\nCASE OF VAGAPOV AND YEFREMOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 46955\/10 and 25257\/13)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 March 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Vagapov and Yefremov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having regard to:<\/p>\n two applications (nos. 46955\/10 and 25257\/13) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by two Russian nationals, Mr Ansar Agdamovich Vagapov (\u201cthe firstapplicant\u201d) and Mr Dmitriy Mikhaylovich Yefremov (\u201cthe secondapplicant\u201d), on 22 June 2010 and 2 April 2013 respectively;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the applications, in which the applicants complained of ill\u2011treatment by police and a lack of an effective investigation into their complaints;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 16 February 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n 1. The applications concern the applicants\u2019 alleged ill-treatment by the police and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into their complaints.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicants were born in 1977 and 1972 and live, respectively, in Mochalishche in the Zvenigovskiy district and Yoshkar-Ola, in the Mariy\u00a0El\u00a0Republic. They were represented by the Committee against Torture, a non\u2011governmental organisation (NGO) based in NizhniyNovgorod.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented initially by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.<\/p>\n 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n I. Mr Vagapov\u2019s application<\/strong><\/p>\n A. The first applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment by the police<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. On the night of 8 to 9 June 2007 the applicant was taken to the Krasnogorskiy police station in the Zvenigovskiy district of the Mariy\u00a0El\u00a0Republic following a telephone call to the police by his civil-law wife, with whom he had had a quarrel.<\/p>\n 6. The applicant\u2019s account of the ensuing events, supported by witness statements, is as follows. At the police station the applicant was beaten up by police officers who punched him, knocked him down and kicked him. He was released early in the morning of 9 June 2007. On his way home he felt unwell and went into a shop to seek help. The shop assistant, who saw that the applicant was limping and that his face was badly hurt and bloodied, called for an ambulance at 5.30 a.m. The ambulance arrived and a medic observed that the applicant had multiple contusions on his face and a lacerated wound on the back of his head, and that he was indeed limping. He was taken to Zvenigovskaiy district hospital, where the wound on his head was bandaged. On the way to the hospital, the ambulance stopped off at the applicant\u2019s home to pick up his civil-law wife, who accompanied him. She saw that he was limping, with a wound on the back of his head and a cut lip; he had not had any injuries before being taken away by the police during the night. On 10\u00a0June 2007 the applicant\u2019s parents saw the applicant with injuries (bruised face, wound on the back of the head and pain in the hips) which he had not had when they had seen him on 7 and 8 June 2007 before his encounter with the police.<\/p>\n 7. According to the ambulance records, the applicant had the following injuries: contusion of the lower jaw, haematoma of the lower lip, a contusion or fracture in the left hip and a lacerated wound on the back of the head. The hospital doctors recorded a \u201csubcutaneous lacerated wound\u201d on the back of the head, swelling in the area of the left hip, bruises to the face and pain in the area of the left costal arch. The applicant was diagnosed with a closed head injury, a subcutaneous contusion from a wound in the occipital lobe and a contusion on the left hip.<\/p>\n 8. Later that day a district police officer of the Krasnogorskiy police department issued a referral for the applicant\u2019s forensic medical examination in connection with his allegations of beatings by police officers on 8 June 2007.<\/p>\n 9. The applicant was examined on the same day by an expert from the Zvenigovskiy district forensic medical expert bureau of the Mariy\u00a0El\u00a0Republic Ministry of Healthcare. The expert also consulted the applicant\u2019s hospital records.<\/p>\n 10. According to the expert\u2019s report of 9 June 2007, the applicant gave, inter alia, the following explanations to the expert: at around 11 p.m. on 8\u00a0June 2007 he had been taken to the police station during a family row. He was punched, knocked down and kicked by two police officers; he also fainted during the beatings.<\/p>\n 11. The expert reported the following injuries on the applicant\u2019s body: a bruise measuring 6 cm by 3 cm in the area of the left temple and cheekbone; a bruise 2\u00a0cm by 1 cm on the right upper eyelid; a bruise on the nose; and a haemorrhage measuring 4\u00a0cm by 3 cm on the lips, which were swollen on the left. He noted that the applicant could feel pain in his chest, abdomen and left hip.<\/p>\n 12. The expert did not remove the bandage on the applicant\u2019s head, noting that it was \u201csoaked in reddish liquid in the occipital lobe\u201d.<\/p>\n 13. The expert concluded that the bruises to the face, the haemorrhage of the lips and the subcutaneous contusion from a wound in the occipital lobe had originated from traumatic impacts by or against hard blunt objects. Since the injuries had not caused a health disorder or a loss of working capacity, they were classified as injuries not entailing any harm to health. The expert further stated, without any further elaboration, that the time when the injuries had been inflicted was at variance with that indicated in the police referral dated 8 June 2007.