SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF MANG\u00ceR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
\n(Application no. 50157\/06)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n17 July 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n03\/12\/2018<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Mang\u00eer and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Robert Spano, President, Having deliberated in private on 26 June 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 50157\/06) against the Republic of Moldova and 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 five Moldovan nationals, Mr\u00a0\u0218tefan Mang\u00eer,Mr VitalieVasiliev, Mr Igor Da\u021bco, Mr Constantin Condrea and Mr AlexandruPohila (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on 1 December 2006.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were represented by Mr A. Bivol, a lawyer practising in Chi\u0219in\u0103u. The Moldovan Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol, and the Russian Government were represented by Mr\u00a0G.\u00a0Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their detention had been contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Contention. They also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the conditions of their detention had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment andthat they had been subjected to ill-treatment.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 April 2012 the application was communicated to the respondent Governments.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants, who are police officers, were born in 1967, 1978, 1976, 1979 and 1964 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Chi\u0219in\u0103u andCau\u0219eni and the remaining applicants live in Bender.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants\u2019 arrest and alleged ill-treatment<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 June 2006 officers Mang\u00eer, Vasiliev and Condrea, whowereconducting a criminal investigation in Tiraspol,were arrested by the secret service of the self-proclaimed \u201cMoldovan Republic of Transdniestria\u201d (\u201cMRT\u201d)[1]. During their arrest they managed to call the Bender police station.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The other two applicants (officers Da\u0163coandPohila) went to Tiraspol to clarify the reasons for the arrest of their colleagues, but were also arrested upon their arrival.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were placed in the Tiraspol Remand Centre (IVS Tiraspol).<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 June 2006 officers Pohila, Da\u0163coand Vasiliev were released without charge and without any explanation for their arrest.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 June 2006 officer Mang\u00eer was allegedly beaten up and injected with an unknown substance, which rendered him unconscious for four days. After his release he was admitted for in-patient treatment in the hospital of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Moldova, where he was diagnosedwith, inter alia,concussion.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 June 2006 the Tiraspol City Court issued a warrant for officer Mang\u00eerto be detained for thirty days. On 23 June 2006 the \u201cMRT\u201d authorities released officers Mang\u00eer and Condrea. The head of the \u201cMRT\u201d secret service declared in an interview that the officers had been released after Russian authorities had \u201cgiven assurances\u201d that Moldovan authorities would not \u201ckidnap people\u201d in the \u201cMRT\u201d.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were accused in the \u201cMRT\u201d media of being members of \u201cblack squadrons\u201d created for the purpose of kidnapping politicians and other persons causing nuisance to the Moldovan authorities. According to the applicants, during their detention they were questioned by the \u201cMRT\u201d secret service and forced to declare that in Tiraspol they had been trying to kidnap \u201cMRT\u201d politicians. Officers Pohila, Da\u0163coandVasiliev were allegedly beaten on the soles of their feet and threatened with the killing of members of their families, as well as with being transferred to cells occupied by commoncriminals, where they would be ill-treated or even killed.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Officer Condrea was allegedly subjected to so-called \u201cPalestinian hanging\u201d for up to seven hours and was taken to his cell unconscious thereafter.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants described as follows their conditions of detention at the Tiraspol Remand Centre. The cells in which they had been held had been in the basement and had nothad access to natural light. In the absence of ventilation and because of overcrowding it had been difficult to breathe. Officer Condrea submits that he was detained in the same cell as that in which Mr Ilie Ila\u015fcu had been detained (for more details seeIla\u015fcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787\/99, ECHR 2004\u2011VII).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0During their detention the applicants did not have any daily exercise and were not given access to a shower; they could not receive parcels containing food from their relatives, they did not have bed linen and they were not allowed to be seen by doctors.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0The actions undertaken by the Moldovan authorities<\/strong><\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0After the applicants\u2019 release the Moldovan authorities initiated two sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill-treatment while in detention. However, several years later the investigation was discontinued.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants were also subjected to medical check-ups, which found no traces of violence on their bodies. Only one applicant, StefanMang\u00eer, was found to be suffering from the consequences of concussion.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Reports by inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, the relevant domestic law and practice of the Republic of Moldova, and other pertinent documents were summarised in Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 61-77, ECHR 2016).<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that they had been arrested and detained unlawfully, contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They further complained under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Conventionthat they had not been brought before a judge in order for the lawfulness of their arrest to be decided upon and therefore could not appeal against a non-existent decision to detain them.The applicants also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been held in inhuman conditions of detention, ill\u2011treated and refused medical assistance. They lastly complained of a violation of Article 13 of the Conventionsince they had not had a remedy before the Moldovan or Russian courts.