Constitution correspondence

The Constitutional Court with its definition established that the reading of correspondence on mobile phones, tablets and computers without judicial sanction does not violate the basic law. This was reported by RAPSI.

Dmitry Prozorovsky, serving the real term, addressed the Constitutional Court. He indicated that in three articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure - 176 (the basis of the inspection), 177 (the procedure for the inspection) and 195 (the procedure for the appointment of a forensic examination) - provisions are contained that immediately contradict six articles of the Basic Law. In particular, he indicated, constitutional rights to the secret of correspondence, postal, telegraphic and other messages are violated.

The complaint noted that Proserovsky’s defense in both the first and appeal instances demanded that the inspections of his electronic devices exclude from the case as evidence obtained in violation of the law, since investigators studied messages on these devices without the sanction of the court. However, the judges noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the receipt of court decisions to read correspondence.

Meanwhile, the KS refused to accept Prozorovsky’s complaint about consideration. There are no intelligible arguments for this in the publication of RAPSI - only the current norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure are retold.

“Persons who believe that the conduct of relevant investigative actions and the procedural decisions made are able to cause damage to their constitutional rights, including the right to the secret of correspondence, postal, telegraphic and other messages, may consult these procedural decisions and investigative actions in the manner prescribed by Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the determination notes.

The decision of the CS is final and is not subject to appeal.