You may remember that on January 15, 2007 the Pavlovo Prosecutor’s office originated a criminal case against Dmitry Andronov who was under age at that moment.
On February 26, 2007 Mr.Andronov was detained by an order of the Pavlovo district court and put in custody in SIZO 52/1 (detention centre). On March 9, 2007 the court cancelled the restriction measure and on March 10 Dmitry was set free. But on March 27 the Prosecutor’s office repeatedly asked the Pavlovo district court for a permission to arrest Mr.Andronov, and the court put Dmitry in custody the second time.
Since March 27 till May 11, 2007 Mr.Andronov was kept in SIZO 52/1, and on May 11 he was transferred to the Pavlovo temporary detention centre. Under law an individual can be kept in custody for 2 months. Then the detention term can be prolonged by a motion submitted by the prosecution.
On May 15, 2007 the Pavlovo district court refused to satisfy the prosecution motion to prolong the detention period and pointed out that in breach of law Mr.Andronov was detained for more than 2 months and spent additionally 3 days behind the bars.
In connection with all said above mr.Andronov applied to the Nizhny Novgorod district court demanding compensation of moral damage incurred by unlawful detention. He sued the Prosecutor’s office of Nizhny Novgorod region and the RF Finance Ministry.
You may remember that lawyers of the Committee against Torture represent the interests of Dmitry Andronov in course of civil proceedings under his suit and in course of criminal proceedings against law enforcement officers who, the teenager claims, savagely battered him.
Mr.Andronov and lawyers of the Committee against Torture concluded that the prosecutor’s office is to blame for the fact that the officials forgot to release Dmitry after his legal detention period expired.
According to law the Prosecutor’s office shall be responsible for monitoring the lawfulness of detention in temporary detention centres. City Prosecutor’s offices should on a daily basis check whether detainees and the accused are lawfully kept in temporary detention centres. And it is a mystery how Dmitry could be kept in a cell in Pavlovo for three days without any legal grounds for that.
During the trial the lawyer from the Committee against Torture who represented Dmitry Andronov’s interests pointed out that the state bodies had not only violated norms of the Constitution and European Convention, but also the Convention on the Exercise of Children’s rights ratified by the Russian Federation. It is worth mentioning that the described events happened when Dmitry was under age.
In course of trial federal judge E.N. Kochetkova listened to parties’ statements, studied written evidence included into case materials. The defendant’s representatives refused to accept the claims in whole. For example, representatives of the regional prosecutor’s office denied that the investigator in charge of Andronov’s case and the supervisory staff monitoring detention centres had violated anything. They claimed that there were no violations of the RF Criminal Procedural Code, RF Constitution, international law that is part of Russian law under p.4 of art.15 of the RF Constitution.
Judge E.N. Kochetkova disagreed with the regional Prosecutor’s office representatives and found violation of Mr.Andronov’s right to freedom, and awarded Dmitry 3 000 rubles as compensation of moral damage.