The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court's partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 46468/06)

QUESTIONS

1.  Was the applicant's medical condition per se compatible with his detention? Did the applicant receive in the detention centre medical assistance appropriate for his medical condition? If not, was Article 3 of the Convention respected in his case?

2.  Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a)  Was the applicant's detention compatible with his medical condition from the standpoint of the domestic law?
(b)  Was the applicant's detention based on a “reasonable suspicion” against him?
(c)  Why did the courts refuse to examine the evidence relied on by the prosecution in their detention requests?

3.  Was the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a)  Was his arrest and detention based on “relevant and sufficient” reasons warranting deprivation of liberty?
(b)  Was the investigation conducted with “special diligence” in view of the fact that the applicant was remanded in custody?

4.  Did the applicant have an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular:
(a)  Why did the courts refuse to examine evidence relied on by the prosecution in their detention requests?
(b)  Why did the courts refuse to release the applicant on health grounds when the investigator requested it? Did the applicant have other judicial remedies to obtain his release?

5.  Has there been a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the searches of his premises carried out by the GPO in April 2007?

6.  Did the authorities respect the applicant's right of individual petition, guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention? In particular, did the Government fully comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court on 27 November 2007? Was the applicant subjected to any pressure in respect of his complaint to the Court?