CASE OF KOZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – 27284/17 and 10 others

Last Updated on September 14, 2023 by LawEuro

The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

(Applications nos. 27284/17 and 10 others – see appended list)
14 September 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kozayev and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President,
Ioannis Ktistakis,
Andreas Zünd, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 July 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:


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.


3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.



5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.


6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).


7. The applicants complained principally of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.

8. The Court held 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 detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have 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 in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined 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 show 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], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).

9. 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 open 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 fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and observes that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.


11. In applications nos. 27284/17, 64909/19, 15983/20, 13053/21, 14462/21, 43278/21, 1837/22 and 3152/22 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the attached 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 Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 124, ECHR 2011; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015; Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 13-14 and 54, 28 November 2017; Pesukic v. Switzerland, no. 25088/07, § 43, 6 December 2012; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, § 100, 2 July 2019.


12. Some applicants also submitted other complaints under various Articles of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, and given the Court’s findings in paragraphs 10-11 above, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine separately these complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).


13. 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.”

14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.


1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;

3. Declares the applicants’ complaints about torture or inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of State officials, and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible, and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants;

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention related to the applicants’ torture or inhuman or degrading treatment;

5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

6. 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina                  Peeter Roosma
Acting Deputy Registrar                    President



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 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. 27284/17


Sergey Sardionovich KOZAYEV


Bagramyan Arevik Yurikovna


On 21/04/2014 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and detained in the IVS of the Samara Region Police Department, where several police officers hung him upside down and beat him to force him to confess to the crime. The applicant confessed. On 22/04/2014 when a lawyer visited him in the IVS, the applicant told her about the ill‑treatment.


Forensic medical examination act no. 04-8п/757 of 22/04/2014 by the Samara Regional Forensic Bureau: bruise on the right forearm, six abrasions on the right shin that could have been caused by a hard blunt object within the period of up to three days before the examination.


On 25/04/2014 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Samara Investigative Committee. Refusals to open a criminal case on 12/02/2015 and 14/04/2016.


On 26/12/2016 the Samarskiy District Court in Samara dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the last refusal to open a criminal case. On 03/03/2017 the Samara Regional Court upheld that decision.


On 08/04/2016 the Samara Regional Court convicted the applicant of homicide. On 06/10/2016 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction.


Art. 6 (1) – unfair criminal proceedings – In their decisions the courts relied on the confession statement of 22/04/2014 obtained under duress in the absence of a lawyer (Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015, and Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 53‑56, 28 November 2017).


2. 29910/19


Sergey Yevgenyevich KILDISHOV


Denisov Vyacheslav Yuryevich


On 25/04/2018 officers of Drug Control unit no.5 in the Novosibirsk Region arrested the applicant on suspicion of a drug‑related crime. They pushed him to the ground, handcuffed and took him to a police station, where they subjected him to a beating to force him confess to drug trafficking. According to the applicant, the officers covered his head with a blanket, beat and kicked him on the head and stepped on his left wrist which had amputated fingers. Ambulance certificate of 06/07/2018 of the Novosibirsk Regional Hospital: ambulance team was called to the police station on 25/04/2018: suspected brain concussion, the applicant refused to be hospitalised.

Forensic medical report no. 5787 of 01/10/2018 by the Novosibirsk Regional Forensics Bureau: bruises of the soft tissues of the head, abrasion of the temporal region. The injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object within a day prior to the examination carried out on 26/04/2018.


On 20/06/2018 the applicant complained to the investigator in the case opened against him. Refusal to open a criminal case of 29/10/2018.

No appeal.


The applicant raised the ill‑treatment before the trial and appeal courts examining the criminal case against him; the courts examined the issue in detail (the ambulance personnel and the police officers were questioned) and rejected – on 17/01/2019 by the Kirov District Court in Novosibirsk.

Upheld on 24/04/2019 by the Novosibirsk Regional Court.


Conviction of large‑scale drug trafficking by the Kirov District Court on 17/01/2019.

upheld by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on 24/04/2019.


3. 64909/19




Lobanova Lyubov Ivanovna


At 10.30 p.m. on 12/11/2016 officer I. of police station no. 82 in the Krasnoselskiy District of St Petersburg arrested the applicant on suspicion of a robbery and beat him during the arrest. Then on 12‑13/11/2016 the same officer beat him at the police station, forcing him to confess. When questioned as an accused, the applicant signed a confession statement at 11 a.m. (as in the documents) or late in the evening (according to the applicant) on 13/11/2016 in the presence of a State‑appointed lawyer and was released on that date.


Record of telephone message no. 721 to the police department on 14/11/2016,

Out-Patient Clinic no. 51: suspected closed brain injury/brain concussion, bruises to the right ear, back, chest, left shoulder.

Record of telephone message no. 5568 to the police department and medical certificate of 14/11/2016, City Hospital no. 26: closed brain injury, bruises to the head, body and limbs.

Forensic medical report no. 2166-II of 16/06/2017: bruise to the left ear, chest, back, shoulders, could have been caused by impacts of a blunt object, thus being caused by a hit or kicks could not be excluded, insufficient information to confirm a brain injury.


On 14/11/2016 and 15/11/2016, out‑patient clinic no.51 and city hospital no. 26 respectively informed the police of the applicant’s injuries allegedly inflicted on him as a result of the ill‑treatment by the police officer. At some point, no later than 28/11/2016 the applicant complained of ill-treatment to the Krasnoselskiy District Police Department (statement given on 23/11/2016).

Refusals to open the criminal case of 28/12/2016, 01/06/2017, 20/07/2017, 14/12/2018, all but the latest one was overruled by the investigators’ superiors – the applicant received a copy of the latest refusal no earlier than on 19/07/2019 (as per official replies to the lawyer’s complaint about the refusals to provide the copy).

Ill-treatment complaint examined during the trial: the court heard the applicant, the alleged perpetrator and witnesses, reviewed medical documents. Complaint rejected, for the lack of evidence that the injuries had been inflicted by the police officer.


On 06/02/2019 the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg convicted the applicant of attempted robbery, sentenced him to six months’ suspended imprisonment with one-year probation (as upheld on 03/06/2019 by the St Petersburg City Court). Conviction based on the applicant’s confession of 13/11/2016.


Art. 6 (1) – unfair criminal proceedings – use of confession statement of 13/11/2016 obtained as a result of duress to convict the applicant (Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015, and Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 53‑56,
28 November 2017).
4. 15983/20


Kemal Shamilyevich TAMBIYEV


Nagiyev Ruslan Orudzhevich


At 4 a.m. on 14/06/2019 the applicant was beaten by the officers of the Federal Security Service upon his arrest in Balashikha (Moscow Region) in connection with charges of membership in a terrorist organisation. He was then taken to be transferred to Makhachkala (Dagestan) and was beaten during that transfer.

On 14/06/2019 at about 9 p.m. the applicant was brought to the Makhachkala Investigative Committee where he was questioned and further ill-treated until 3 a.m. on 15/06/2019. The arrest record indicated that the applicant was arrested on 14/06/2019 at 11.15 p.m. The investigator did not allow the lawyer of the applicant’s own choosing to see him. The interrogation record was drawn up in the presence of the lawyer appointed by the investigator.

On 18/06/2019 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala and was prolonged on several occasions, the latest known on 12/11/2019 (upheld on 12/12/2019 on appeal) (reasons: gravity of crime; risk of absconding; the defence arguments to the contrary (parenting two minor children, having business and social ties to the community, positive character references, permanent place of residence) were ignored by the courts).

Forensic Medical Examination Act of 19/06/2019. Medical Ward of the Makhachkala remand prison no. 1 (SIZO no. 1 Makhachkala): dark blue hematoma on the left eye.


On 17/06/2019 – (i) complaint by the applicant’s lawyer to the Investigative Committee about the ill-treatment; (ii) a written request to the head of the remand prison to carry out a medical examination of the applicant. No decision issued, no pre-investigative inquiry launched.


On 17/09/2019 the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala, referring to purely formalistic reasons, dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the lack of investigation into the ill‑treatment.

On 29/10/2019 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that decision.


no information provided Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention ‑ Conditions of detention in cells nos. 1A and 44A of the pre-trial detention facility of Makhachkala (SIZO-1 Makhachkala) – between 19/06/2019 and at least on the date when the application was lodged with the Court) – poor sanitary conditions, only allowed to stand or sit between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.; no air ventilation; extreme temperatures, toilet close to the table (2 m) emanating foul order, especially during mealtime; lack of privacy;


Art. 5 (3) – lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for detention – neither the initial order for the applicant’s detention nor the subsequent orders for extension of the term of his pre-trial detention were based on relevant and sufficient reasons: the courts mainly referred to the gravity of the crime allegedly committed by the applicant as the basis for his continuing detention; no alternative to detention measures considered; no evidence of personal risks put forward for individual assessment of the need to continue detaining the applicant;


Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – pre-trial detention order of 12/11/2019 reviewed by the appeal court belatedly (30 days after it was issued).


5. 13053/21


Ruslan Umetovich KASHESHOV


Memorial Human Rights Centre


On 22/06/2018 officers of the Federal Security Service and the Kabardino-Balkaria police subjected the applicant to beatings in a police station to force a confession from him. The applicant confessed under duress in the absence of a lawyer.


Forensic examination report no. 455-A of 27/06/2018 by the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic Forensic Bureau: bruises on the face, chest, and right leg, abrasions on both arms and left leg.

Forensic examination report no. 760-A of 20/11/2019 by the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic Forensic Bureau: the injuries recorded during the examination on 27/06/2018 may have been sustained under the circumstances described by the police officer, because the applicant had resisted arrest.

On 25/06/2018 complaint to the Kabardino-Balkaria investigative committee.

Between 26/07/2018 and 19/12/2019 eight refusals to open a criminal case as the use of force was necessitated by the applicant’s resistance to the arrest.


On 15/09/2020 the Nalchik Town Court rejected the appeal against the last refusal, upheld on 15/12/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic.


On 30/12/2019 the Southern Circuit Military Court in Rostov relying on the confession statements of 22/06/2018 convicted the applicant of funding and supporting a terrorist organisation, purchase and storage of drugs, illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.

On 03/06/2020 the Appellate Military Court upheld the conviction.

Art. 6 (1) – unfair criminal proceedings – the applicant’s conviction was based on the self‑incriminating statements the applicant had made as a result of his ill‑treatment and in the absence of a lawyer (Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015, and Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 53‑56, 28 November 2017).


6. 14462/21


Ulan Kuvanychovich TYULENBAYEV




At 9 a.m. on 06/07/2019 the applicant was subjected to ill‑treatment in correctional colony no. 1 in the Tver Region by guards B., N., Ch., and D. who punched, kicked and handcuffed him. Reports on the use of force and handcuffs were drawn up.


Certificate issued by the medical department of the colony at 09:25 a.m. on 06/07/2019: abrasions on the forehead, hematomas in the armpits, on the arms and left shin. Certificate issued by the medical department of the colony at 10:05 a.m. on 06/07/2019: multiple abrasions on the head, hands, left shin.


Date of the first complaint is not available; first examination of the complaint by the Tver investigative committee of 08/11/2019; several refusals to open a criminal case, latest – on 01/11/2020.


The applicant’s appeal against a refusal to open a criminal case was rejected on 25/06/2020 by the Moskovskiy District Court in Tver. On 02/09/2020 the Tver Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.


Art. 8 (1) – permanent video surveillance of detainees in pre-trial or post-conviction detention facilities – IK-1 Tver Region, 20/08/2019 -03/11/2020, opposite‑sex operators, video surveillance in a lavatory and/or shower room.


7. 37612/21


Aleksey Vyacheslavovich SANTIMOV




On 29/04/2019 the applicant was arrested and taken to the 26th police unit in the Krasnogvardeyskiy district in St Petersburg, where between 29 and 30/04/2019 he was beaten by police officers to obtain his confession to a robbery.


Message by telephone no. 32742 of 01/05/2019 from the Aleksandrovskiy Hospital: closed blunt trauma to the chest, closed fracture of the 6th rib on the right side; the injuries sustained as a result of the applicant having been beaten by the police officers on 30/04/2019.

Medical examination report no. n/a of 08/05/2019 on injuries from the emergency room of Hospital no. 2: closed fracture of the rib 6 on the right side dated 30/04/2019.

Expert medical examination no. 2302‑п (no date): fracture of the 6th right rib; haematomas on the wrist, forearms, left thigh).

Medical report no. 746 of 08/11/2019: the bruises could have been caused by the applicant falling off a staircase; the fracture of the rib 6 could not, however, have been caused by a fall.


On 01/05/2019 complaint to the doctors at Aleksandrovskiy Hospital, which informed the police. In May 2019 complaint to the St Petersburg Investigative Committee. Multiple refusals to open a criminal case: last – 06/10/2020.


On 16/02/2021 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the last refusal. On 22/04/2021 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that decision on appeal, however the applicant stated that he had never received a copy of the decision but was informed of the outcome.


The applicant was charged with robbery, and it appears that he was convicted, but no information as to the conviction is available.


8. 40240/21


Sergey Viktorovich BAYKOVSKIY




On 10/09/2014 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Khimki police station on suspicion of drug dealing. He was beaten by the officers during the escort to the station and upon arrival there with the aim to extract confession. Notes from the Khimki Central Hospital of 10/09/2014 and 16/09/2014: bruises on the right eye, right elbow, and right hip.

Extract from the applicant’s outpatient card from medical and sanitary unit no. 50 of 15/09/2014: right eye haematoma, right elbow haematoma, right hip haematoma.

Forensic medical examination no. 752 of 10/09/2014: right eye haematoma, right elbow haematoma, right hip haematoma; the injuries could have been sustained 1‑3 days prior to the examination.

On 11/09/2014 complaint to the Khimki Prosecutor’s office. Refusals to open a criminal case: 17/05/2017, 11/12/2019, 20/08/2020, last – 08/02/2021 (the use of force justified by the applicant’s resistance).


Between 2017 and 2021 the Khimki Town Court several times rejected the applicant’s appeals against the refusals, the last time on 15/03/2021 in respect of refusal of 08/02/2021; the decision upheld by the Moscow Regional Court on 03/08/2021.


On 31/07/2015 the Khimki Town Court convicted the applicant of drug dealing and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. Upheld by the Moscow Regional Court on 10/11/2015 and then in cassation on 13/01/2016 and by the Supreme Court of Russia on 27/07/2016.


9. 43278/21


Maksim Alekseyevich KAMBUR


Drobyshev Oleg Petrovich

St Petersburg

At 4 a.m. on 14/05/2021 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg by five FSB officers, who took him to their minivan where two officers beat him up. A report on the use of handcuffs due to the applicant’s resistance during the arrest was drawn up.

On the same day the Petrogradskiy District Court in St Petersburg held a hearing on the applicant’s detention on remand in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. During the hearing the applicant complained that he had been beaten and that he felt unwell. The court called an ambulance at the applicant’s request and adjourned the hearing. The applicant was taken for an examination to the Aleksandrovskiy Civil Hospital in St Petersburg. On 15/05/2021 the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.


Certificate by the Regional Civil Hospital of 14/05/2021: left periorbital hematoma, hematoma of the neck and left shoulder, bruises of wrist and ankle joints, abdominal abrasion.


On 26/05/2021 complaint to the investigative committee; no actions taken upon the complaint.


On 26/08/2021 the St Petersburg Military Court returned the applicant’s complaint without examination for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision had been issued.

On 12/11/2021 the West Circuit Military Court upheld the decision.


Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement of the applicant in a metal cage in the Petrogradskiy District Court in St Petersburg and in the St Petersburg City Court, in the period: 14/05/2021 -23/06/2021.


10. 1837/22


Azat Fanisovich MIFTAKHOV


Sidorkina Svetlana Ivanovna


On 01/02/2019 during a search of his flat by the Balashikha Investigative Committee on suspicion of illegal possession of explosives, the applicant was subjected to slaps on the cheeks, chest punches and a forcible taking of DNA from the mouth for a comparative DNA test. Afterwards, at the police station the officers attempted to force him to confess to the crime by kicking him all over the body, punching in the chest and groin area, pressing a screwdriver against the right part of the chest and threatening to rape him with it. The applicant was then handcuffed to a radiator for several hours. Medical certificate no. 985 of 01/02/2019 by the Emergency Unit of the Balashikha District Hospital: abrasion of the left forearm, right half of the chest.

Examination at the entry to the Balashikha temporary detention centre on 02/02/2019: scratches on the left wrist, abrasions on the neck and torso.


On 07/02/2019 to the Head of the Russian Investigative Committee;

between 14/03/2019 and 28/06/2019 six refusals to open a criminal case by the Balashikha Investigative Committee, each overruled by the investigators’ superiors. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were notified thereof subsequently, four more refusals to open a criminal case, last one on 05/11/2020.


Several complaints against refusals with the Balashikha Town Court, each time complaint dismissed as the refusal had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors.

On 22/07/2020 the court allowed the complaint, but the investigators still refused to open a criminal case. On 07/04/2021 the Balashikha Town Court dismissed the complaint against the refusal of 05/11/2020; on 26/08/2021 this decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court.


On 18/01/2021 the Golovinskiy District Court in Moscow convicted the applicant of hooliganism;

on 09/06/2021 upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court. On 21/04/2022 the Cassation Court reduced the sentence.


Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (d) – unfair criminal proceedings in view of the impossibility to examine witnesses – The applicant was not allowed to question anonymous prosecution witnesses “P.” and “K.”, whose statements were crucial for his conviction.


11. 3152/22


Nikolay Viktorovich GUKOV


Kiryanov Aleksandr Vladimirovich


On 01/06/2021 the applicant was arrested and handcuffed by the FSB officers from the Border Control Service in the Rostov Region. He was then dragged out of the car, hit in the face twice and repeatedly kicked in the torso. Expert report no. 18 of the State Forensic Centre no. 111 of 10/06/2021: seven hematomas on the right shoulder and two hematomas on the left shoulder – the injuries were caused by a hard blunt object up to six-ten days prior to the examination carried out on 03/06/2021. On 02/06/2021 complaint to investigative unit no. 314 of the Military Investigative Committee. On 11/06/2021 refusal to open a criminal case as the use of the physical force was justified.


On 29/11/2021 the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Court rejected the appeal against the refusal as unsubstantiated; upheld on 11/02/2022 by the Southern Military Circuit Court.


Art. 6 (1) – lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision – Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region, 08/07/2021.



[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *