a Real gift to the lawyers was made by the constitutional court. The high court was allowed to question the jury to prove the facts of pressure on them.
a complaint to the constitutional court has addressed the defenders of the sentenced to 14 years imprisonment Ruslan Aliyev, accused of transporting weapons and complicity in the contract killing of a businessman in Yekaterinburg. The case was heard by the Sverdlovsk regional court with participation of jurors. According to Aliyev and his lawyers on the people’s judges were pressured, they communicated with victims and experts. And when the jury verdict, to them in the jury room several times visited the court clerk. In the appeal and even the Supreme court advocates demanded to invite the jury for questioning. Moreover, several of them lawyers tracked down and persuaded to write explanations. But the courts refused to call a jury as alive, and to adduce their manuscript. Referred to the judges on the standard of the code of criminal procedure which clearly established a ban on the questioning of a juror as a witness. However, the constitutional court accents in a very different way. As emphasized by the Supreme Board of judges in its decision, the jury is really not obliged to give explanations on the merits of the case, which involved. But if he talked with someone from the parties to the proceedings, expressed to the announcement of the verdict, their opinions, collecting data on the case outside of the courtroom or he was a third-party effects – such circumstances the superior court when the retrial is obliged to find out. For the people’s arbiter of justice to call in the session can and should be. However, to give it the status of a witness should not be. To ask questions of a juror can only be about the circumstances that prevented him to make honest, fair and just verdict. But to talk about what happened within the walls of the deliberation room and tell them about the opinion of other jurors, during questioning, the jury is not entitled to. In General, the CC has concluded that a controversial article of the criminal procedure code does not contradict the Constitution and entitle the court to satisfy the petition of defenders of the interrogation of jury. The case of Ruslan Aliyev with the filing of the COP will go for review.