The applications concern, among other things, complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about alleged ill-treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Ivanov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Darian Pavli, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications 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 eight Russian nationals listed in Appendix I (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n the decision not to have the applicant\u2019s name disclosed in the case no.\u00a062510\/12;<\/p>\n the decisions to give notice of the complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 34 of the Convention to the Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by his successor in that office, Mr M. Vinogradov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n the decision to reject the Government\u2019s objection to examination of the applications nos. 29330\/15 and 13123\/16 by a Committee;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The applications concern, among other things, complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about alleged ill-treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard. The details of the factual circumstances and domestic procedures relevant to each case are listed in Appendix I.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. 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. Preliminary objections<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. In their additional observations and submissions on just satisfaction in the cases of Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no.\u00a024592\/10) and Mr I.Z. (no. 62510\/12) the Government submitted for the first time that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.<\/p>\n 4. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, any plea of inadmissibility must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its written or oral observations on the admissibility of the application (see Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483\/12, \u00a7\u00a7 52-54, 15 December 2016), what the Government failed to do in the cases at hand. Their objection is therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. In the case of Mr I.Z. (no. 62510\/12), the Government argued that the applicant was no longer a victim of the alleged violation since the authorities had convicted one of the perpetrators of his ill-treatment.<\/p>\n 6. The question at hand is closely linked to the merits of the applicant\u2019s complaint. The Court therefore decides to join this matter to the merits.<\/p>\n 7. As regards the remaining complaints, the Court notes that they are neither manifestly ill\u2011founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The applicants\u2019 allegations of ill-treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 8. The Court observes that all applicants were arrested by the police on suspicion of their having committed various crimes. After spending different periods of time at the hands of State officers, the applicants were found to have sustained injuries of various degrees, as recorded by forensic medical experts, detention facilities or medical institutions (see Appendix I).<\/p>\n 9. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants\u2019 accounts of events and to satisfy the Court that their allegations of ill-treatment were credible.<\/p>\n 2. Effectiveness of the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 10. Firstly, the investigative authorities dismissed the credible allegations of ill-treatment by State officers in the cases of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942\/08), Mr\u00a0Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592\/10), Mr\u00a0Krysyuk (no.75186\/11) and Mr Demerchyan (no.\u00a029330\/15) after summary pre-investigative inquiries. However, in the context of the Russian legal system in cases of credible allegations of treatment proscribed under Article 3 of the Convention, it is incumbent on the authorities to open a criminal case and conduct a fully-fledged criminal investigation (see Lyapin v. Russia, no.\u00a046956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0129 and 132\u201136, 24 July 2014). The authorities\u2019 refusal to initiate such an investigation is indicative of their failure to comply with its procedural obligation under the above provision. The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the cases at hand.<\/p>\n 11. By contrast, in the remaining two cases the authorities initiated the necessary criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, they were tainted with other shortcomings, which had a serious negative impact on the overall effectiveness of the procedures.<\/p>\n 12. In the case of Mr I.Z. (no. 62510\/12) the applicant complained of two different episodes of ill-treatment, namely, during his arrest and then at the detention centre. The Court is not convinced by the Government\u2019s argument that Mr I.Z. lost his victim status as one of the perpetrators of his ill-treatment had been convicted. That officer was exempted from serving the sentence as his criminal liability had become time-barred (see Barovov v. Russia, no.\u00a09183\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 42-44, 15 June 2021). Furthermore, the other officers who had participated in the applicant\u2019s beating were never prosecuted. In any event, similarly to the above cases, no criminal proceedings were initiated on account of the applicant\u2019s credible allegations of ill-treatment at the detention centre.