Last Updated on September 28, 2023 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 58772/18 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 September 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 September 2023,
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 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.
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. JURISDICTION
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).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention
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.
IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. 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, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111‑12, 12 December 2017; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015; Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 53-56, 28 November 2017; Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 145-154, 4 October 2016; and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018.
V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In addition, some applicants also submitted complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine these complaints separately in the light of its findings in paragraphs 10 and 11 above (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
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. Having regard to the documents in its possession, its case-law (see, 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], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022) and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid , cited above, § 138), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
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 applicants’ remaining complaints;
4. Holds that there has been a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants;
5. 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);
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 28 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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 | 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)[1] |
| 1. | 58772/18
06/12/2018 |
Aleksandr Sergeyevich IVANOV
1996 |
Ivanov Lev Nikolayevich
Astrakhan |
At about 2 p.m. on 28/10/2016 the applicant was arrested by the police after collecting a package during an operation aimed at exposing his alleged participation in drug sales. During the arrest he was pushed to the ground and kicked. His hands were tied, and he was taken to police station no. 4 in Astrakhan, where the package was seized and he made confession statements in the form of his “surrender and confession” and “explanations”, allegedly because the police officers promised to release him without any consequences. He was released at about 8 p.m. that day. His detention was not recorded. The police officers acknowledged the use of force and combat techniques in reply to the applicant’s allegedly punching one of the officers in the face and attempting to flee. No proceedings against the applicant in relation to his alleged use of force were brought; there is no medical evidence of any injuries to the police officers. | Certificate issued by the Volodarskaya District hospital on 29/10/2016: contusion to the face and lower extremities. Forensic medical expert report of 31/10/2016 by the Astrakhan Forensic Bureau: small abrasions on the left side of the forehead, a bruise on the chest 0.8 by 4.7 cm, and a bruise on each shin (0.5 by 1 cm and 0.8 by 2 cm). | On 12/04/2017 to the Astrakhan Regional investigative committee/
multiple refusals to open a criminal case, the last one on 14/02/2018. |
On 07/06/2018 the Astrakhan Regional Court refused to examine the appeal against the last refusal as the conviction judgment had been delivered in the applicant’s criminal case. The applicant complained about the use of force by the police before the trial and appeal courts which left them without examination but found that his confession statements were admissible and that on 28/10/2016 he had not been detained as a suspect. | The applicant was convicted of attempted sale of drugs and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment/ Final decision on 07/06/2018 by the Astrakhan Regional Court. | Art. 6 (1) – unfair criminal proceedings – The applicant confessed to the crime on 28/10/2016 as a result of ill-treatment and deceit by the police officers who used unnecessary force during his arrest, did not record his detention as a suspect and promised to release him without any consequences. The statements were not excluded, despite the applicant’s complaints, and were used as evidence for his conviction;
|
12,500 |
| 2. | 11559/19
13/02/2019 |
Sergey Valentinovich DAVYDOV
1967 |
Alferova Larisa Valentinovna
Perm |
The applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-1 in Perm. On 19/03/2017 he refused to leave his cell upon a request from guards citing pain in his feet. The guards then forced his arms behind his back and took him out of the cell and up the stairs. A guard grabbed his neck and another guard kicked him on the head. | Medical report no. 2837 of 08/08/2017 by the Perm Forensic Bureau: on 27/04/2017 the applicant had a consolidated collar bone fracture which had been caused more than a month earlier. | Complaint to the Perm prosecutor’s office on 30/03/2017/ Several refusals to open a criminal case, the first one on 17/06/2017, the last one on 01/11/2018. The investigators questioned the guards about the incident of 19/03/2017 and the remand prison doctors about the applicant’s problems with his feet. It was established that the guards had legitimately used force against the applicant as he had refused to comply with their order. The force used was limited to taking the applicant out of his cell. There was no evidence that he had been beaten or otherwise ill-treated as he had received no injuries. In particular, it was not possible to establish when the collar bone fracture had been caused and there was no evidence that it had resulted from the incident on 19/03/2017.
