case of Oleg Anatolyevich Zhirnov v. the Russian Federation. Views of the Human Rights Committee of 28 October 2013. Communication No. 1795/2008.
In 2008, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, the author claimed a violation of his rights, enshrined in paragraph 3 of article 14, to have sufficient time and opportunity to prepare his defense, to communicate with a lawyer of his own choosing and to have a lawyer assigned to him in any case when the interests of justice so require (paragraph 3.1 of the Considerations).
The Committee's legal position: article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant provides that accused persons must have sufficient time and opportunity to prepare their defence and [communicate] with their own chosen defenders. This provision is an important element of the guarantee of a fair trial and the application of the principle of equality of arms (paragraph 10.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances: it took note of the author's claim that he did not have sufficient time and opportunity to prepare his defense and could not [communicate] with the defender chosen by himself, since he was ordered to familiarize himself with all the materials of the criminal case, consisting of 19 volumes (more than 4,000 sheets), for 37 days and was not allowed to get acquainted with some of the case materials in the presence of his lawyer(s). The Committee has taken into account the State party's observation to the Covenant that the author's claims that he was forced to familiarize himself with part of the criminal case materials in the absence of his lawyer are in conflict with the fact that the signatures of the author and his lawyer are on the schedule of familiarization with the case materials. Nevertheless, the Committee noted that the author had made a note under the schedule of familiarization with the case materials that he had not been able to familiarize himself with them in full. The Committee also stressed that it appeared from the minutes of the regional court session that the author's lawyer had confirmed his statement that he had not had sufficient time to familiarize himself with the case materials in full (paragraph 10.2 of the Views).
The Committee noted that in its decision of 12 May 2000, the regional court of the State party indicated that the fact that some materials of the criminal case were presented to the author for review in the absence of a lawyer constituted a violation of the national criminal procedure law, and for this reason returned the case for further investigation. The Committee found that it followed from the minutes of the subsequent court session that the court did not take a decision on the identical petition and subsequently convicted the author. The Committee further pointed out that the State party had claimed that the court had rejected the application, but had not provided documentary evidence of this claim (paragraph 10.3 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts constituted a violation of the author's rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (b), of the Covenant (paragraph 11 of the Views).