FIRST SECTION
DECISION

Application no. 2168/04
by Stanislav Khazbiyevich KHURIYEV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Anatoly Kovler,
	Elisabeth Steiner,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Dean Spielmann,
	Sverre Erik Jebens,
	Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Stanislav Khazbiyevich Khuriyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Vladikavkaz, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Ms V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 April 2002 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery. The applicant alleged to have been severely beaten up by the police officers and forced to confess. The confession was made in the absence of the legal-aid counsel.
Following the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment, on 13 May 2002 the Nevinnomyssk Town Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers. However, on 13 July 2002 the criminal proceedings were terminated in the absence of prima facie evidence of ill-treatment. The applicant did not appeal against the decision to terminate the proceedings.
On 18 July 2002 the Nevinnomyssk Town Court of the Stavropol Region convicted the applicant of complicity in an attempted theft and robbery and sentenced him to nine years and one month’s imprisonment. The court based the applicant’s conviction to a large extent on his confession made at the stage of the pre-trial investigation.
On 18 June 2003 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. The applicant remained without the benefit of legal advice.
On 11 August 2006 the applicant was released from prison.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the alleged unlawfulness of the composition of the trial court and about deficiency of his legal representation at the stage of the pre-trial investigation, at the trial and on appeal.
He complained under Article 6 that his conviction had been based to a substantial degree on his self-incriminating statements extracted under duress in the absence of a legal-aid counsel, that the trial court had dismissed his requests for appointment of experts and for obtaining the attendance of several witnesses.
The applicant further complained that it had taken the domestic court almost a year to examine his case on appeal.
THE LAW
On 11 October 2007 the application was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 14 January 2008 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. On 18 January 2008 the Court invited the applicant to submit his written observations in reply by 14 March 2008.
On 14 February 2008 the English version of the Government’s observations was forwarded to the applicant. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits had not been received by 14 March 2008, on 11 June 2008 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of the application. To date the applicant has not replied.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1.  The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a)  the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;
...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicant was requested to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. The applicant was also informed about a consequence of his failure to submit the observations. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
In view of the above-mentioned, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President