CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 the Global Gamin Expo, were signed with his name on 16 August 2006 when he had already left the country on 2 July 2006.4 The complainant maintains that a local business man, Sergey Lapshin and the General Prosecutor of Yekaterinburg, Iury Zolotov are probably responsible for the actions, as Mr. Lapshin acquired the totality of the complainant’s shares of the bank presumably by forging his signature, as according to Russian legislation the potential buyer needs to be introduced to the bank and receive consent from the Central Bank to acquire shares. 5.2 With regard to the criminal plot in which the complainant was trapped, he claims that four persons linked to him have been killed: Alexander Khaparov, Andrey Shatov, Vladimir Sevastianov and Jaly Haliev, and that his business partner, Alexander Varaskin, had disappeared without any further information about his whereabouts. The complainant submits that these killings have been committed in order for the new owners, Mr. Lapshin and Mr. Zolotov, to take possession of the deceased’s companies. 5.3 Moreover, the complainant notes that he has never been a general director of Global Gamin Expo, has never signed any agreements with the clients on opening margin trading accounts and can therefore not be held liable for the obligations undertaken by the two directors, Felix Alexandrovich Porin and Ekaterina Andreevna Demesh, as all asset entry or withdrawal to/from the margin trading accounts were performed by them. 5.4 The complainant submits that in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure,5 criminal proceedings started in Yekaterinburg when he had his permanent residence in St. Petersburg. Despite a motion to the General Prosecutor’s Office, proceedings were not moved. In contravention to the Code of Criminal Procedure,6 the complainant’s counsel did not have access to expert reports. On 2 February 2007, the investigating authorities issued an indictment against the complainant under article 159, part 4, of the Criminal Code, without however notifying him of this warrant, despite the fact that the authorities knew his registration address and actual place of residence. On 27 February 2007, the district court imposed a preventive measure of detention in the complainant’s absence, without previously having searched for him and without an arrest warrant, which is needed for this measure. On 16 November 2006, the complainant filed an application to the Deputy Prosecutor General for the institution of criminal proceedings against the management of Global Gamin Expo and the owner of Bank24.Ru. A criminal case was instituted but investigations have since been suspended. On 13 January 2010, in the complainant’s absence, the Sverdlovsk District Court quashed earlier decisions and found that there was no need to prolong the complainant’s custody on remand. 5.5 A number of civil proceedings against the complainant and Global Gamin Expo were started by the victims of the alleged fraud; all of them however have been decided in the complainant’s favour, holding that the complainant held no responsibility for the alleged embezzlement. The author further notes that according to article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, facts established by a civil court decision should be taken as true by any other court and therefore the investigation should have suspended the criminal case against him. 5.6 Following the complainant’s arrest in Morocco, his parents started facing problems with the administration. On 25 July 2010, the author’s parents were both denied renewal of their passports due to the need to carry out additional investigations on the basis of the legislation on the protection of State secrets. The complainant claims that he has a wellfounded fear of reprisals against his parents, based on other cases, in which an individual 4 5 6 Date stamped in his passport by the Italian authorities. Article 152. Article 198. 7