<\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JURISDICTION<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The Court must first determine whether the applicants fell within the jurisdiction of the respondent States for the purposes of the matters complained of, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction.<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0The Moldovan Government submitted that they had positive obligations to secure the applicants\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0For their part, the Russian Government argued that the applicants did not fall within their jurisdiction and that, consequently, the application should be declared inadmissible ratione personae and ratione loci in respect of the Russian Federation. As they did in Mozer (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 92-94), the Russian Government expressed the view that the approach to the issue of jurisdiction taken by the Court in Ila\u015fcu and Others (cited above);Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos.\u00a043370\/04 and 2 others, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Ivan\u0163oc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687\/05, 15 November 2011) waswrong and at variance with public international law.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the parties in the present case have positions concerning the matter of jurisdiction which are similar to those expressed by the parties in Catan and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 83-101) and inMozer(cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a081-95). Namely, the applicants and the Moldovan Government submitted that both respondent Governments had jurisdiction, while the Russian Government submitted that they had no jurisdiction.<\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court recalls that the general principles concerning the issue of jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention in respect of actions and facts pertaining to the Transdniestrian region of Moldova were set out in Ila\u015fcu and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 311-19), Catan and Others (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0103-07) and, more recently, Mozer(cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 97-98).<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the Republic of Moldova is concerned, the Court notes that in Ila\u015fcu and Others, Catanand OthersandMozer it found that although Moldova had no effective control over the Transdniestrian region, it followed from the fact that Moldova was the territorial State that persons within that territory fell within its jurisdiction. However, its obligation, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention was limited to that of taking the diplomatic, economic, judicial and other measures that were both in its power and in accordance with international law (see Ila\u015fcu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 333; Catan and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0109; and Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 100). Moldova\u2019s obligations under Article 1 of the Convention were found to be positive obligations (see Ila\u015fcu and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 322 and 330-31; Catan and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0109-10; and Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 99).<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court sees no reason to distinguish the present case from the above-mentioned cases. Besides, it notes that the Moldovan Government do not object to applying a similar approach in the present case. Therefore, it finds that Moldova has jurisdiction for the purposes of Article\u00a01 of the Convention, but that its responsibility for the acts complained of is to be assessed in the light of the above-mentioned positive obligations (see Ila\u015fcu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 335).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court notes that in Ila\u0219cu and Others it found that the Russian Federation contributed both militarily and politically to the creation of a separatist regime in the region of Transdniestria in 1991-1992 (see Ila\u0219cu and Others, cited above, \u00a7 382). The Court also found in subsequent cases concerning the Transdniestrian region that up until July 2010, the \u201cMRT\u201d was only able to continue to exist, and to resist Moldovan and international efforts to resolve the conflict and bring democracy and the rule of law to the region, because of Russian military, economic and political support (see Ivan\u0163oc and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 116-20; Catan and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 121-22; and Mozer, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 108 and 110). The Court concluded in Mozer that the \u201cMRT\u201d\u2018s high level of dependency on Russian support provided a strong indication that the Russian Federation continued to exercise effective control and a decisive influence over the Transdniestrian authorities and that, therefore, the applicant fell within that State\u2019s jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention (see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 110-11).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0The Court sees no grounds on which to distinguish the present case from Ila\u0219cuandOthers, Ivan\u0163oc and Others, Catan and Others, and Mozer(all cited above).<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that the applicants in the present case fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation under Article 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Russian Government\u2019s objections ratione personae and ratione loci.<\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0The Court will hereafter determine whether there has been any violation of the applicants\u2019 rights under the Convention such as to engage the responsibility of either respondent State (see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 112).<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 AND 4 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that their arrest and detention had been unlawful and contrary to Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They also submitted that their rights, as guaranteed by Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4of the Convention,had been breached. The relevant parts of Article 5 read as follows:<\/p>\n Article 5<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone 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)\u00a0\u00a0the 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;<\/p>\n …\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c3.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201c4.