Last Updated on October 13, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention.
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ARKHIPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 26454/13 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arkhipov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in all applications, save for application no. 30885/16, whereby they acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.
7. The applicants rejected the Government’s proposals.
8. Considering the circumstances of the case at hand, the Court rejects the Government’s requests to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue their examination (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3of the Convention
9. The applicants complained of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the lack of an effective investigation thereof.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
““No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
10. The Court has found in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to demonstrate that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).
11. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014 and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021 the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
12. Taking into account the case-law referred to above and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised under the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention by the applicant in application no. 30885/16 and the complaint by the applicant regarding one episode of his alleged ill-treatment in application no. 4673/15 (see the appended table for the remaining episode) do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention.
13. The Court further finds the remaining complaints admissible and observes that there has been a breach of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 30885/16, in respect of whom it finds a violation of only the procedural limb of that provision.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
14. In applications nos. 16097/18 and 58738/15 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35§ 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017, Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 76, 11 December 2012 and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69-71, 26 November 2019.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
15. The applicant in application no. 30885/16 also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions.
16. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
17. It follows that these parts of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
18. Furthermore, the applicants in applications nos. 26454/13, 62846/13, 73154/13 and no. 4673/15 also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine them separately in view of its findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016 and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
19. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
20. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Ksenz and Others, cited above, § 120; and, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee],nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
21. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications, save for application no. 30885/16, out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
3. Declares the complaints concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, as described in detail in the appended table, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, set out in the appended table,admissible, and the remainder of applications nos. 4673/15 and 30885/16 inadmissible;
4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment;
5. Holdsthat there isno need to examineseparately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
8. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President
_____________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location |
Factual information relating to arrest | Medical evidence of ill‑treatment | Date of first complaint Decision issued in response to complaint of ill‑treatment |
Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP Appeal decision |
Information relating to conviction | Other complaints under well‑established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 26454/13 01/04/2013 Vladimir Vyacheslavovich ARKHIPOV 1992 Committee Against Torture Nizhniy Novgorod |
1) At 4 a.m. on 12/08/2011 / police officers at the Traffic Police Department in Orenburg stopped the applicant for a traffic violation and subjected him to beatings and tasing.
*** 2) At 3.45 a.m. on 11/11/2011 officers took the applicant to police station no. 1 in Orenburg, where they subjected him to beatings to make him confess to a theft. |
1) Certificate of Municipal Hospital no. 4 of 12/08/2011 (bruises on the upper torso); Forensic medical report no. 6253 of 12/08/2011 (multiple bruises and abrasions on the head, face, chest, upper and lower limbs; some of these injuries were paired at a distance of 2.5 to 4 cm which coincided with the two electrodes of the taser gun); Certificate no. 2246 of 16/08/2011 of Municipal Hospital no. 4 (traces of electrocution on the torso); Forensic medical report no. 6370 of 16/08/2011 (multiple abrasions on the applicant’s head, torso and limbs);*** 2) A note from the Pirogov city hospital of 11/11/2011 (injuries of the soft tissue of the head, bruises on the chest, bruise in the lumbar region); |
1) First complaint to the Investigative Committee of Orenburg, on 18/08/2011 / Refusals to open a criminal case: 03/10/2011, 07/11/2011, 22/03/2012, 28/06/2012, 12/10/2012, 09/01/2013.
*** 2) First complaint to the Investigative Committee of Orenburg, 11/11/2011/ Refusals to open a criminal case: 01/12/2011, 13/03/2012, 13/04/2012, 16/05/2012. |
1) On 15/03/2013 the Central District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint because the decision of 09/01/2013 was annulled by the prosecutor on 14/03/2013 / No appeal.*** 2) On 20/08/2012 the Leninskiy District Court and then on 04/10/2012 the Orenburg Regional Court on appeal. |
On 11/11/2011, Justice of the Peace of court district no. 20 in the Leninskiy District of Orenburg convicted the applicant of drunk driving under Art.12.8 p.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to 2 days of administrative arrest. |
26,000 | |
| 2. | 62846/13 07/10/2013 Dmitriy Konstantinovich BELKIN 1971 Karpinskiy Roman Sergeyevich Moscow |
1) On 28/03/2012; 30/03/2012; 01/03/2013; 17/05/2013; 21/05/2013; 10/07/2013; 14/08/2013; 15/08/2013; 20/08/2013; 09/09/2013; 17/09/2013; 20/09/2013 prison guards of remand prison SIZO-1 in Moscow beat up the applicant.