<\/p>\n 13. Lastly, in the case of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123\/16) the investigative authorities opened criminal cases into the applicants\u2019 allegations in more than six months and one year respectively after the receipt of the applicants\u2019 first complaints. Such delays could not but have had a significant adverse impact on the investigation (see Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519\/09, \u00a7\u00a061, 5 February 2015) which was eventually discontinued. The investigators essentially relied on the statements of the implicated police officers who had denied the allegations and did not take necessary steps to address the medical evidence thus failing to elucidate the cause of the injuries (see Salikhov v.\u00a0Russia, no. 23880\/05, \u00a7 104, 3 May 2012).<\/p>\n 14. There has, accordingly, been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.<\/p>\n 3. The Government\u2019s explanations<\/em><\/p>\n 15. The Government maintained the conclusions of the investigating authorities. In particular, they argued that the applicants\u2019 injuries had not been attributable to the conduct of the police officers or that the application of force had been lawful.<\/p>\n 16. Given that the Government\u2019s explanations were provided as a result of superficial domestic inquiries falling short of the requirements of Article\u00a03 of the Convention, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that in these cases the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the account of events provided by the applicants, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825\/09 and 2\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a083-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v.\u00a0Russia, nos.\u00a045044\/06 and 5\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102\u201104, 12\u00a0December 2017).<\/p>\n 4. Legal classification of the treatment<\/em><\/p>\n 17. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 18. Having regard to the applicants\u2019 injuries confirmed by medical evidence, the Court concludes that the ill-treatment of Mr I.Z. (no.\u00a062510\/12), Mr Demerchyan (29330\/15) and Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov (the first applicant in the case no. 13123\/16) amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The remaining applicants were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n 5. Conclusion<\/em><\/p>\n 19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its both substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all of the applicants. In the light of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article\u00a013 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 20. Mr Ivanov (no. 50942\/08), Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no.24592\/10), Mr\u00a0Krysyuk (no. 75186\/11), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no.13123\/16) submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well\u2011established case-law of the Court (see Appendix II). Those complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its well\u2011established case-law (see Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 157-60, 12\u00a0February 2013; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077\/06 and 12\u00a0others, \u00a7\u00a7 78-79, 26 June 2018; and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069\u201171, 26 November 2019).<\/p>\n V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 21. Lastly, the Court has examined the remaining complaint under Article\u00a06 of the Convention submitted by Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin (the first applicant in the case no. 24592\/10) regarding the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court observes that on 6 June 2019 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia quashed the applicant\u2019s conviction and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court. Those proceedings are still pending. Accordingly, this part of Mr\u00a0Aleksandr Knyazkin\u2019s application is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 22. Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592\/10), made no claims regarding just satisfaction. The remaining applicants claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mr Ivanov (no.\u00a050942\/08), Mr Demerchyan (no.\u00a029330\/15), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123\/16), also claimed costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 23. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts to the applicants.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin\u2019s (the first applicant in the case no.\u00a024592\/10) complaint under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible and the remainder of the 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 all of the applicants;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no.\u00a013123\/16);<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942\/08) and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (the second applicant in the case no. 24592\/10);<\/p>\n 6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186\/11);<\/p>\n 7. Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in the case of Mr Krysyuk (no.\u00a075186\/11);<\/p>\n 8. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article\u00a013 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 9. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. The amounts are to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement. The amounts in respect of costs and expenses should be paid directly into the representatives\u2019 bank account;<\/p>\n (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;<\/p>\n 10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 July 2022, 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 \u00a0Darian Pavli _________<\/p>\n APPENDIX I<\/strong><\/p>\n date of examination,<\/strong><\/p>\n document type,<\/strong><\/p>\n injuries recorded<\/strong><\/td>\n 14\/08\/2008<\/td>\n Beating following an arrest on the suspicion of murder in Krasnoyarsk. The applicant subsequently confessed<\/td>\n Forensic medical examination report<\/p>\n numerous bruises and abrasions on the arms, chest and left cheek inflicted with a blunt object between one and four days before the forensic examination<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities<\/p>\n 01\/09\/2008<\/p>\n Latest refusal to open a criminal case<\/p>\n 03\/02\/2009<\/p>\n Krasnoyarsk Regional Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 09\/04\/2010<\/td>\n Beating and violent threats following an arrest on the suspicion of murder in Saransk. The applicants subsequently confessed<\/td>\n Two forensic medical examination reports in respect of each applicant<\/p>\n the first applicant, Mr Al. Knyazkin: abrasions on the left shoulder and left shin inflicted with a blunt object possibly on 09\/05\/2009<\/p>\n The second applicant, Mr An. Knyazkin: abrasions on the face, neck, right shin and a bruise on the left shoulder inflicted with a blunt object possibly on 09\/05\/2009.<\/p>\n 22\/06\/2009<\/p>\n Hospital medical examination act<\/p>\n The first applicant, Mr Al.Knyazkin: cerebral trauma<\/td>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities<\/p>\n 23\/11\/2009<\/p>\n Latest refusal to open a criminal case<\/p>\n 29\/09\/2009<\/p>\n Chamzinskiy District Court of the Mordovia Republic<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 04\/03\/2013<\/td>\n Beating during an arrest in Sharypovo, the Krasnoyarsk Region. A police officer applied electric shock.<\/td>\n Medical examination act at a temporary detention centre<\/p>\n a bruise in the area of the left eye and abrasions on the chest<\/p>\n 02\/07\/2010<\/p>\n Forensic medical examination report<\/p>\n a thermal burn on the left cheekbone caused by an impact of high temperature. It could have possibly been a result of an electric shock or a fall and intense contact with an abrasive surface. Abrasions on the chest. The injuries were inflicted between one and three days before the examination<\/td>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities<\/p>\n 13\/09\/2013<\/p>\n Latest refusal to open a criminal case<\/p>\n <\/td>\n 20\/09\/2012<\/td>\n Beating during an arrest in Moscow<\/p>\n Since 30\/10\/2009<\/p>\n Beating in remand prison by a cellmate allegedly incited by police officers<\/td>\n Medical examination act at a trauma centre<\/p>\n a crush injury of the right testicle; it was subsequently amputated<\/p>\n 26\/11\/2009<\/p>\n Hospital medical examination act<\/p>\n a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, abrasions on the face and bruises on the chest<\/td>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities regarding the ill\u2011treatment during the arrest<\/p>\n 12\/02\/2010<\/p>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities regarding the ill\u2011treatment at the SIZO<\/p>\n 01\/06\/2011<\/p>\n Latest refusal to open a criminal case<\/p>\n 06\/11\/2009<\/p>\n Criminal case opened regarding the allegations of ill\u2011treatment during the arrest<\/p>\n 30\/11\/2011<\/p>\n One officer convicted of causing serious bodily harm to the applicant and sentenced to one year of imprisonment but exempted from its service due to the expiration of the statutory time-limit<\/p>\n 24\/07\/2013<\/p>\n Moscow City Court<\/td>\n <\/p>\n 03\/06\/2015<\/td>\n 1975<\/strong><\/p>\n Russian<\/strong><\/p>\n Ms Darya Sergeyevna PIGOLEVA\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Beating following an arrest on suspicion of theft in Sochi.<\/p>\n Police officers also allegedly<\/p>\n inserted an iron bar into the applicant\u2019s anus. He eventually confessed<\/td>\n Hospital medical examination act<\/p>\n brain concussion, head and chest contusions<\/p>\n 15\/06\/2013<\/p>\n Proctology medical examination act<\/p>\n healing micro-tears of the anus; it was not clear whether the injuries<\/p>\n had been sustained in the circumstances described by the applicant<\/p>\n 17\/06\/2013 and 01\/07\/2013<\/p>\n Forensic medical examination reports based on medical documents<\/p>\n a bruise on the lower left eyelid and fractures of left teeth of the upper jaw caused with blunt objects between five and ten days before the examination<\/td>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities<\/p>\n 03\/10\/2013<\/p>\n Latest refusal to open a criminal case against the officers<\/p>\n 03\/12\/2014<\/p>\n Krasnodar Regional Court<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Criminal case opened against the applicant on suspicion of false accusation of the police officers<\/p>\n 17\/12\/2014<\/p>\n The Adlerskiy District Court in Sochi found applicant guilty of false accusation<\/p>\n 02\/04\/2015<\/p>\n The Krasnodar Regional Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the prosecutor for a fresh investigation<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/p>\n 23\/02\/2016<\/td>\n 1973<\/strong><\/p>\n Russian<\/strong><\/p>\n 2) Mr Gennadiy Nikolayevich PISKUNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 1973<\/strong><\/p>\n Russian<\/strong><\/p>\n Alexey Nikolayevich LAPTEV<\/td>\n The applicants arrested at around 10.30 a.m. in Saransk on the suspicion of murder.<\/p>\n At a police station one of the officers handcuffed the first applicant, Mr V. Piskunov, kicked him in the groin and squeezed his testicles. He also suffocated the applicant with a plastic bag and tied a belt around the applicant\u2019s knee and pulled it over his neck. Another officer beat the applicant with a heavy item on the kidney area.<\/p>\n Other officers handcuffed the second applicant, Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Piskunov, and beat him on different parts of the body.<\/p>\n The applicants subsequently confessed.<\/td>\n The results of the medical examination of the first applicant, Mr V. Piskunov, at the temporary detention centre<\/p>\n closed injury of the scrotum on the left side and a ruptured left testicle<\/p>\n 25\/06\/2013<\/p>\n The results of hospital medical examination of the first applicant, Mr\u00a0V.\u00a0Piskunov<\/p>\n a closed injury of the scrotum, haematocele on the left side and ruptured left testicle<\/p>\n 25\/06\/2013 and 22\/10\/2013<\/p>\n Forensic medical examination report of the first applicant, Mr V. Piskunov<\/p>\n bruises on the breastbone, right shoulder and left hip, abrasions on the loins and shins inflicted with a blunt object no more than between twelve and six days prior to the examination; a ruptured left testicle with a haematocele on the left side, which could have been inflicted on 23\/06\/2013<\/p>\n 02\/07\/2013 and 05\/\/05\/2014<\/p>\n Forensic medical examination report of the second applicant, Mr G. Piskunov<\/p>\n a bruise on the groin and an abrasion on the right shin which could have been inflicted on 23\/06\/2013<\/td>\n First complaint to the investigative authorities<\/p>\n 02\/04\/2014<\/p>\n Criminal proceedings initiated on account of the first applicant\u2019s allegations<\/p>\n 26\/09\/2014<\/p>\n Criminal proceedings initiated on account of the second applicant\u2019s allegations<\/p>\n 02\/03\/2015<\/p>\n The criminal proceedings discontinued for lack of corpus delicti<\/p>\n 24\/08\/2015<\/p>\n Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n On 24\/06\/2013 at 4.55 p.m. in respect of the second applicant and 6.35 p.m. in respect of the first applicant the investigator drew up the records of their arrest as suspects.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n APPENDIX II<\/strong><\/p>\n Other complaints under the well-established case-law and just satisfaction<\/p>\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 50942\/08<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n (twenty six thousand euros)<\/td>\n (two thousand one hundred euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 24592\/10<\/td>\n 75186\/11<\/td>\n (twenty six thousand euros)<\/td>\n 62510\/12<\/td>\n (fifty two thousand euros)<\/td>\n 29330\/15<\/td>\n (fifty two thousand euros)<\/td>\n (three thousand six hundred euros)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 13123\/16<\/td>\n (fifty two thousand euros) (to the first applicant, Mr\u00a0V.\u00a0Piskunov)<\/p>\n EUR 26,000 (twenty six thousand euros)<\/p>\n (to the second applicant, Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Piskunov)<\/td>\n (seventeen euros), jointly<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
\nCASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 50942\/08 and 5 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n5 July 2022<\/p>\n
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nMikhail Lobov, judges,
\nand Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Application no.
\nIntroduction date<\/strong><\/td>\nApplicant\u2019s name
\nYear of birth
\nNationality<\/strong>Represented by<\/strong><\/td>\nDetails of the alleged ill\u2011treatment<\/strong><\/td>\n Medical evidence:<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicants\u2019 complaints about ill\u2011treatment to the domestic authorities<\/strong><\/td>\n Other relevant information<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n 50942\/08<\/p>\n Mr Aleksey Aleksandrovich IVANOV
\n1966
\nRussian<\/strong>Mr Vladimir Valeryevich VASIN<\/td>\n14\/10\/2007<\/p>\n 16\/10\/2007<\/p>\n 16\/10\/2007<\/p>\n On 01\/09\/2008 the Tsentralniy District Court in Krasnoyarsk convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. It relied on his confession statement of 15\/10\/2007 and rejected his complaint that he had signed the confession as a result of the beatings by the police officers. On 23\/10\/2008 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n 24592\/10<\/p>\n 1) Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich KNYAZKIN
\n1978
\nRussian<\/strong><\/strong>2) Mr Andrey Nikolayevich KNYAZKIN<\/strong>1985
\nRussian<\/strong>Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich PLODUKHIN<\/td>\n10\/05\/2009<\/p>\n 13\/05\/2009<\/p>\n 25\/05\/2009<\/p>\n On 29\/06\/2010 the Atyashevskiy District Court in Mordovia convicted the second applicant, Mr\u00a0An.\u00a0Knyazkin, of murder and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment. It relied on his confession statement of 10\/05\/2009 and rejected his complaint that he had signed the confession as a result of his beatings by the police officers. On 27\/10\/2010 the Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic upheld the conviction on appeal. Following a supervisory review, the Supreme Court of the Mordovia Republic reaffirmed the conviction.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.<\/td>\n 75186\/11<\/p>\n Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich KRYSYUK
\n1971
\nRussian<\/strong>Not legally represented<\/td>\n01\/07\/2010<\/p>\n 02\/07\/2010<\/p>\n 02\/07\/2010<\/p>\n On 26\/09\/2012 the applicant, being in detention, received a letter from the Court. The envelope was opened by the administration of the temporary detention centre.