\u00a0\u00a0Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that these complaintsare not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, and that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court therefore declares them admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that neither their arrest nor their detention had been ordered and carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, as required by Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Governments did not make any submissions on the merits of this complaint.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that it is well established in its case-law on Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Conventionthat any deprivation of liberty must not only be based on one of the exceptions listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) but must also be \u201clawful\u201d. Where the \u201clawfulness\u201d of detention is in issue, including the question of whether \u201ca procedure prescribed by law\u201d has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law. This primarily requires any arrest or detention to have a legal basis in domestic law; it also relates to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see, for example, Del R\u00edo Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750\/09, \u00a7 125, ECHR 2013;and Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 134).<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that in Mozer it held that the judicial system of the \u201cMRT\u201d was not a system reflecting a judicial tradition compatible with the Convention(see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 148-49). For that reason it held that the \u201cMRT\u201d courts and, by implication, any other \u201cMRT\u201d authority, could not order the applicant\u2019s \u201clawful\u201d arrest or detention, within the meaning of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0of the Convention (see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 150).<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any new and pertinent information proving the contrary, the Court considers that the conclusion reached in Mozeris valid in the present case too. It therefore considers that there has been a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention in the present case.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0The Court must next determine whether the Republic of Moldova fulfilled its positive obligation to take appropriate and sufficient measures to secure the applicants\u2019 rights under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention(see paragraph 27 above). In Mozer, the Court held that Moldova\u2019s positive obligations related both to measures needed to re-establish its control over the Transdniestrian territory, as an expression of its jurisdiction, and to measures to ensure respect for individual applicants\u2019 rights (see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 151).<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the first aspect of Moldova\u2019s obligation, to re-establish control, the Court found in Mozer that, from the onset of the hostilities in 1991-1992 until July 2010, Moldova had taken all the measures in its power (Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 152). Since the events complained of in the present case took place before the latter date, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion (ibid.).<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the second part of the positive obligations, namely to ensure respect for the applicants\u2019 rights, the Court notes that the Moldovan authorities made efforts to secure the applicants\u2019rights. In particular, a criminal investigation was initiated in respect of the applicants\u2019 detention by the \u201cMRT\u201dauthorities (see paragraph 16 above).<\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Republic of Moldova did not fail to fulfil its positive obligations in respect of the applicants and finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention by that State. For the same reasons, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova.<\/p>\n 43.In so far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, the Court has established that Russia exercised effective control over the \u201cMRT\u201d during the period in question (see paragraphs28-29 above). In the light of this conclusion, and in accordance with its case-law, it is not necessary to determine whether or not Russia exercised detailed control over the policies and actions of the subordinate local administration (see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 157). By virtue of its continued military, economic and political support for the \u201cMRT\u201d, without which the latter could not otherwise survive, Russia\u2019s responsibility under the Convention is engaged as regards the violation of the applicants\u2019 rights (ibid.).<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0In conclusion, and having found that the applicants\u2019 detention was unlawful under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 38above), the Court holds that there has been a violation of that provision by the Russian Federation.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the above, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicants\u2019 respective complaints under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 and 4 of the Convention in respect of the Russian Federation.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained that they had been held in inhuman conditions of detention and had not been given the requisite medical assistance. They also complained of being subjected to ill-treatment and torture at the hands of the \u201cMRT\u201d authorities. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article\u00a03<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. However, only Mr Mang\u00eer adduced medical evidence proving that he had been diagnosed with concussion after his release from detention. The other applicants failed to adduce any evidence, such as medical documents or witness statements, in support of their allegations. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complaint under Article 3, in respect of the four other applicants, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants further complained that they had not received adequate medical care while in detention. However, the Court notes that none of the applicants adduced any evidence that they had been in need of any urgent medical care during their detention. The Court therefore considers that this part of the complaint under Article 3of the Convention, in respect of all of the applicants, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the rest of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, namely the parts pertaining to the material conditions of detention of all five applicants and the ill-treatment of Mr Mang\u00eer, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention, and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. The Court therefore declares it admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained in the first place that their cells had been in the basement and had not afforded them any access to natural light. There had been no ventilation and the cells had been overcrowded. Moreover, the applicants had not had daily exercise or access to a shower.