*** 2) On 24/10/2014 in remand prison SIZO-2 in Moscow / Disguised convoy agents ill-treated the applicant |
1) Medical examination on physical injuries from SIZO-1 in Moscow of 28/03/2012, 29/03/2012, 01/04/2013, 20/09/2013, 09/09/2013, 20/08/2013, 15/08/2013, 21/05/2013, 05/07/2013, 10/07/2013, 14/08/2013, 17/05/2013, 20/05/2013 (handcuff marks on the wrists, hyperaemia, bruises and abrasions on shoulders, ribs, chest and limbs). Acts on physical injuries made by the applicant’s lawyer in SIZO-1 in Moscow of 09/09/2013, 14/08/2013, 17/09/2013, 20/09/2013 (handcuff marks on the wrists, bruises and abrasions on the shoulders, ribs and limbs).*** 2) Medical examination on physical injuries in SIZO-2 in Moscow of 24/10/2014 (hyperaemia, oedema from handcuffs). |
1) First complaint to the Tverskoy Investigative Department in Moscow on 10/09/2013 / Refusal to open a criminal case: 18/12/2013.*** 2) First complaint to the same investigative department on 06/11/2014, then on 12/11/2014 / |
1) 30/07/2014 the Presnenskiy District Court in Moscow; 01/10/2014 Moscow City Court (appeal); 03/12/2014 Moscow City Court (1st cassation, no examination on the merits); 05/02/2015 Supreme Court of Russia (2nd cassation, no consideration on the merits).*** 2) 11/03/2015 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow/ 15/04/15 Moscow City Court (appeal). |
23,000 | ||
| 3. | 73154/13 08/11/2013 1) Temirkan Sofyanovich ASHABOKOV 1995 2) Artur Mukhamedovich TANOV 1992 Kogan Vanessa Utrecht |
Applicant 1: was arrested at 1.30 p.m. on 13/02/2012 on the road between Nalchik and Baksan by officers of the Counter-Extremism Centre, taken to an undisclosed location in Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, where he was subjected to beatings. Applicant 1 was released on 14 or 15/02/2012. Applicant 2: in the morning on 14/02/2012 he was taken to the Chegemskiy district police department in Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, where he was subjected to beatings. No information about arrest records. Applicant 2 was taken to the temporary detention unit of the police station and then on 15/02/2012 to remand prison. |
Applicant 1: Medical examination act no. 33-A of 15/02/2012 (bruises in the lumber spine area, abrasions on the left ear, right hand). The injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object within 1-3 days prior to the examination. Applicant 2: medical examination act no. 36-A of 17/02/2012 (closed craniocerebral injury, bruises on the face and legs). The injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object within 3-5 days prior to the examination. |
Applicant 1: on 16/02/2012 complained to the Kabardino-Balkaria investigative committee. Applicant 2: on 27/02/2012 complained to the investigators in the criminal case opened against him. |
The 13th refusal to open a criminal case: 15/01/2013 by the Chegemskiy district investigative department. The decision stated that the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment had been dismissed as unfounded during the trial. On 24/01/2013 the Chegemskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against the above refusal referring to the applicants’ conviction. On 14/05/2013 the Supreme Court of Kabardino-Balkaria quashed that decision and returned the case for a fresh examination. On 24/06/2013 the Chegemskiy District Court partly allowed the applicants’ appeal, having found unlawful the investigators’ failure to verify the relevant facts when refusing to open a criminal case. The last refusal to open a criminal case: 19/09/2019. No information about further developments. |
Conviction on 28/09/2012 by the Chegemskiy District Court, copy of the sentence unavailable, no information on the appeal. | 26,000, to each applicant |
|
| 4. | 4673/15 17/12/2014 Sergey Valeryevich NAPLAVKOV 1974 Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna Moscow |
At 11 p.m. on 23/02/2013 the applicant was taken by the police to a hospital for medical aid for alcohol poisoning and then taken to police station no. 4 in Izhevsk. According to the applicant, at the police station he was subjected to kicks to the head and shoulders to make him confess to a crime. |
1) Emergency room certificate of 23/02/2013 Alcohol-induced coma. No injuries recorded. 2) On 26/02/2013 – expert opinion no. 1986 by the Forensics Bureau of the Udmurt Republic describing multiple bruises of 2-3 sm. on the left shoulder caused less than 2 days prior to the examination (carried out between 24/02/2013 and 26/02/2013, in the presence of police officers). |
