The applicants complained of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Arkhipov and Others v. Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2. The Russian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under various provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 5. 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. THE GOVERNMENT\u2019S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The Government submitted\u00a0unilateral\u00a0declarations in all applications, save for application no. 30885\/16, whereby they acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants.<\/p>\n 7. The applicants rejected the Government\u2019s proposals.<\/p>\n 8. Considering the circumstances of the case at hand, the Court rejects the Government\u2019s requests to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue their examination (see\u00a0Tahsin Acar v.\u00a0Turkey\u00a0(preliminary issue) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a075, ECHR\u00a02003\u2011VI).<\/p>\n III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 9. The applicants complained of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the lack of an effective investigation thereof.They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201c\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n 10. The Court has found in Bouyid\u00a0v. Belgium\u00a0([GC], no.\u00a023380\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a081-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was in favour of applicants claiming\u00a0to be victims of a violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants\u2019 own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no.\u00a065859\/01, \u00a7 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to demonstrate that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants\u2019 injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v.\u00a0Poland, no. 46702\/99, \u00a7 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and\u00a0Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 62003\/08 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a084, 5 July 2022).<\/p>\n 11. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0128-40, 24\u00a0July 2014 and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 54-63, 20\u00a0November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and M\u0119tel v. Poland, no.\u00a076813\/16, \u00a7 88, 2 September 2021 the Court has already found, in particular, that\u00a0the authorities\u2019\u00a0refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State\u2019s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 12. Taking into account the case-law referred to above and having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised under the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention by the applicant in application no. 30885\/16 and the complaint by the applicant regarding one episode of his alleged ill-treatment in application no.\u00a04673\/15 (see the appended table for the remaining episode) do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article\u00a035 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 13. The Court further finds the remaining complaints admissible and observes that there has been a breach of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article\u00a03 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, save for the applicant in application no. 30885\/16, in respect of whom it finds a violation of only the procedural limb of that provision.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 14. In applications nos. 16097\/18 and 58738\/15 the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a045044\/06 and 5 others, \u00a7\u00a7 111-12, 12 December 2017, Tangiyev v.\u00a0Russia, no. 27610\/05, \u00a7 76, 11 December 2012 and Belugin v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a02991\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a069-71, 26\u00a0November\u00a02019.<\/p>\n V. REMAINING COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 15. The applicant in application no. 30885\/16 also raised other complaints under various Convention provisions.<\/p>\n 16. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles\u00a034 and\u00a035 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n 17. It follows that these parts of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0Furthermore, the applicants in applications nos.\u00a026454\/13, 62846\/13, 73154\/13 and no. 4673\/15 also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 there is no need to examine them separately in view of its findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281\/06, \u00a7\u00a071, 23\u00a0February 2016 and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783\/08, \u00a7\u00a086, 11\u00a0October 2016).<\/p>\n VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 19. Article 41 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 20. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see Ksenz and Others, cited above, \u00a7 120; and, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee],nos.\u00a05666\/07 and\u00a04\u00a0others, 15 June 2021, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 60844\/11 and 2 others, \u00a7 64, 22 March 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n 21. The Court further 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. Rejects the Government\u2019s request to strike the applications, save for application no. 30885\/16, out of its list of cases under Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the complaints concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, as described in detail in the appended table, and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard, as well as the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, set out in the appended table,admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of applications nos. 4673\/15 and 30885\/16 inadmissible;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment;<\/p>\n 5. Holdsthat there isno need to examineseparately the complaint under Article\u00a013 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 6. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 7. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/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 8. Dismissesthe remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Darian Pavli _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF ARKHIPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 26454\/13 and 9 others \u2013 see appended list)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 October 2022<\/p>\n
\nDarian Pavli, President,
\nAndreas Z\u00fcnd,
\nFr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Krenc, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 15 September 2022,
\nDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)<\/p>\n