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Governments did not make any submissions on the merits of this complaint.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well\u2011being are adequately secured (see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 178;Khlaifia and Others v.\u00a0Italy[GC], no. 16483\/12, \u00a7 160 (c), ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Mur\u0161i\u0107v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7 99, ECHR 2016.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case the Court notes that the respondent Governments did not comment on the applicants\u2019 description of the conditions of their detention. However, the Court has already reviewed the material conditions in the \u201cMRT\u201d prisons in Mozer (cited above, \u00a7 181, with further references, notably to visits to the region by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) and found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of inhuman conditions of detention (ibid., \u00a7 182). The Court notes in particular that the Special Rapporteur\u2019s visit took place in July 2008 \u2013 that is to say after the time when the applicants were in detention.<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0On the basis of the material before it and in the absence of any material contradicting the applicants\u2019 submissions, the Court finds it established that the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Mang\u00eer further complained about ill-treatment during his detention.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Governments did not make any submissions on the merits of this complaint.<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention. In addition, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, 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 account of events given by the victim. In the absence of any such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government. This is justified by the fact that persons in the hands of the police or a comparable authority are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (seeBlokhin v. Russia [GC], no.\u00a047152\/06, \u00a7\u00a0140, ECHR 2016; Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380\/09, \u00a7\u00a083, ECHR 2015; and Khlaifia and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a0205).<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the medical evidence according to which the applicant suffered the consequences of a head concussion after his release from the \u201cMRT\u201d prison and of the lack of a plausible explanation as to how the injury was caused, the Court finds that the applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0For the same reasons as those given in respect of the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see paragraphs 40-41 above), the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0For the same reasons as those given in the same context (see paragraph 43above), the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLES3 AND 5<\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants furthermore complained that they had no effective remedies in respect of their respective complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. 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 A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the complaint under Article 13of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5of the Convention, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants submitted that they had had no means of asserting their rights in the face of the actions of the \u201cMRT\u201d authorities, and that the respondent Governments had not indicated any remedies which they should have exhausted.<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Governments did not make any submissions on the merits of this complaint.<\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Conventionguarantees the availability at national level of a remedy by which to complain of a breach of the Convention rights and freedoms. Therefore, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision, there must be a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief.The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant\u2019s complaint under the Convention, but the remedy must in any event be \u201ceffective\u201d in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the State (Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 207; Khlaifia and Others, cited above, \u00a7 268; and De Tommaso v. Italy[GC], no. 43395\/09, \u00a7\u00a0179, ECHR 2017 (extracts)). However, Article 13of the Convention requires that a remedy be available in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as \u201carguable\u201d in terms of the Convention (Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 207; and De Tommaso, citedabove, \u00a7 180).<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 3of the Convention, concerning the conditions of their detention and the ill\u2011treatment of Mr Mang\u00eer, were arguable. However, as regards the applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1of the Convention, the Court observes that Article 5 \u00a7 4is the lexspecialis in relation to Article 13, and recalls that, with respect to the Russian Federation,it did not consider it necessary to examine that complaint separately, given the circumstances of the case (see paragraph 45 above).<\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the Court will examine only whether a domestic remedy was available to the applicants in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the applicants complained against Moldova, the Court notes that the Moldovan Government did not point to the existence of any effective remedy under Moldovan domestic law.<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the applicants complain against Russia, the Court also notes that there is no indication in the file, and the Russian Government have not claimed, that any effective remedies were available to the applicants in the \u201cMRT\u201d in respect of the above-mentioned complaints.<\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0The Court therefore concludes that the applicants did not have an effective remedy in respect of theirrespective complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court must decide whether any violation of Article 13 can be attributed to either of the respondent States.<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the responsibility of Moldova is concerned, the Court recalls that it found that the \u201cremedies\u201d which this State must offer to applicants consistedof enabling them to inform the Moldovan authorities of the details of their situation and to be kept informed of the various legal and diplomatic actions taken by these authorities(Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 214). In Mozer,it concluded among other things that Moldova had made procedures available to the applicant commensurate with its limited ability to protect the applicant\u2019s rights and that it had thus fulfilled its positive obligations (ibid., \u00a7 216). In the present case, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, it finds that there has been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention by Moldova.<\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0In so far as the responsibility of the Russian Federation is concerned, for the same reasons as those given in respect of the complaint under Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 43above) and in the absence of any submission by the Russian Government as to any remedies available to the applicants, the Court concludes that there has been a violation by the Russian Federation of Article 13of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3of the Convention(see Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 218).<\/p>\n V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0Article 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 A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0Mr Mang\u00eer and Mr Condrea claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and the rest of the applicants claimed EUR 15,000 each.<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0The Governments asked the Court to dismiss the applicants\u2019 claims for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that it has not found any violation of the Convention by Moldova in the present case. Accordingly, no award of compensation is to be made with regard to this respondent State.<\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the violations by the Russian Federation found above, the Court considers that an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage is justified in this case. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards EUR\u00a025,000 to Mr Mang\u00eer and EUR 20,000 to Mr\u00a0Condrea and EUR 15,000 to each of the remaining applicants.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants also claimed EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n 79.\u00a0\u00a0The respondent Governments asked the Court to dismiss the applicants\u2019 claims.<\/p>\n 80.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that it has found that Moldova, having fulfilled its positive obligations, was not responsible for any violation of the Convention in the present case. Accordingly, no award of compensation for costs and expenses is to be made with regard to this respondent State.<\/p>\n 81.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Mozer, cited above, \u00a7 240). Having regard to all the relevant factors and to Rule 60 \u00a7 2 of the Rules of Court, the Court awards the entire amount claimed for costs and expenses, to be paid by the Russian Federation.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 82.\u00a0\u00a0The 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<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares,unanimously, the complaints concerning Article 3of the Convention, in so far as they concern the ill-treatment of Mr Mang\u00eer and the poor conditions of detention of all the applicants, as well as their complaints under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 and 4of the Conventionand under Article 13of the Conventionadmissible in respect of the Republic of Moldova;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares,by a majority,the complaints concerning Article 3 of the Conventionin so far as they concern the ill-treatment of Mr Mang\u00eer and the poor conditions of detention of all the applicants, as well as their complaints under Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7 1, 3 and 4 of the Conventionand under Article 13 of the Conventionadmissible in respect of the Russian Federation;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Declares,unanimously, the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds,unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova in so far as it concerns the ill\u2011treatment of Mr Mang\u00eer;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, by sixvotes to one,that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation in so far as it concerns the ill\u2011treatment of Mr Mang\u00eer;<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova in so far as it pertains to the poor conditions of detention of the applicants;<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation in so far as it pertains to the poor conditions of detention of the applicants;<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention by the Russian Federation;<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, six votes to one, that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention in respect of the Russian Federation;<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, unanimously, that there has been no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention by the Republic of Moldova;<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, by six votes to one, that there has been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation;<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Holds, by six votes to one,<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Mang\u00eer;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Condrea;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Vasiliev;<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary, damage to Mr Datco;<\/p>\n (v)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Pohila;<\/p>\n (vi)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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 15.\u00a0\u00a0Dismisses, unanimously,the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claims for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 July 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Stanley Naismith\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Robert Spano _________________<\/p>\n In accordance with Article\u00a045 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention and Rule\u00a074 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Rules of Court, the separate opinion of Judge Dedov is annexed to this judgment.<\/p>\n R.S. DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DEDOV<\/p>\n My vote in the present case was based on my previous dissenting opinion in the case of Mozerv. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no.\u00a011138\/10, ECHR 2016) on the issue of the Russian Federation\u2019s effective control over Transdniestria.<\/p>\n _________________<\/p>\n [1] For further details, see Ila\u015fcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787\/99, ECHR 2004\u2011VII).<\/p>\n
\nPaul Lemmens,
\nI\u015f\u0131l Karaka\u015f,
\nNeboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107,
\nValeriu Gri\u0163co,
\nDmitry Dedov,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro, judges,
\nand Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nS.H.N.<\/p>\n