Communication No. 815/1998 Submitted by: Alexander Alexandrovitch Dugin (represented by A. Manov) Alleged victim: The author State party: Russian Federation Date of adoption of Views: 5 July 2004 Federation on 12 September 1995, Dugin requested that the judgment be overturned. He claimed that he hit Naumkin only a few times and only after Naumkin had struck him with a broken bottle. He also contended that he had approached Egurnov and Naumkin only to stop them from fighting. His sentence was disproportionate and his punishment particularly harsh, having been handed down without regard for his age, his positive character witnesses, the fact that he has a young child, and the lack of premeditation. Subject matter: Impossibility to have a key witness in a criminal case interrogated Procedural issues: Level of substantiation of claim Examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (ECHR) Substantive issues: Fair trial - Right to have defence witness examined in court Articles of the Covenant: 9, paragraphs 2 and 3; 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (a), (e) and (g), and 5 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2; 5, paragraph 2 (a) 2.4 On 12 September 1995, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the author’s appeal from his conviction, and on 6 August 1996 the same court denied the author’s appeal against his sentence. Finding: Violation (article 14, paragraphs 1 and 3 (e)) 1. The author of the communication is Alexander Alexandrovitch Dugin, a Russian citizen, born in 1968, who at the time of submission of the communication was imprisoned in the Orel region of Russia. He claims to be a victim of a violation by the Russian Federation of articles 14, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (a), (e) and (g), 5, and article 9, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Covenant. He is represented by counsel. The complaint 3.1 It is alleged that the surviving victim, Chikin, was not present during the proceedings in the Orlov court, even though the Court took into account the statement he had made during the investigation. According to counsel, Chikin gave contradictory testimony in his statements, but as Chikin did not appear in Court, Dugin could not cross-examine him on these matters, and was thus deprived of his rights under article 14, paragraph 3 (e), of the Covenant. The facts as submitted 2.1 On the evening of 21 October 1994, the author and his friend Yuri Egurnov were standing near a bus stop when two adolescents carrying beer bottles passed by. The author and his friend, both of whom were drunk, verbally provoked Aleksei Naumkin and Dimitrii Chikin in order to start a fight. When Naumkin tried to defend himself with a piece of glass and injured the author’s hand, the author and his accomplice hit him on the head and, when he fell down, they kicked him in the head and on his body. Naumkin died half an hour later. 3.2 Counsel further claims that the presumption of innocence under article 14, paragraph 2, of the Covenant was not respected in the author’s case. He bases this statement on the forensic expert’s reports and conclusions of 22 and 26 October, 9 November, 20 December 1994 and 7 February 1995, which were, in his opinion, vague and not objective. He states, without further explanation, that he had posed questions to which the court had had no answer. He therefore requested the court to have the forensic expert appear to provide clarification and comments, and to allow him to lead additional evidence. The court denied his request. 2.2 On 30 June 1995, Dugin and Egurnov were found guilty by the Orlov oblastnoi (regional) court of premeditated murder under aggravating circumstances. The judgment was based on the testimony of the author, his accomplice, several eyewitnesses and the victim, Chikin, several forensic reports and the crime scene report. Dugin and Egurnov were each sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment in a correctional labour colony. 3.3 Counsel refers to serious irregularities in relation to the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the preliminary inquiry and investigation were partial and incomplete, criminal law was improperly applied, and the court’s conclusions did not correspond to the facts of the case as presented in Court. The court did not take all necessary measures to guarantee respect for the legal requirement that there should be an impartial, full and 2.3 During the Orlov court hearing, the author did not admit his guilt, while Egurnov did so partially. In his appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian 75