHR has thus consistently defined itself against the legal construction in which prison sentences are imposed in the framework of so-called administrative punishment, the judgments of the courts become final upon their pronouncement and are immediately enforceable. The ECtHR has consistently found such legal constructions incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR, as it de facto implies the absence of a review procedure. The ECtHR considers that even when such a procedure is carried out, given the short-term nature of the custodial sentence, such a review is usually only carried out in the last days of administrative detention or after the entire sentence has been served. The ECtHR generally considers this practice to be contrary The case of Tsvetkova and others v. Russia 32 is the basis of six complaints against the Russian Federation, Nos. 54381/08, 10939/11, 13673/13, 69739/14, 70724/14, and 52440/15. For the sake of clarity, we will then work only with the applicant Tsvetkova, who was brought to the police station on suspicion of shoplifting, which is considered an administrative offence under Russian law. Below, then, with the applicant Svetlov. However, the applicant was simultaneously subjected to a humiliating body search and subsequently held in a small cell without a toilet with other detainees who were under the influence of narcotics. As part of the hearing of the case, she was ultimately not prosecuted. On the basis of the fact that she had not been prosecuted, the applicant requested the prosecution of the to Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR. 4.3 Case-law ECtHR against Russia

217

32 ECtHR decision in Tsvetkova and others v. Russia , of 10 April 2018, application no. 54381/08.