|
On 22/01/2019 the Leninskiy District Court of Perm quashed the refusal of 01/11/2018 stating that the inquiry had been incomplete. In particular, it had not been established when the applicant’s collar bone had been fractured, the applicant’s allegations of aching feet had not been verified and the inmates with whom he had shared the cell after the incident had not been questioned. | On 01/06/2017 the applicant was convicted of extortion, criminal libel and hindrance of justice by the Sverdlovskiy District Court in Perm and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and a fine/ upheld on appeal on 24/07/2017 by the Perm Regional Court. | 26,000 | |
| 3. | 12910/19
25/02/2019 |
Pavel Viktorovich OKULOV
1977 |
Izhikov Maksim Yuryevich
Vnukovskoye |
At about 2.30 p.m. on 13/10/2017 the applicant, while exercising at a gym, was arrested by a group of armed policemen in black outfits and balaclavas. They handcuffed him and led him in a bended position, in his sport shorts and a shirt, to a car in the presence of onlookers. In the car he received a blow to the head after a bag was pulled over it; for an hour he was forced to sit with his chest tightly held against his knees which impeded breathing. At the police station of Kamensk-Uralskiy, Sverdlovsk region, he was ordered to sit in the same position handcuffed and with the bag over his head for two more hours. Then the bag was removed, and he was interviewed by police officers in relation to a criminal case concerning arson. He had to sign a statement. At 7.10 p.m. he was taken back to the gym and released. No criminal proceedings were brought against him. | No medical evidence enclosed as the treatment complained of did not result in injuries; it involved public humiliation and anxiety the applicant experienced during the heavy-handed operation to arrest him. He submitted statements by witnesses who confirmed the circumstances of his arrest and the fact that he had offered no resistance. | On 22/01/2018 complaint to the police/on 16/02/2018 it was transferred to the Sverdlovsk Regional Investigative Committee/Five refusals to open a criminal case, the last one on 28/12/2018 (previous refusals were overruled by the investigators’ superiors for failure to carry out a comprehensive inquiry). | The applicant did not appeal against the refusals to open a criminal case but complained under Article 125 seeking to declare the actions of the police unlawful/On 05/09/2018 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court rejected the appeal on procedural grounds. | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention from about 2.30 p.m. on 13/10/2017 until 7.10 p.m. on the same day, for more than three hours without any official record of detention – Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and others, 26 June 2018,
|
6,500 | |
| 4. | 16364/19
05/03/2019 |
Dmitriy Gennadyevich AVTUKHOVICH
1971 |
|
On 27/09/2016 during a search in the applicant’s flat police officer K. kicked the applicant on the face and legs, in the presence of B. and K., officers Be., G. and Ba., and then subjected him to beatings in Krasnoyarsk police station no. 2 to force him to confess to robberies and two murders; regular beatings continued in the temporary detention unit until 05/10/2016. | Certificate of 27/09/2016 by the Krasnoyarsk Inter-district Medical Emergency Hospital: abrasion on the nose, traces of the use of restraints on the wrists, redness of the skin on the nose / Similar findings in the register of the temporary detention centre.