<\/p>\n 14. On 15 June 2007 the applicant was re-examined by the same expert, this time in the context of unrelated criminal proceedings against the applicant. The expert concluded that the applicant had subcutaneous scarring from a wound in the occipital lobe which had originated from a traumatic impact by or against a hard blunt object occurring some six to eight days before the examination. The wound was classified as an injury entailing minor damage to health.<\/p>\n 15. According to a report by a psychologist, based on a psychological assessment carried out on 16 April 2015, the applicant had signs of post\u2011traumatic stress disorder related to his ill-treatment by the police on 8\u00a0June 2007.<\/p>\n B. The authorities\u2019 response to the allegations of police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. The authorities, having carried out a pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill-treatment by the police, refused eight times to bring criminal proceedings under Article\u00a024\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that no offence under Article\u00a0286\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Criminal Code (exceeding authority through the use of violence) had been committed by the police officers. In the first\u00a0refusal issued by the Krasnogorskiy police department on 15\u00a0June 2007, the applicant\u2019s injuries were attributed to his accidentally falling flat on his face at the entrance to the police station.<\/p>\n 17. In the subsequent refusals issued by investigators from the Volzhskiy (and subsequently Zvenigovskiy) inter-district investigation division of the investigative committee at the Mariy El Republic prosecutor\u2019s office, the conclusion was that the applicant\u2019s allegations of ill\u2011treatment by the police had not been confirmed by the results of the pre\u2011investigation inquiry. In their decisions the investigators relied on statements by police officers who had dealt with the applicant on the night of 8\u00a0to 9 June 2007 and who denied having inflicted any violence on him. The investigators also referred to the applicant\u2019s statements in the unrelated criminal proceedings against him, concerning an offence committed on 11\u00a0June 2007 in which he had sustained some injuries during an apparent brawl on 8 or 13\u00a0June 2007 (that is, two days before his forensic medical examination on 15 June 2007), details of which were not supplied.According to the applicant, those statements were given as a result of pressure exerted on him by an investigator in the criminal case against him.<\/p>\n 18. The applicant\u2019s representatives appealed against the refusals to bring criminal proceedings, addressing their appeal to the Zvenigovskiy district prosecutor, the prosecutor of the Mariy El Republic, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the Zvenigovskiy District Court. The refusals (dated 29 February and 6 June 2008, 11 and 20\u00a0January 2009, and 22 and 28\u00a0May 2009) were set aside as unlawful and for being based on an incomplete inquiry, particularly under the Zvenigovskiy District Court\u2019s decisions of 23 September 2008 and 20 April 2009 declaring as unfounded the refusals of 6\u00a0June 2008 and 20 January 2009.<\/p>\n 19. The most recent refusal of 14\u00a0August 2009 to bring criminal proceedings was found lawful and substantiated by the ZvenigovskiyDistrict Court\u2019s decision of 29 October 2009, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the Mariy El Republic on 28\u00a0December 2009. Applications for supervisory review of those judgments were dismissed by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Mariy El Republic on 19 March 2010 and by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 1\u00a0September 2010. The latter decision was fully endorsed by the DeputyPresident of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 6\u00a0October 2010.<\/p>\n 20. On 12 August 2011 the applicant brought a civil claim against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in connection with the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint about ill-treatment by the police.<\/p>\n 21. On 27 September 2011 the Yoshkar-Ola Town Court of the Mariy El Republic dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim. It held that the claim was based on an erroneous understanding of the domestic law, in that the finding of a court as to the unlawfulness of refusals to bring criminal proceedings did not automatically entail that compensation would be awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant had failed to produce evidence of such damage or of a causal link between the actions of the investigating authorities and any damage. By lodging his criminal complaint, the applicant had availed himself of his right guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention to have an effective domestic remedy in relation to his alleged ill-treatment by the police. A pre-investigation inquiry had been carried out into his complaint and he had been informed of its results. On 17 November 2011 the Supreme Court of the Mariy\u00a0El\u00a0Republic upheld the judgment on the applicant\u2019s appeal. It endorsed the Town Court\u2019s findings, noting that the repeated setting-aside of the refusals to bring criminal proceedings could not serve as a ground for granting the applicant\u2019s claim because the refusals had been either declared unfounded by courts or set aside for want of a comprehensive inquiry, and never because the investigating authorities had exceeded their power.