Last Updated on November 23, 2023 by LawEuro
The European Court of Human Rights 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. The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive.
Furthermore, 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.
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.
Full text of the document.
European Court of Human Rights
FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF KOMPANEYETS AND PETROSYAN v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 31186/22 and 9628/23)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kompaneyets and Petrosyan v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
María Elósegui, President,
Mattias Guyomar,
Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 2 November 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 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 inhuman or degrading treatment.
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 of 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.
11. 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention concerning inhuman or degrading treatment of the applicants;
5. 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 23 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina María Elósegui
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 | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[i] |
| 1. | 31186/22
15/06/2022 |
Valeriya Vladimirovna KOMPANEYETS
1994 |
Valiyeva Elza Albertovna
Nizhniy Novgorod |
At about 7.45 p.m. on 21/04/2021, when the applicant and her husband were passing by a manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy in St Petersburg, unidentified police officers beat her up and then electrocuted her with a stun gun. | Medical report of 22/04/2021 from St Petersburg municipal hospital no. 120: left thigh injury.
Forensic medical examination act no. 4СЛ of 28/04/2021: injuries on the anterior-internal surface of the left thigh against the background of a bruise, rounded shape with smooth edges with a diameter of 0.3 cm and distance between the lesions is 2.5 cm – could be the result of the use of a stun gun; bruising on the back of the right forearm. |
On 30/04/2021 complaint to the St Peterburg investigative committee/ on 21/05/2021 refusal to open a criminal case as the applicant had allegedly failed to lodge the complaint in compliance with procedural regulations. | On 05/10/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St Petersburg refused to examine the applicant’s complaint on account of absence of the subject matter as the applicant had failed to lodge a criminal complaint duly and that there was no procedural decision to appeal against/
On 15/12/2021 St Petersburg City Court upheld that decision. |
No administrative proceedings have been instituted against the applicant. | 16,000 |
| 2. | 9628/23
22/02/2022 |
Vyacheslav Maksimovich PETROSYAN
1979 |
Zadorozhnaya Mariya Aleksandrovna
Nizhniy Novgorod |
On 12/02/2020 the applicant was taken out of a courtroom during his trial at the Apsheronsk District Court for his alleged misbehaviour involving self-harm to the IVS of the Apsheronsk district police department, and later that day to remand prison, SIZO-1 of the Krasnodar Region. While in custody of the escorting officers, the applicant (handcuffed) was allegedly punched in the head, kicked and subjected to electric shocks. His allegations are supported by medical evidence, statements of his two co-defendants (who saw no injuries on him before the incident and heard him screaming while being beaten near the entrance to the IVS) and statements of a member of the Public Monitoring Commission (who saw the applicant’s injuries during a visit to SIZO-1 several days after the incident). | According to statements of 20/05/2020 by a doctor at the IVS, on 12/02/2020, after the hearing at the Apsheronsk District Court, she examined the applicant twice; it was during the second examination (after the custody of the police escorting officers) that she recorded an injury in the area of the “left eyebrow”.
After the alleged ill-treatment, at 8.34 p.m. on 12/02/2020 the applicant was examined at hospital no. 3 in Krasnodar at the request of the administration of SIZO-1: bruising in the area of the left eye, contusion to the left knee were recorded. On 13/02/2020 hospital no. 1 of the Krasnodar region noted: contusions to the soft tissues of the head. On 19/03/2020 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert (report of 28/08/2020): haematoma of the left eye tissues, haemorrhage and contusion of the left eye and contusion of the soft tissues of the left knee could have been resulted from an impact with a hard blunt object on 12/02/2020. Forensic medical expert’s report of 15/06/2022: the eye contusion could have resulted from the ill-treatment as alleged by the applicant, or as a result of him hitting the metal cage in the courtroom when resisting the police. Scars on the extremities and buttocks could have resulted from electric shocks by a taser. According to a report of 30/09/2022 by an expert from the European Bureau of Forensic Examinations (in Moscow): the origin of the eye contusion as a result of the applicant hitting the cage in the courtroom was excluded.
|
On 17/02/2020 complaint of the applicant’s wife and on 20/02/2020 of a member of the Public Monitoring Commission to the Krasnodar Region Investigative Committee. On 22/03/2020 the first refusal to open a criminal case was issued by the Belorechenskiy Investigative Committee; it was overruled on 24/03/2020 by the investigators’ superiors. Six more refusals were issued and overruled. On 02/11/2020, more than eight months after the alleged ill-treatment, criminal proceedings were opened. They were either suspended or terminated on at least nine occasions, most recently on 18/09/2022 by the Goryacheklyuchevskiy Investigative Committee for the lack of evidence of the unlawful use of force by the police officers. The decision was largely based on the officers’ statements about the applicant’s alleged threat of self-harm, without assessing whether the use of force was indispensable and not excessive. On 21/10/2022 the proceedings were reopened again; their outcome is unknown. | According to the applicant, a court appeal would have only led to the same result, that is the annulment of the decision to terminate the proceedings. | 26,000 |
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply