\nCASE OF YELCHANINOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 20179\/12)<\/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 Yelchaninov v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having regard to:<\/p>\n the application (no.\u00a020179\/12) 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 a Russian national, Mr Oleg Gennadyevich Yelchaninov (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 29\u00a0March 2012;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the application, in which the applicant complained of his deprivation of liberty, his alleged ill\u2011treatment by the police and a lack of an effective investigation into his 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 application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the police and the alleged lack of an effective investigation into his complaints.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Orenburg. He was represented by the Committee against Torture, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) based in Nizhniy Novgorod.<\/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. The applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment by the police<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. On 2 December 2006, during the daytime, the applicant was apprehended by police officers at his home on suspicion of rape. According to the applicant, a search was carried out of his apartment by V.I., an investigator from the Leninskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office of Orenburg, in the presence of witnesses. He was then taken to the station of the Leninskiy district police department of Orenburg, where he was interviewed by three\u00a0police officers.<\/p>\n 6. According to the applicant, he spent more than twenty-four hours in police custody, during which time he was repeatedly beaten up by the police officers. In particular, he was allegedly made to sit on a chair with his hands shackled behind it, and the officers delivered blows to his head with a baseball bat, kicked him in the chest, and stifled his breathing by placing a plastic bag over his head and cutting off his access to air.<\/p>\n 7. In his written statement to the police of 2 December 2006, the applicant denied having committed the alleged rape.<\/p>\n 8. On 3\u00a0December 2006 criminal proceedings were brought in connection with the alleged rape. From 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. V.I.\u00a0questioned the applicant, in the presence of a lawyer, in respect of the alleged offence. The applicant denied that he was guilty.<\/p>\n 9. At 7.55\u00a0p.m. V.I. issued a record of the applicant\u2019s arrest as a suspect, stating that he had been arrested at 4.55 p.m. on 3\u00a0December 2006.<\/p>\n 10. The applicant was taken to Orenburg town hospital no. 1 where he was examined at 12.40 a.m. on 4 December 2006 and diagnosed with bruising to the face and haematomas of the eyelids. He explained that he had fallen over in the street.<\/p>\n 11. At 2.45\u00a0a.m. on 4 December 2006 the applicant was placed in the temporary detention centre (\u201cthe IVS\u201d) of the Orenburg police department. A medic on duty reported the following injuries on him: bruises around both eyes and on the right cheek; an abrasion of the left superciliary arch; and bruises on the chest, right shoulder, both hips and right buttock. The applicant stated that the injuries had been received at home (\u0432 \u0431\u044b\u0442\u0443).<\/p>\n 12. According to the applicant, he felt afraid owing to the presence of the police officers who had assaulted him and therefore gave false statements at the hospital and at the temporary detention centre about how his injuries had arisen.<\/p>\n 13. On 5 December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court examined a request by V.I. for the applicant\u2019s detention on remand. The investigator stated at the hearing that the applicant\u2019s medical examination had been ordered and that the applicant had explained that \u201che had fallen over\u201d. The applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer, stated that he had been beaten up by police officers and that he had asked for an examination by an expert to be arranged. The court noted in the record of the hearing that the applicant had injuries \u201con the head, around the eyes\u201d.<\/p>\n 14. On 6 December 2006 the applicant was placed in Orenburg pre-trial detention centre IZ-56\/1, where bruises on his face, chest and back and abrasions of the left eyelid were recorded by a medic.<\/p>\n 15. According to L., who was present during the search carried out in the applicant\u2019s home on 2 December 2006 (before the applicant was taken to the police station), the applicant had no injuries at the time. A certain R. testified that she had seen the applicant without any injuries at his home at approximately 9 a.m. on the day of his apprehension by the police. The statements by L. and R. were recorded on 19 February and 10 December 2009, respectively, by the NGO Committee against Torture, which provided the applicant with legal assistance.<\/p>\n 16. According to a report by a psychologist, based on a psychological assessment of the applicant on 10-13 November 2014, he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had undergone changes in his emotional well-being related to his ill-treatment by the police between 2 and 5\u00a0December 2006.<\/p>\n II. The authorities\u2019 response to the allegations of police ill-treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. On 7 December 2006 the applicant\u2019s allegations of police ill\u2011treatment (made at the hearing before the Leninskiy District Court on 5\u00a0December 2006) were reported by the prosecutor, who had been present at that hearing, to the prosecutor of the Leninskiy district of Orenburg. Consequently, a pre\u2011investigation inquiry was carried out by V.A., an investigator from the Leninskiy district prosecutor\u2019s office.<\/p>\n 18. In his interview, the applicant stated that on 2 December 2006 he had been apprehended by police officers and taken to the police station where they had subjected him to physical violence \u2013 delivering about thirty blows to him \u2013 and to psychological pressure in order to make him confess to the rape.