<\/p>\n 22. On 4 March 2013 the NGO Committee against Torture lodged an application on behalf of the applicant with the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, complaining about the lack of an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s complaint of police ill-treatment, contending, inter alia, that there had been sufficient data revealing elements of an offence in the police officers\u2019 actions, which should have called for the opening of a criminal case under Article 140 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They requested that the refusal to open a criminal case of 14\u00a0August 2009 be revoked. On 22 March 2013 the Prosecutor General\u2019s Office of the Russian Federation informed the applicant that there had been no grounds for setting aside the refusal of 14 August 2009.<\/p>\n II. Mr Yefremov\u2019s application<\/strong><\/p>\n A. The second applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment by the police<\/strong><\/p>\n 23. On the night of 2 to 3 January 2008 the applicant was allegedly beaten up by police patrol officers in the street in Yoshkar-Ola.<\/p>\n 24. The applicant\u2019s account of events that night is as follows. At around 10.30 p.m. he was walking home after a festive dinner with his relatives. He was approached by two police officers who requested that he produce his identity card. He refused and an argument ensued. The police officers hit him in the face, knocked him down to the ground, punched and kicked him, and used truncheons to beat him up. A passer-by saw the beatings and rebuked the police officers. A police patrol car arrived and the applicant was taken to the Zarechnyy police station in Yoshkar-Ola. He enquired about the identity of the police officers who had beaten him up, learning that their names were K. and O. Those police officers had to report to their superior about the incident. Later in the night, one of them punched the applicant in the face in a corridor inside the police station.<\/p>\n 25. According to the police records, the applicant was taken to the Zarechnyy police station at 11.45 p.m. on 2 January 2008 and was released at 1.20 a.m. on 3 January 2008.<\/p>\n 26. According to a certificate of a narcological dispensary, to which the applicant was taken by police officers and examined at 12.25 a.m. on 3\u00a0January 2008, he was slightly inebriated.<\/p>\n 27. According to the applicant\u2019s cousin, the applicant had no injuries when he left her home at around 10.30 p.m. on 2 January 2008 after spending the evening with her.<\/p>\n 28. According to the applicant\u2019s aunt, at around 11.30 p.m. on 2\u00a0January 2008 she learned from the applicant\u2019s cousin (whom the applicant had called from the police station) that the applicant had been beaten up, had subsequently been held at the police station and was in need of help. When the applicant\u2019s aunt arrived at the police station, she saw the applicant with his face swollen, a bump on his head and bloodied hands. After his release she saw that he also had fresh bruises on his buttocks and legs.<\/p>\n 29. According to a certificate of polyclinic no. 5, where the applicant was examined at 2.09 a.m. on 3 January 2008, he had the following injuries: a contused and lacerated wound of the lower lip; a contusion in the parietal lobe on the right; and bruises on both hips.<\/p>\n 30. At 3.30\u00a0p.m. on 4 January 2008 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert from the Yoshkar\u2011Ola forensic medical bureau of the Mariy El Republic Ministry of Healthcare, who reported the following injuries on his body: a bruise (5\u00a0cm by 4 cm) on the lids of the left eye; a rupture (2.2\u00a0cm by 0.3 cm) of the lower lip; a bruise (4\u00a0cm by 3 cm) on the right shoulder; a stripe-shaped bruise (20\u00a0cm by 14 cm) on the front surface of the right hip and knee; two stripe-shaped bruises (8\u00a0cm by 5 cm and 9\u00a0cm by 6\u00a0cm) on the back surface of the right hip; a stripe-shaped bruise (18\u00a0cm by 6 cm) on the back surface of the right knee joint; and two\u00a0stripe\u2011shaped bruises (22\u00a0cm by 18 cm and 21\u00a0cm by 9 cm) on the left buttock and hip. According to the expert, the bruising to the eye and the rupture of the lower lip were consistent with being punched with a fist. The bruises on the lower extremities and left buttock were consistent with being hit with a police truncheon; they could not have resulted from a fall. The injuries had been caused as a result of no less than nine traumatic impacts, including five with a truncheon, one or two days before the examination.<\/p>\n 31. According to reports by psychologists, based on the applicant\u2019s psychological assessment on 14 August 2009 and 16\u00a0April 2015, the applicant had signs of post-traumatic stress disorder related to his ill\u2011treatment by the police on 2 January 2008.