Certificate of 28/09/2016 by paramedics: subcutaneous hematoma of the frontal part of the head. Medical assessment report compiled by the investigators on 29/09/2016: hematomas under the right eye and on the upper eyelid of the left eye; swelling, scratches and abrasions on the hands. Certificate of 30/09/2016 by paramedics: chest contusion. Report of 01/10/2016 by officers of detention centre no. 1 in Krasnoyarsk: chest contusion (rib fracture); possible brain concussion. Certificate of 05/10/2016 by the Krasnoyarsk Inter-district Medical Emergency Hospital: chest contusion. |
On 28/09/2016 complaint to the Oktyabrskiy District prosecutor in Krasnoyarsk and on 10/10/2016 complaint to the Oktyabrskiy District investigative committee / On 09/11/2016 first refusal to open a criminal case and then 11 more refusals by mid-2019 /refusal of 08/02/2019 overruled on 26/04/2019 by the investigators’ superiors/the last refusal to open a criminal case of 07/06/2019 overruled on 21/06/2019 and a new inquiry ordered; no information on the outcome. | On 11/02/2019 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Krasnoyarsk acknowledged failures to provide the applicant on time with decisions relating to his ill‑treatment complaint and to grant him access to the inquiry file/On 30/05/2019 the court acknowledged delays in the inquiry and that the superiors’ instructions were not complied with by the investigators/On 30/07/2019 the court acknowledged the investigators’ inaction after April 2019 and the delayed receipt by the applicant of the refusal of 07/06/2019. | On 16/11/2018 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Krasnoyarsk acquitted the applicant of robbing victim I. and convicted him of robbing victim P. On 14/03/2019 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed that judgment as regards victim I. | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – placement of the applicant during the hearings in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk, February-December 2018,
Art. 3 – inadequate conditions of detention during transport – convoy cell in the courthouse 13/02/2018 to 26/12/2018 (overcrowding, lack of or insufficient natural light, no or restricted access to toilet, lack of fresh air, passive smoking, lack of or insufficient electric light)
|
26,000 |
| 5. | 44031/19
08/08/2019 |
Lecha Vakhidovich GADAMAURI
1993 |
Matsev Rustam Yakhyayevich
Moscow |
On 08/06/2016 unidentified officers of the Federal Security Service (one of them told the applicant that he was from the Centre for Fighting Extremism), apprehended the applicant in Sunzha and took him to a basement of a building, where they pulled a bag over his head and handcuffed him, threatened him, beat him on the head and torso and applied electric shocks to him, urging him to confess. At 7 p.m. on 09/06/2016 his arrest was recorded by an investigator of the Ingushetia Federal Security Service (the record was allegedly complied ex post facto on 10/06/2016), and the applicant was questioned as a suspect and confessed in the presence of a State‑appointed lawyer. On the night between 9 to 10/06/2010 he was allegedly beaten again. On 10/06/2016 he was placed in the IVS. | An undated record on admission to SIZO-1 in North Ossetia, as referred to in the refusal to open a criminal case of 03/11/2017 (a bruise under the left eye, a bruise to the left shoulder).
Forensic expert report no. 291 of 21/07/2016 (pigmentation on a neck as a result of an abrasion’s healing; the abrasion could have been caused between two to three weeks prior to the examination; the expert was unable to comment (i) on its origin, and (ii) on the absence or presence of bruises inflicted 42 days prior to the examination date, as any bruises would have healed and disappeared in the meantime). Having studied the documents, the applicant’s lawyer commented that he had requested a forensic expert examination of the applicant as early as on 10/06/2016, and that a failure to conduct it in good time had resulted in an inability to record evidence of ill-treatment, as the bruises had healed in the meantime. |
1) On 10/06/2016 the applicant’s lawyer requested that a forensic examination of the applicant be ordered: he had visited the applicant in detention and then had informed the investigators in writing that he had seen multiple injuries on the applicant’s face and that there could have been more injuries on the body. On 16/06/2016 the investigators rejected the request as irrelevant for the criminal case. Following the lawyer’s complaint to the investigators’ superior, the forensic medical examination was conducted in July 2016.