\nOn 16\/10\/2012 the Sharypovskiy Town Court in the Krasnoyarsk Region rejected the applicant\u2019s complaint and found that the opening of the envelope was in accordance with internal regulations of the temporary detention centre.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n 4.<\/td>\n 62510\/12<\/p>\n Mr I.Z.
\n1985
\nRussian<\/strong>Ms Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO<\/td>\n01\/09\/2009<\/p>\n 01\/09\/2009<\/p>\n 03\/09\/2009<\/p>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n 29330\/15<\/p>\n Mr Mardiros Arutovich DEMERCHYAN<\/strong><\/p>\n 12\/06\/2013<\/p>\n 13\/06\/2013<\/p>\n 13\/06\/2013<\/p>\n 13\/07\/2013<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n 13123\/16<\/p>\n 1) Mr Vyacheslav Nikolayevich PISKUNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n 23\/06\/2013<\/p>\n 24\/06\/2013<\/p>\n 23\/09\/2013<\/p>\n On 23\/06\/2013 a record of the applicants\u2019 administrative arrest was drawn up at 9 p.m., that is more than ten hours after the arrest. According to the document, the applicants had no visible injuries and were released at 9.40 a.m. the next day. Yet, the Government did not contest the applicants\u2019 allegation that they, in fact, had never been released.<\/p>\n \n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Case name<\/strong><\/p>\n Other complaints under well\u2011established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount awarded for non- pecuniary damage<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount awarded for costs and expenses<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1.<\/td>\n Ivanov v. Russia<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1.<\/strong> The applicant\u2019s conviction was based on the confession dated 15 October 2007 obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Domestic courts failed to conduct a comprehensive review of his credible allegations in that regard (see Belugin v. Russia<\/em>, no.\u00a02991\/06, \u00a7 71, 26 November 2019).<\/td>\n EUR 26,000<\/p>\n EUR 2,100<\/p>\n \n 2.<\/td>\n Knyazkiny v. Russia<\/p>\n Article 6 \u00a7 1 (in respect of the second applicant, Mr An. Knyazkin).<\/strong> The applicant\u2019s conviction was based on the confession dated 10 May 2009 obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Domestic courts failed to conduct a comprehensive review of his credible allegations in that regard (see Belugin v. Russia<\/em>, no. 2991\/06, \u00a7 71, 26 November 2019).<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3<\/td>\n Krysyuk v. Russia<\/p>\n Articles 8 and 34<\/strong>. The Court\u2019s letter was opened by the temporary detention centre\u2019s administration. That constituted un unjustified interference with the exercise of the applicant\u2019s right to individual petition (see Yefimenko v. Russia<\/em>, no. 152\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 158-60, 12 February 2013 and Shekhov v. Russia<\/em>, no. 12440\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 60-63, 19 June 2014).<\/td>\n EUR 26,000<\/p>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.<\/td>\n I.Z. v. Russia<\/p>\n –<\/td>\n EUR 52,000<\/p>\n –<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.<\/td>\n Demerchyan v. Russia<\/p>\n –<\/td>\n EUR 52,000<\/p>\n EUR 3,600<\/p>\n \n 6.<\/td>\n Piskunovy v. Russia<\/p>\n Article 5 \u00a7 1<\/strong>. Unrecorded time periods of the applicants\u2019 detention: 1) on 23 June 2013 between the applicants\u2019 first arrest at around 10.30 a.m. and the drawing up of their arrest records at 9 p.m.; 2) on 24 June 2013 between 9 a.m. and their formal arrest as suspects at 6.35 p.m. (first applicant) and 4.55 p.m. (second applicant) (see Fortalnov and Others v.\u00a0Russia<\/em>, nos. 7077\/06 and 12 others, \u00a7 78-79, 26 June 2018).<\/td>\n EUR 52,000<\/p>\n EUR 17<\/p>\n