On 07/08/2013 the first refusal to open a criminal case by the Izhevsk investigative committee. The latest (4th) refusal: 09/06/2014. In each refusal the ill-treatment allegations were rejected as unsubstantiated. The medical evidence was ignored. The allegations were further rejected during the criminal trial as unsubstantiated, although the medical documents were not examined either. |
On 18/09/2014 discontinuation of the proceedings due to the applicant’s criminal conviction. | On 16/09/2013 the applicant was convicted by the Ustinovskiy District Court in Izhevsk; sentence upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Udmurtia Republic. | 26,000 | |
| 5. | 58738/15 13/11/2015 Imangazali Shakhbanovich MAGOMEDOV 1980 Itslayev Dokka Saydaminovich Grozny |
The applicant was arrested at 9 p.m. on 02/06/2014; taken to the Kizlyarskiy ROVD in Dagestan, where he was subjected to beatings. Arrest record drawn up on 03/06/2014 (at 6 a.m.). On 04/06/2014 at 8.00 p.m. he was taken to the temporary detention unit (the IVS). |
Forensic medical examination act no. 274 of 12/06/2014 (a bruising under the left eye, on the inner surface of the right shoulder, outer and front surface of the right hip, two abrasions on the back resulted from the use of a hard blunt object). |
First complaint of 11/06/2014 to the Dagestan investigative committee. The last refusal to open a criminal case: 26/11/2014. |
On 31/10/2014 the applicant raised the ill-treatment complaint during his trial, and then on appeal. It was dismissed by the courts in a summary fashion as unsubstantiated. | On 11/03/2015 convicted by the Kizlyarskiy District Court, conviction upheld on 13/05/2015 by the Supreme Court of Dagestan. | Art. 6 (1) – lack of fair hearing – on 03/06/2014 and 04/06/2014, the applicant confessed under duress during interrogation, in the absence of a lawyer; the self-incriminating statements were used as evidence for the applicant’s conviction (see Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 76, 11 December 2012). |
33,800 |
| 6. | 30885/16 18/05/2016 Ayub Kharonovich TUNTUYEV 1975 Stichting Russian Justice Initiative Moscow |
According to the applicant, on 17/05/2015 six officers of IK-6 in the Vladimir Region subjected him to a beating for about an hour. Then on 26 and 27/05/2015 officers of the Federal Security Service handcuffed him and threw him on the floor, having pulled a bag over his head. Then they beat him on the heels with an object, threatened him with sexual violence, punched and kicked him all over the body and in the head pressuring him to confess to a crime. |
Forensic examination No. 6/29-16 of 03/02/2016 (conducted in 8 months after the date of the alleged ill-treatment) (healed scar on the back of the hand, scar on the back of the neck, no evidence of feet injuries). Forensic examination No. 6/230-16 of 27/07/2016 (conducted in 1 year and 2 months after the date of the alleged ill-treatment) (old, healed scars on the nose, hands and neck). Written statement of the representative of the Public Commission for Monitoring the Protection of Human Rights in Detention in the Vladimir Region (noted bruises on the applicant’s feet). |
The first refusal to open a criminal case: 26/06/2015 by the Investigative Committee of the Vladimir Region, subsequent refusals: 27/08/2015, 09/12/2015, 05/12/2016. | On 04/08/2015 the Kovrov Town Court in the Vladimir Region; upheld on 18/11/2015 by the Vladimir Regional Court on appeal. | On 02/08/2017 the applicant was convicted of attempt on the life of a law-enforcement officer (Art. 317 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to 13 years of imprisonment. The conviction was based, inter alia, on his confession statement of 27/05/2015 made under duress. The applicant didn’t appeal against the sentence. |
15,500 | |
| 7. | 7539/18 02/02/2018 Eduard Grigoryevich PALADYAN 1955 Karpinskiy Roman Sergeyevich Moscow |
On 26/03/2013 the Anapa Department of the Federal Security Service and the Krasnodar Region Department of Ministry of the Interior arrested the applicant on suspicion of involvement in a murder. On 28/03/2013 the applicant was subjected to electrocution, beatings, psychological pressure and threats by police officers and the investigator Mr.M.V. in the temporary detention unit in Korenovsk in the Krasnodar Region. |
On 05/04/2013 and then on 12/04/2013 forensic examination reports nos. 140 and 2053/2013 by the Forensics Bureau of the Krasnodar Region found abrasions on the fingers of both hands, knees, back, shoulders, elbows, a bruise on the back. Conclusion: the applicant has several burn marks proving the electrocution. The injuries were sustained about 1-2 weeks prior to the examination. On 17/10/2013 expert report no. 446/2013 by the same Bureau found the same injuries. The expert concluded, however, that there was no evidence that the applicant had been electrocuted. |
On 29/11/2013 the applicant complained to the investigators in the criminal case against him. A criminal case opened: 05/08/2015. Its outcome is unknown. |
The investigation in the criminal case has been pending even though the trial court excluded multiple pieces of evidence due to plausibility of the applicant’s ill-treatment allegations. | Conviction:11/10/2016 by the Krasnodar Regional Court, sentence upheld on appeal on 03/11/2017 by the North Caucasus Military Circuit Court. | 52,000 | |
| 8. | 10723/18 21/02/2018 Pavel Yevgenyevich KUROV 1997 Dobreva Natasha Ognyanova Sofia, Bulgaria |
On 04/06/2015 in the Bobrov prison in the Voronezh Region, while in the disciplinary cell, the applicant was ill-treated by six guards who punched and kicked him in the left side of the body, including chest, ribs, stomach, and hips; hit him in the head, pulled him by the ear and kicked in the ankles. | On 23/06/2015 forensic examination report by the Voronezh Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations established bruises on the applicant’s right shoulder and left ankle. |
On 08/06/2015 to the Bobrov District Department of the Investigative Committee. A criminal case opened: 21/07/2015. Proceedings terminated: on 21/12/2015 for the lack of corpus delicti. The decision stated, inter alia, that the injuries had been caused by the applicant’s sports activities. |
On 31/05/2017 the Bobrov District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the termination of the criminal case as unsubstantiated. On21/08/2017 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. | 17/09/2014 by the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Lipetsk the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to one year of imprisonment. | 26,000 | |
| 9. | 16097/18 29/03/2018 Sultankhan Ibragimovich IBRAGIMOV 1963 Memorial Human Rights Centre Moscow |
At 5.30 p.m. on 23/03/2016 plainclothes police officers arrived at the house of the applicant’s father in Makhachkala, Dagestan. They forced the applicant out and took him by car to the Sovetskiy District Police Station. From there he was moved to an unknown location for 8 days (between 23/03/2016 and 30/03/2016), where the officers subjected him to electrocutions and beatings on the head, face, torso and feet in order to make him confess to murders. |
Report of the Forensics Bureau of the Dagestan Republic dated 04/04/2016 establishedmultiple bruises on the applicant’s face, left shoulder, shins, knees; small round liaisons on both hands. The report concluded that the injuries could have been sustained in the circumstances described by the applicant. Statement of 16/12/2016 by Medical Unit no. 3 in Makhachkala established bruises on the right shoulder, fingers on both hands, right knee, left part of the chest and aerothorax, broken ribs: 6-8, left side. |
22/07/2016 to the Sovetskiy District Investigative Department in Makhachkala. Refusals to open a criminal case: 25/07/2016, 01/03/2017, 17/06/2017. |
The applicant appealed against the refusal of 25/07/2016 under Article 125 of CCP. Meanwhile, it was overruled by the investigators’ superior, and the court dismissed the appeal. The applicant’s appeals against the refusals of 05/05/2017 and 17/06/2017 were dismissed for the same reason. | Acquitted on 24/10/2017 by a jury trial at the Supreme Court of Dagestan. | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful detention – from 23/03/2016 to 30/03/2016 the applicant was taken by the police to an unknown location. No record of the detention was drawn up. | 55,000 |
| 10. | 46636/18 28/09/2018 Georgiy Georgiyevich SVESHNIKOV 1999 Vanslova Yekaterina Nizhniy Novgorod |
At 10 a.m. on 28/04/2017, while at school in the Kudepsta area in Sochi, the applicant was detained by the police and taken to police station of the Loo village (Lazarevskiy district) in Sochi. There he was subjected to beatings and threatened to be raped by a baton to make him confess to a theft. No arrest record was drawn up. The applicant was a minor at the time. | Medical certificate no. C-17-21485 of 29/04/2017 issued by hospital no. 4 in Sochi (head injury). Surgeon examination on 30/04/2017 (soft tissue bruises on the back). Forensic act no. 185 of 03/07/2017 of the medical examination carried out on 11/05/2017 (bruises near the left eye and temple). |
On 04/05/2017 the first complaint to the Lazarevskiy District Investigative Committee. Refusals to open a criminal case: 05/06/2017 and 30/09/2017. Then complaint to the local prosecutor’s office. Refusal to open a criminal case:15/12/2017. |
26/06/2018 by the Lazarevskiy District Court and on 15/08/2018 by the Krasnodar Regional Court on appeal. | Criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated | 45,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply