DAY 5 - NATALIA TAUBINA Natalia Taubina* “Evidence of crime obtained by torture: law and practice” *Director of Public Verdict Foundation Introduction The Russian Constitution, in its Article 50, Part 2, prohibits any use of evidence obtained in violation of federal law. According to Article 75, Part 2, of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, the following types of evidence are considered inadmissible: 1. any statement made by a suspect or accused during pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case in the absence of a lawyer, unless this statement is subsequently confirmed in court; 2. any victim or witness statement which is based on speculation, assumption or hearsay, as well as any statement from a witness for which he or she cannot indicate the source of information; 3. other evidence obtained in violation of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. On 29 November 2016, the Russian Supreme Court Plenary adopted its Ruling no. 55 “On Court Sentence.” This Ruling states in paragraph 1 that “by virtue of provisions of … Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms … a sentence may only be considered lawful if adopted following a fair trial.” Let us recall that Article 6 of the Convention covers, inter alia, issues such as presumption of innocence, the right to defence, and use of evidence (including the use of evidence obtained through torture, provocation, or invasion of privacy). The Supreme Court’s Ruling states in paragraph 12: “If the defendant wants to change his or her testimony made in the presence of a defence lawyer by saying that such testimony was made under duress due to the use of illegal methods of investigation, the court must take sufficient and effective measures to verify such statement of the defendant.” The Ruling further states, “If there are grounds for verifying the defendant’s statement in the manner prescribed by Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court should forward such statement to the head of the relevant pre-trial investigation authority. Such verification does not relieve the court from the obligation to examine the findings from this verification and reflect the court’s conclusions in the sentence” (paragraph 13 of Ruling no. 55). Thus, the regulatory framework enables a sufficient and effective response to a defendant’s allegations of ill-treatment during the pre-trial investigation, in particular in the case of having made a confession under torture. Russian law gives courts every reason to require that the investigating authority should verify torture allegations and to examine evidence in the main trial taking into account the defendant’s 42