<\/p>\n 19. According to statements by the police officers, at approximately 1\u00a0p.m. on 2 December 2006 the applicant\u2019s neighbours alerted the police to a woman\u2019s cries for help coming from the applicant\u2019s flat. The police officers arrived and found two men (the applicant and M.) and a young woman; they took her to the police station. At the station she told them she had been raped. They went back to the flat and apprehended the applicant and, later, M. At that time the applicant had visible injuries on his face. He tried to run away and they stopped him and shackled his hands behind his back. No other force was used. The police officers interviewed the applicant at the police station.<\/p>\n 20. Having also noted the applicant\u2019s injuries as recorded at the IVS\u00a0detention facility and his statement on his arrival there that he had received those injuries at home, V.A., the investigator, concluded in his decision of 18 December 2006 (approved by a deputy prosecutor of the Leninskiy district of Orenburg on the same day) that it had been impossible to refute the police officers\u2019 claims that the applicant had already had the injuries at the time when he was apprehended. He also concluded that in the absence of any objective evidence, no elements of the offences under Article 285 (abuse of authority) or under Article 286 (exceeding authority) of the Criminal Code could be established in the police officers\u2019 actions, and that therefore no criminal proceedings should be brought against them. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the decision of 18\u00a0December 2006.<\/p>\n 21. The criminal proceedings against the applicant and M. resulted in their conviction for, inter alia, rape and the illegal deprivation of the victim\u2019s liberty (committed between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 2 December 2006), by a judgment of the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg of 8\u00a0May\u00a02007. There is no indication in the judgment that the applicant received injuries from the rape victim. At the trial the applicant stated that he had been ill-treated by the police officers in order to make him confess to the offence. The court held that the applicant\u2019s allegations of being beaten up by the police officers were unconvincing because his complaints had been examined by the prosecutor\u2019s office and found to be unsubstantiated. It also noted that the applicant had consistently denied his involvement in the offence at the preliminary investigation stage and at the trial and therefore no external influence on his statements could be discerned. The applicant was sentenced to seven years\u2019 imprisonment, to run from the time of his actual arrest on 2\u00a0December 2006. On 19 June 2007 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, endorsing the District Court\u2019s finding in respect of the applicant\u2019s allegations of police ill-treatment.<\/p>\n 22. On 4 December 2007 the NGO Committee against Torture lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers on the applicant\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n 23. Investigators from the Orenburg investigation division of the investigative committee at the Orenburg regional prosecutor\u2019s office carried out several rounds of a pre\u2011investigation inquiry and refused five times (see the table below for dates) to bring criminal proceedings concerning the applicant\u2019s alleged ill-treatment by the police pursuant to Article 24\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the elements of the offences under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code could not be established in respect of the police officers\u2019 actions. They relied on explanations by the police officers and by V.I., the investigator, all of whom denied any violence against the applicant. One of the police officers also stated that the applicant, who was suspected of rape, had been taken to the police station where he had been interviewed and had given statements. V.I. stated that, following the reporting of the rape, he had gone to an address to carry out initial investigative inquiries and to establish the identity of the offenders, that is, the applicant and M. He had then opened a criminal case. All investigative actions had been carried out in the presence of a lawyer. He could not explain how the applicant\u2019s injuries had arisen.<\/p>\n 24. It was concluded that the applicant\u2019s allegations were refuted by the police officers\u2019 statements. Moreover, the applicant\u2019s allegations were unconvincing in view of the statements he gave at the hospital and at the IVS detention facility, in which he explained that he had sustained the injuries during normal day-to-day activities. The first four refusals were revoked as unfounded, having been based on an incomplete inquiry. One of those refusals (dated 20 April 2008) was declared to be unfounded and based on an incomplete inquiry by the Leninskiy District Court on 12\u00a0August 2009 following the applicant\u2019s appeal under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant\u2019s appeal against the fifth refusal dated 25 January 2010 was dismissed by the Leninskiy District Court\u2019s decision of 22 September 2010; that dismissal was in turn upheld by the Orenburg Regional Court on 29 September 2011, on the grounds that the applicant\u2019s allegations of police ill-treatment had been assessed at his trial and that the investigator had dismissed his allegations in a lawful and well\u2011founded decision.<\/p>\n 25. On 19\u00a0August 2014 an acting head of the procedural supervision unit of the Orenburg regional investigative committee revoked the refusal of 25\u00a0January 2010 as unfounded. New rounds of a pre-investigation inquiry were carried out during which a forensic medical expert\u2019s opinion was received and the police officers and a number of individuals were interviewed about the events of 2 December 2006.<\/p>\n 26. The forensic medical expert concluded in his report of 17\u00a0September 2014 that the applicant\u2019s injuries, which had been recorded by the detention facilities on 4 and 6\u00a0December 2006 (bruises on the face, torso, right shoulder and both hips, as well as abrasions of the left superciliary arch), could have been received by the applicant as a result of repeated impacts of a hard blunt object \u201csome time before his examination\u201d at the detention facilities.<\/p>\n 27. One of the police officers stated that after being informed of his arrest on suspicion of rape, the applicant had voluntarily proceeded to the police car without any resistance. No force had been applied to him. He had not had any injuries on his face, arms or any visible parts of his body. He had been taken to the Leninskiy district police department and handed over to the police officers on duty.<\/p>\n 28. The other two police officers gave similar statements, denying that they interviewed the applicant at the police station. V.I., the investigator, denied that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant during the investigative actions, noting that all those actions had been carried out in the presence of a lawyer.<\/p>\n 29. The rape victim stated that, after being raped, she had been at the police station where she had seen the applicant accompanied by police officers. He had not had any injuries or blood on him. She further stated that, while being raped, she had resisted and in doing so might have inflicted injuries on the applicant.<\/p>\n 30. Two individuals, Sh. and V., stated that they had been present during the search of the applicant\u2019s flat, which had been carried out by law\u2011enforcement officials on 2\u00a0December 2006. They saw the applicant sitting on a chair, with his head hung low. They could not remember whether there had been any injuries on him.<\/p>\n 31. On the dates indicated in the table below, an investigator from the Orenburg Southern administrative circuit investigation unit of the Orenburg regional investigative committee issued three refusals to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers and against V.I., the investigator. The refusals were issued on the same grounds as before, concluding that the applicant\u2019s allegations had not been confirmed. No\u00a0explanation as to the cause of the applicant\u2019s injuries was given.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 32. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers and that no effective investigation had been conducted into his allegations. He 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 33. The Government, relying on the findings of the domestic authorities, denied that there had been any violation of Article 3.<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 34. 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 35. The relevant general principles were reiterated by the Court\u2019s Grand Chamber 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 36. The Court observes that the following sequence of events commencing on 2 December 2006 is not in dispute between the parties and is supported by the evidence in the case file (see paragraphs 5-16 above). The applicant, who was suspected of having committed the offence of rape, spent approximately twenty-four hours in police custody \u2013 without his arrest having being recorded \u2013 being interviewed, without a lawyer present, by the police officers about his involvement in the offence. The fact that he had actually been arrested on 2\u00a0December 2006 and not (as was stated in the official arrest record) on 3 December 2006 was acknowledged by the trial court in its judgment (see paragraph 21 above). After his time spent in police custody he was found to have certain injuries. From the police station he was taken to a local hospital, where his injuries were certified. They were also recorded at the IVS detention facility and at the pre-trial detention facility. Statements by witnesses, who confirmed seeing the applicant without injuries before his arrest, were recorded by the applicant\u2019s lawyer.<\/p>\n 37. The Court would note that it is entirely plausible that while still under the control of the police officers who had assaulted him, all the more so in their presence, the applicant was reluctant to accuse them when asked at the hospital and the IVS detention facility about how his injuries had arisen. He gave confused and vague statements to the effect that he had fallen over in the street or had received the injuries at home (see paragraphs\u00a010-11 above). What is important, however, is that the next day the applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer, complained before the court about his ill\u2011treatment by the police officers (see paragraph 13 above).<\/p>\n 38. Having regard to the above circumstances and the evidence of the applicant\u2019s injuries in the records of the hospital, the detention facilities and the court and in the psychologist\u2019s and forensic medical expert\u2019s reports (see paragraphs 10-11, 13-14, 16 and 26 above), which is consistent with his allegations of violence sustained at the hands of the police on 2 December 2006, the Court finds the applicant\u2019s allegations of police ill\u2011treatment to be credible.<\/p>\n 39. The Court further observes that the applicant\u2019s allegations that his injuries had been the result of ill-treatment by the police officers were dismissed by the investigating authorities, essentially on the basis of the statements by those same police officers denying any wrongdoing. Their statements, which were changed over the course of the inquiry \u2013 and the investigators\u2019 decisions based on them \u2013 were full of unexplained inconsistencies (for example, the applicant supposedly had injuries on his face, yet there were no injuries on the applicant at the time of his arrest; and the fact that the police officers interviewed the applicant after his arrest, yet they denied having participated in any actions involving him \u2013 see paragraphs 19, 23, 27 and 28 above). This did not prevent the domestic courts from relying on the investigators\u2019 conclusions in dismissing the applicant\u2019s allegations as unconvincing in the judgment in the criminal case against him \u2013 (see paragraph 21 above) or from considering the investigators\u2019 findings lawful and well-founded, on the applicant\u2019s appeal against the refusal to bring criminal proceedings, without any thorough assessment of his allegations or of the evidence supporting them (see paragraph 24 above). No explanation as to how the applicant\u2019s injuries had arisen was offered by the investigating authority in its most recent refusal (see paragraph 31 above).<\/p>\n 40. 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 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). The mere carrying-out of a pre\u2011investigation 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 institute criminal proceedings and to conduct a proper criminal investigation in which the whole range of investigative measures may be carried out, including confrontations, identification parades or the questioning of witnesses (ibid., \u00a7\u00a7 132-37).<\/p>\n 41. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant\u2019s credible allegations of police ill\u2011treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 42. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n 43. Given that the Government\u2019s denial of the State\u2019s responsibility for the applicants\u2019 injuries was based on the outcome of the cursory domestic pre\u2011investigation inquiry, which fell short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicant\u2019s account of events in so far as it is supported by medical evidence, and which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825\/09 and 2 others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a083-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a045044\/06 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 102-04, 12\u00a0December 2017).<\/p>\n 44. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s ill-treatment by the police officers, notably repeated blows with a hard blunt object (see paragraph\u00a026 above), amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 45. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention also under its substantive limb.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 46. The applicant complained that he had no effective domestic remedies in relation to his ill-treatment by the police, as the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaints, which meant that there was no prospect of receiving compensation. He 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 47. The Government contested that argument.<\/p>\n 48. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the issue raised under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 49. Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb 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.<\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 of THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 50. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully detained during the time between his actual arrest on 2 December 2006 and his formal arrest on 3\u00a0December 2006, in breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so …\u201d<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 51. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not complained about his unlawful detention to a prosecutor or to a court.<\/p>\n 52. The Court notes that the applicant complained to the prosecutor\u2019s office that he had been apprehended by the police officers on 2\u00a0December 2006 (see paragraph 18 above). Furthermore, the police officers\u2019 statements received during the inquiry left no doubt that they had arrested the applicant on suspicion of rape on 2 December 2006 (see paragraphs 19, 23, 27 and 28 above). The authorities\u2019 decisions, however, passed over that point in silence. The fact remains that the authorities were made aware, by way of the criminal\u2011law remedy, that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty on 2 December 2006 while his formal arrest had been carried out on 3\u00a0December 2006 (see Golubyatnikov and Zhuchkov v. Russia, nos.\u00a044822\/06 and 49869\/06, \u00a7 76, 9 October 2018).<\/p>\n 53. The Court further notes that the Leninskiy District Court held in its judgment in the criminal proceedings against the applicant that his prison sentence should start running from 2 December 2006 (see paragraph\u00a021 above). In so far as the Government can be understood as suggesting that the applicant could have sought damages for his unrecorded detention, the Court reiterates that where lawfulness of detention is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy to exhaust because the right to have the lawfulness of detention examined by a court is different from the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention (see Ivan Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 30271\/03, \u00a7 79, 25 November 2010, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, \u00a7 66, 26 June 2018).<\/p>\n 54. Thus, the Government\u2019s objections should be dismissed.<\/p>\n 55. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill\u2011founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article\u00a035 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 56. Having regard to the Leninskiy District Court\u2019s judgment, mentioned above, the Court finds that the applicant was unlawfully detained during the time between his actual arrest after 2 p.m. on 2 December 2006 (see paragraph 21 above) and his formal arrest at 4.55 p.m. on 3 December 2006 (see paragraph 9 above).<\/p>\n 57. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 58. 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 59. The applicant stated that he would leave the determination of the amount of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Court\u2019s discretion.<\/p>\n 60. The Government submitted that any award should be made in accordance with the Court\u2019s case-law.<\/p>\n 61. The Court awards the applicant 34,000\u00a0euros in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n 62. 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. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in that no effective investigation was carried out into the applicant\u2019s credible allegations of ill-treatment by the police;<\/p>\n 3. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that the applicant was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the police;<\/p>\n 4. Holdsthat there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article\u00a013 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 6. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, EUR 34,000 (thirty four thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent Stateat 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 \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\n\n
\n No.<\/td>\n Refusal to bring criminal proceedings issued on:<\/td>\n revoked on:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 18\/12\/2006<\/td>\n unspecified<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 14\/12\/2007<\/td>\n 28\/02\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 09\/03\/2008<\/td>\n 10\/04\/2008<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n 20\/04\/2008<\/td>\n 15\/09\/2009<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 18\/09\/2009<\/td>\n 15\/01\/2010<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 25\/01\/2010<\/td>\n 19\/08\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.<\/td>\n 26\/09\/2014<\/td>\n 27\/09\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.<\/td>\n 27\/10\/2014<\/td>\n 27\/10\/2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 9.<\/td>\n 26\/11\/2014<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n