<\/p>\n B. The authorities\u2019 response to the allegations of police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n 32. On 3 January 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers. Investigators from the Yoshkar-Ola town investigation division of the investigative committee for the Mariy\u00a0El\u00a0Republic carried out a pre-investigation inquiry and refused to bring criminal proceedings against officers K. and O. The refusal was based on the findings that (i) the elements of the offence under Article 286 \u00a7 3 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code (exceeding authority through use of violence and unconventional means) could not be established in the actions of the police officers as regards the applicant\u2019s alleged beatings in the street and (ii) no offence was made out under Article 286 \u00a7\u00a03 (a) of the Criminal Code as regards the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment at the police station. Between January 2008 and October 2012 the investigators issued fourteen refusals to bring criminal proceedings, of which thirteen (dated 14\u00a0January, 24 February, 9\u00a0May and 12\u00a0October 2008; 25 January, 13 March, 26\u00a0April and 27 June 2009; 25\u00a0January, 27 May, 8 and 25 November 2010; and 14\u00a0July 2011) were revoked as unlawful and unfounded, in particular following the judicial review of some of them on the applicant\u2019s appeals (Yoshkar-Ola Town Court\u2019s decisions of 11 April and 12 September 2008, 9 December 2009, 18\u00a0February and 22 September 2010, and 8 June and 22\u00a0September 2011). Some of the applicant\u2019s appeals were not examined, because the investigators\u2019 decisions had already been revoked (Yoshkar\u2011Ola Town Court\u2019s decisions of 15 February 2008 and of 24\u00a0February and 16 June 2009).<\/p>\n 33. The investigators relied (including in the most recent refusal of 17\u00a0October 2011 to open a criminal case) on statements by police officers K. and O. (see paragraph 34 below) to conclude that they had lawfully used force against the applicant in order to overcome his resistance, punching the applicant once in the face and knocking him down to the ground, while involuntarily striking him with a truncheon that was hanging loosely from the hand of one of the officers.<\/p>\n 34. According to officer O.\u2019s report of 2 January 2008, the applicant had been found lying on the ground; after waking up he had been unable to find his bearings. In response to the officer\u2019s request for him to produce his identity card, he had jumped on them and tried to punch O. in the face; they had therefore used physical force and a rubber truncheon against him. Officer K. gave similar statements later. In the course of the subsequent rounds of the pre-investigation inquiry, O. and K. gave new statements. In particular, they stated that in response to their request for him to produce his identity card, the applicant had walked away and had ignored them. O.\u00a0had tried to stop him and had grabbed him by his hand; the applicant had attacked O., kicking him and attempting to hit him in the face. O. had punched the applicant in the face once to calm him down, injuring his lip; O. and K. had subsequently knocked the applicant down to the ground. The police officers offered no explanation as to how the bruises on the applicant\u2019s lower extremities had been caused. They denied deliberately striking the applicant with a rubber truncheon, suggesting that the applicant could have received those injuries as a result of his having fallen before they had found him, or as a result of receiving blows from a rubber truncheon hanging from O.\u2019s hand.<\/p>\n 35. The most recent decision, of 17 October 2011, not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers was declared lawful and well\u2011founded in the Yoshkar-Ola Town Court\u2019s decision of 23 August 2012, and was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Mariy El Republic on 8\u00a0October 2012.<\/p>\n 36. There was no evidence of any injuries on the police officers after the applicant\u2019s apprehension. No administrative or criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, including in relation to his alleged disobedience or violence in respect of the police officers.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 37. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 38. The applicants complained that they had been victims of violence at the hands of the police and that there had been no effective investigation into their complaints. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 39. The Government, relying on the findings of the domestic authorities, denied that there had been any violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 40. The Court notes that these complaints are neither manifestly ill\u2011founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article\u00a035 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 41. The relevant general principles were reiterated by the GrandChamber in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 81-88, ECHR\u00a02015). In particular, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of individuals within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the version of events given by the victim. In the absence of such an explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government. That is justified by the fact that those in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (ibid., \u00a7 83).<\/p>\n 42. The Court observes that the applicants\u2019 allegations that they had been subjected to beatings by the police officers are supported by medical evidence and witness accounts, in particular by witness statements attesting to the fact that the applicants had no injuries before their encounters with the police (see paragraphs 6 and 27 above) and that they displayed injuries thereafter (see paragraphs 6 and 28 above). They asked for medical attention immediately after their release from police custody and submitted medical certificates attesting to their injuries (see paragraphs 7 and 29 above). The forensic medical experts\u2019 conclusions about the cause of the injuries were consistent with their allegations of police ill-treatment (see paragraphs 8\u201114 and 30 above). The applicants were found to have signs of post-traumatic stress disorder related to their alleged ill-treatment by the police, in the case of Mr\u00a0Vagapov more than seven years after the events (see paragraph\u00a015 above) and, in the case of Mr\u00a0Yefremov, more than a year and again more than seven years after the events (see paragraph\u00a031 above).<\/p>\n 43. While in the report of 9 June 2007 the forensic medical expert stated ambiguously that the time when Mr Vagapov\u2019s injuries were supposed to have been inflicted was at variance with the date given in the police referral (namely, 8 June 2007), the expert\u2019s conclusion in the report of 15\u00a0June 2007 left no doubt that the alleged ill-treatment could well have occurred at the stated time (see paragraphs 8-14 above).<\/p>\n 44. In view of the above, the Court finds the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill-treatment by the police to be credible.<\/p>\n 45. The Court further observes that the applicants\u2019 allegations that their injuries had been the result of ill-treatment by the police officers were dismissed by the investigating authority, essentially on the basis of the statements by those same police officers denying any wrongdoing and suggesting another explanation for the injuries (an accidental fall or an apparent brawl in the case of the first applicant, and the lawful use of force to overcome the second applicant\u2019s alleged resistance \u2013 see paragraphs\u00a016\u201117 and 33 above). Apart from relying on the potential offenders\u2019 versions, the investigators failed to explain how the injuries had arisen, or the explanations they did offer were simply dubious (such as explaining the six bruises on the second applicant\u2019s lower extremities, which measured up to 22\u00a0cm by 18 cm, as being caused by a truncheon hanging from a police officer\u2019s hand \u2013 see paragraphs 30 and 33 above).<\/p>\n 46. The investigating authorities based their findings on the results of the pre-investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and which should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956\/09, \u00a7 129, 24 July 2014). Merely to carry out a pre-investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to bring criminal proceedings and to conduct a proper criminal investigation in which the whole range of investigative measures may be performed, including confrontations, identification parades or the questioning of witnesses (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 132-37).<\/p>\n 47. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants\u2019 credible allegations of ill-treatment by the police, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 48. Given that the Government\u2019s denial of State responsibility for the applicants\u2019 injuries was based on the results of the superficial domestic pre\u2011investigation inquiry, which fell short of the requirements of Article\u00a03 of the Convention, the Court holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and to produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicants\u2019 accounts of the events, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a083-85, 2\u00a0May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a045044\/06 and\u00a05 others, \u00a7\u00a7 102-04, 12\u00a0December 2017).<\/p>\n 49. The Court finds that the applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of the police (see G\u00e4fgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978\/05, \u00a7 89, ECHR 2010).<\/p>\n 50. There has thus been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 51. The applicants complained that they had no effective domestic remedies in relation to their ill-treatment by the police, as the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation in response to their complaints. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 52. The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n 53. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the issue raised under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 54. Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural aspect on account of the respondent State\u2019s failure to carry out an effective investigation, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine this complaint separately under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 55. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 56. The applicants claimed 15,000 euros each in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 57. The Government submitted that no just satisfaction should be awarded to the applicants, and that if the Court decided to make an award it should be significantly lower than the amounts claimed.<\/p>\n 58. The Court acknowledges that the applicants have undeniably sustained non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation. It awards each applicant the amount claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n 59. The Court 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declaresthe applications admissible;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of both applicants;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 5. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, within threemonths, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 March 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Olga Chernishova \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Darian Pavli
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nPeeter Roosma, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n