2) The applicant complained about the ill-treatment at the trial and the court ordered an inquiry. On 03/11/2017, by a single decision concerning both the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint and his co-defendants’ similar allegations, the investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings, for the lack of evidence of a crime. In so far as the applicant was concerned, the decision referred to the forensic medical expert report of 21/07/2016; the applicant’s written statement of 26/07/2016 that he had no complaints about the FSB officers; and the applicant’s failure to raise the duress issue between June and September 2016. The decision referred to a testimony of an IVS officer that on 10/06/2016 the applicant had had no injuries or complaints; and a record in an IVS log to the effect that the applicant had had no complaints. |
No proceedings under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the ill-treatment complaint was examined during the trial on 03/11/2017: the court heard the applicant, the lawyer who had seen injuries on him on 10/06/2016; the applicant’s parents who had complained of the applicant’s abduction and who stated that they had seen injuries on their son’s face during the court hearing concerning his arrest on or around 10/06/2016. The court heard the law‑enforcement officers and the investigator; ordered a pre-investigative inquiry and referred to its results. The applicant stated that the IVS officers had failed to duly record his state of health and challenged authenticity of the document submitted by the authorities as an IVS medical record, pointing to the lack of a title page, dates or signatures on it, and alleging its forgery, including forgery of the applicant’s signature; he further complained about the authorities’ failure to conduct his forensic expert examination in good time. The court rejected the abduction and ill-treatment allegations as unfounded. It referred to the “lack of complaints” on admission to the IVS; the lack of injuries recorded during the forensic medical examination of 21/07/2016 and the applicant’s own statement of 26/07/2016 that he had no complaints about the FSB officers. | On 06/02/2018 the Military Court of the North Caucasus Military Circuit convicted the applicant of organising and leading an illegal armed group, illicit fabrication and storage of arms and explosives and attempted fabrication of explosives and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment/ upheld on 12/02/2019 appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia. | Art. 6 (1) – unfair criminal proceedings – use of confession statement of 10/06/2016 obtained as a result of duress (Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015, and Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 53-56, 28 November 2017). | 26,000 |
| 6. | 44356/19
13/08/2019 |
Dmitriy Dmitriyevich PCHELINTSEV
1992 |
Garoz Eldar Seifovich
Moscow |
The applicant played a mock-combat online game Airsoft with a group of friends. The FSB suspected them of membership in a terrorist cell called “the Network”. On 27/10/2017 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having created a terrorist cell and placed in SIZO-1 in Penza. While in SIZO, the applicant was subjected to regular beatings by officers of the Penza Region Federal Security Service, who electrocuted him via his toes and hung him up with his head down, for lengthy periods of time, demanding that he make self-incriminating statements. The applicant confessed. | Medical record kept in SIZO-1 (as described in the domestic decisions) of 29/10/2018: cuts to the arms and neck. On 01/12/2017 the applicant’s lawyer witnessed his injuries; on 21/02/2018 the visitors of the Moscow Helsinki Group witnessed injuries on the applicant.
Medical certificate no. 12-18 of 05/12/2018 stated that it was still possible to identify the alleged injuries should the forensic examination be conducted. No forensic examination has been commissioned and conducted. |
On 08/02/2018 during an interrogation the applicant complained for the first time about the ill-treatment. On 14/02/2018 an investigator drew up a report on the elements of a crime.
On 26/02/2018 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Penza Military Garrison Investigative Committee that the officers had brought the applicant to the brink of suicide. Then on 27/02/2018 the Moscow Helsinki Group complained to the Investigative Committee on behalf of the applicant/on 15/03/2018 the investigators refused to open a criminal case. |
The refusal of 15/03/2018 was upheld by the Penza Garrison Military Court on 10/12/2018/ then upheld on appeal on 14/02/2019 by the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court. | On 10/02/2020 the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court convicted the applicant of terrorism-related crimes (Articles 250.4(1), 222(1) of the Criminal Code), sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment/upheld by the Appellate Military Court on 20/10/2020 and by the Supreme Court of Russia on 27/04/2021. | Art. 3 – use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court, 10/02/2020; Appellate Military Court, 20/10/2020. The applicant was held in a glass cabin with six co‑defendants during the hearings between May 2019 and 20/10/2020 (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 127, 4 October 2016)
|
26,000 |
| 7. | 45620/19
17/08/2019 |
Svetlana Valeryevna AKHMETOVA
1981 |
|
On 28/09/2018 the applicant failed to comply with the bailiff’s requests at the Moscow City Court. In response to her disobedience, an officer hit her on the back with a fist and grabbed her arm, while another officer pushed her on her face causing her to hit the entrance door with the back of her head. | Certificate of 28/09/2018 by Krasnogorsk City Hospital no. 1: soft tissue bruises on the right shoulder, right shoulder blade, the back of the head (subcutaneous hematoma).
Medical expert report no. 79 of 15/05/2019: the hematoma could be caused by or in contact with a hard blunt object. |
In the beginning of 2019 complaint to the Moscow Regional prosecutor and then on 19/04/2019 to the Moscow Regional investigative committee/ On 14/03/2019, 06/06/2019 and 06/08/2019 refusals to open a criminal case as no force had been used against the applicant / Each of the refusals overruled by the investigators’ superiors. The outcome of the new inquiry ordered after the last refusal is unknown. | – | 6,500 | ||
| 8. | 45704/19
16/08/2019 |
Yelena Anverovna PALTSEVA
1970 |
|
On 23/03/2018 the applicant was beaten up by prison guards of IK 18 in the Nizhny Novgorod Region for allegedly refusing to exit her cell. | Medical examination act of 23/03/2018 by medical ward no. 3 of hospital no.52 of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences in Nizhny Novgorod: multiple bruises of a soft purple colour in different sizes and shapes.
Medical examination act of 27/03/2018 from medical ward no. 4: bruises on the left shoulder, 10 cm long and 5 cm wide yellow linear bruises on the posterior surface of the left elbow, 6 cm diameter bruises on the right shoulder, bruises on the anterior surface of the right forearm; bruises on the posterior surface of the left hip, under and above the knee. |
On 02/04/2018 complaint to the Investigative Committee in Nizhniy Novgorod Region/ Refusals to open a criminal case: 23/04/2018, 07/08/2018, 02/11/2018, and 05/12/2018. | On 18/07/2018 the Ardatovsk District Court in Mordovia terminated the proceedings as the refusal of 13/07/2018 had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors / No appeal.
On 19 and 20/02/2019 the Ardatovsk District Court refused to accept the applicant’s complaint referring to the overruling of the impugned refusals by the investigators’ superiors/ No appeal.
|
On 07/11/2011 the Krasnoglinskiy District Court in Samara convicted the applicant of drug-related crimes and sentenced her to 8 years’ imprisonment. | 26,000 | |
| 9. | 39744/20
03/09/2020 |
Ali Gadzhiyevich UMAROV
1987 |
Memorial Human Rights Centre
Moscow |
At 12.30 a.m. on 01/02/2018 the applicant was abducted by unidentified men in Makhachkala and taken to the Dagestan Centre for Combating Extremism where he was detained until 05/02/2018. During the detention he was repeatedly beaten and electrocuted to make him cooperate with the abductors. After he agreed, the abductors dropped him off at a place where he was subsequently discovered by patrolling officers, who seized from him some evidence which had allegedly been planted on him by the abductors. On 05/02/2018 he was taken to the Sovetskiy Police Department in Makhachkala where he signed a confession. On the same date his arrest was recorded, and he was placed in the IVS. On 08/02/2018 he was transferred to remand prison. | 1) Medical examination act on admission to SIZO-1 in Makhachkala on 08/02/2018: two bruises on both buttocks, 10×8 and 12×7 cm).
2) Forensic medical examination report no. 1090 of 03/05/2018 by the Dagestan Forensic Bureau: no injuries; the report based on medical notes of an unspecified temporary detention facility of 06/02/2018 stating that the applicant had had no injuries and on the applicant’s statement that he had not been beaten after the arrest; medical examination act of 08/02/2018 was not submitted for the assessment.
|
1) On 05/02/2018 and 06/02/2018 the applicant’s lawyer noted on the records of the applicant’s questioning as a suspect and as an accused, respectively, to the effect that the applicant’s confessions contained therein had been obtained as a result of duress, and that a forensic medical examination was necessary to record the applicant’s injuries. On 06/02/2018 the investigator rejected the request as unfounded, without giving further reasons.
2) On 16/02/2018 the applicant’s wife complained to the Dagestan Investigative Committee of the applicant’s abduction, torture and coercion to give a false confession, stating that on 06/02/2018 she had seen injuries on his face, and referring to the investigator’s refusal to hold an inquiry pursuant to the lawyer’s above complaint about the applicant’s injuries. On 26/03/2018 the applicant, when in the remand prison, complained to the investigator in his criminal case about his abduction and ill‑treatment, revoked his confessions as given under duress, provided a detailed description of the events, and stated that he had not informed the IVS personnel about the ill-treatment out of fear, as the examination had been carried out in the presence of officers of the Centre for Combatting Extremism. Refusals to open criminal proceedings: 11/05/2018, 21/07/2018, 28/08/2019 (with reference to the applicant’s lack of complaints in the IVS and his confessions), all overruled by the investigators’ superiors for the failure to question the applicant and obtain and assess the medical documents compiled on 08/02/2018 on admission to the remand prison. |
On 03/12/2019 the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala rejected the applicant’s complaint as the refusal to open a criminal case of 28/08/2019 had been overruled on 02/12/2019 / No appeal, as the impugned refusal had already been set aside.
It seems that the inquiry is pending since 02/12/2019. |
On 05/03/2019 the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala convicted the applicant of participation in an illegal armed group and illegal storage of arms and sentenced him to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine/upheld on 02/07/2019 by the Dagestan Supreme Court. | Art. 5 (1) – unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – Detention without a court order between 01/02/2018 and 05/02/2018, that is beyond the 48‑hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018) | 26,000 |
| 10. | 52876/22
28/10/2022 |
Khasan Danisoltovich ISLAMOV
1998 |
Valiyeva Elza Albertovna
Nizhniy Novgorod |
On 03/02/2019 the applicant was taken from his flat by several police officers to the Naurskiy district police station in Chechnya where he was beaten, subjected to electrocution and suffocation for four hours by the head of the station and his subordinates to make him to confess to terrorism-related crimes. Then, on 04/02/2019 he was taken to the premises of the Kadyrov Regiment where he was repeatedly electrocuted and beaten with a plastic pipe. In the morning on 05/02/2019 he was taken to a garage where he was forced to stand with his hand cuffed to a heating pipe for the entire night; he was then detained there for two months. On 01/04/2019 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant. On 03/04/2019 his pre-trial detention was ordered by a local court. | Statement describing the applicant’s injuries made by the applicant’s lawyer in SIZO-1 in Grozny on 24-25/09/2019: burn on the right arm from the pipe in the garage, broken nose, and pigmented areas of the skin between the middle finger and pinkie finger on the right hand. | On 05/04/2019 the applicant’s mother complained to the Chechnya Investigative Committee about her son’s disappearance in February 2019/ No reply followed/On 05/06/2019 the applicant managed to inform her about the torture and the unlawful detention for two months/Shortly thereafter she filed two other complaints with the Chechen law enforcement authorities/No reply followed./
On 23/10/2019 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint of the applicant’s ill-treatment with the Chechnya Investigative Committee/ Between 26/08/2019 and 30/06/2022 eleven refusals to open a criminal case; all, except for the last one, of 30/06/2022, were overruled by the investigators’ superiors as incomplete and unsubstantiated. |
The applicant’s lawyer tried to appeal against three of the refusals. However, as soon as such appeals were lodged, the court refused to examine them as the impugned decisions had just been overruled by the investigators’ superiors (see Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 74, 3 November 2011, and Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 82, 24 January 2012). | On 18/04/2022 the applicant was convicted of terrorism-related crimes. | 26,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply