Constitutional Court

The applicant filed a referral requesting quashing of the sentence of seven months of imprisonment, pronounced for committing three criminal offences of robbery, on the grounds that the first instance court decision was not served upon him, and that his lawyer did not have sufficient time to prepare defence, and that the Court did not take into account the medical evidence showing that he suffers from “paranoid psychosis”, The Constitutional Court decided to reject applicant’s referral as inadmissible, reasoning that the referral does not clarify or specify the manner in which his constitutional rights were violated, Further, the Court decided not to take into account the medical evidence used as grounds by the applicant, because such evidence was not submitted during preliminary proceedings, and regardless of this, the Court finds that such evidence is not convincing and it would not suffice to quash the pronounced sentence