BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> TINGAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - 41071/18 (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture : First Section Committee) [2023] ECHR 964 (30 November 2023) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/964.html Cite as: [2023] ECHR 964 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF TINGAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 41071/18 and 9 others -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 November 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tingayev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Russian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68-73, 17 January 2023).
7. The applicants complained principally of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.
8. The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 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 detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have 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' own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants' injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).
9. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities' refusal to open 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's failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention. This is all the more so in the cases where the authorities have refused to either carry out an official inquiry into the applicants' allegations or officially register the applicants' complaints (see the appended table).
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having also considered its case-law related to the standing of family members to bring complaints under Article 3 of the Convention in respect of their late relatives (see Dzidzava v. Russia, no. 16363/07, § 47, 20 December 2012, and Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, §§ 105-06, 11 February 2016, for application no. 56105/21), the Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and observes that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 41071/18 and 20350/21, where it finds only a violation of the procedural limb of that provision.
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well-established case-law of the Court (see the attached table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 148, 22 May 2012, Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017, Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015, Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, § 70, 26 November 2019, Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 13-14 and 54, 28 November 2017, Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 145-54, 4 October 2016, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos. 27057/06 and 2 others, § 100, 2 July 2019, Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §§ 74-76, 13 October 2020, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016.
12. In addition, the applicants also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine these complaints separately in the light of its findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016, and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).
13. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan, cited above, Ksenz and Others, cited above, § 120; and, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), the Court considers it appropriate to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
Application no. Date of introduction | Applicant's name Year of birth
| Representative's name and location | Factual information | Medical evidence of ill-treatment | Date of first complaint Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment | Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP Appeal decision | Information relating to conviction | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] | |
30/07/2018 | Aleksandr Vasilyevich TINGAYEV 1969 |
| On 05/05/2016 the applicant was attacked by a fellow inmate in correctional colony IK-34 in the Krasnoyarsk Region and had his jaw broken. He was immediately pressured by a penitentiary official to claim that it had been an accident and that he did not want that inmate to be prosecuted. The official allegedly threatened the applicant that if refused, he would be denied medical assistance, remain disfigured or would be contaminated with HIV and hepatitis during the surgery. The official continued to pressure the applicant after his transfer to prison hospital no. 1., where the applicant was allegedly not given medical treatment for several days until he signed a statement clearing the inmate who had attacked him. | An extract from the register of prison hospital no. 1: admitted on 05/05/2016 with a broken jaw and a concussion. Statements by two inmates in the hospital: the applicant was not given painkillers prescribed to him until he signed a statement clearing his attacker.
| On 28/06/2016 complaint to the Krasnoyarsk Regional investigative committee/ refusal to open a criminal case for lack of evidence: the investigators questioned the head of prison hospital no. 1, an official of that hospital, two inmates who had shared a hospital ward with the applicant and the doctor and the nurse who had treated him. The investigators assigned the task of questioning the applicant to the head of IK-34, the applicant refused to testify/ On 04/10/2017 the refusal was overruled by the investigator's superiors and a new inquiry was ordered /On 15/05/2018 the applicant inquired about the results of the renewed inquiry, no reply given. | On 05/10/2017 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court in Krasnoyarsk rejected the applicant's complaint as the refusal to open a criminal case had been overruled by the investigator's superiors/ Upheld on 27/02/2018 by the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court. | Convicted of manslaughter on 05/08/2009 by the Bogotolskiy District Court in the Krasnoyarsk Region/Sentenced to fourteen years and eight months' imprisonment. | Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - transit cell, van; between 18 and 19/02/2021; 0.4 sq. m per person; Specific grievances: lack of fresh air, lack of or insufficient natural light, lack or insufficient quantity of food, no or restricted access to potable water, no or restricted access to toilet, overcrowding, passive smoking. | 13,500 | |
14/03/2019 | Igor Viktorovich BAZHIN 1977 |
| On the night between 31/08 and 01/09/2017 police officers arrested the applicant and took him to the Abakan police department in the Republic of Khakassia, where they subjected him to beatings. He was then transferred to the Uyuarsk police station in the Krasnoyarsk Region, where on 01/09/2017 he confessed to a murder committed on 23/08/2017. | Undated certificate by the Temporary Detention Centre "Uyarskiy" in the Krasnoyarsk Region: hematomas on the back and the right leg; according to the applicant, they were sustained during a fall on the staircase on 31/08/2017. Note of 04/09/2017 in the register of detainees, same facility: during the examination on 04/09/2017 he had hematomas on the back and left thigh, bodily injuries sustained during the arrest on 31/08/2017, during a fall on the staircase. Medical expert report no. 379 of 05/09/2017 by the Krasnoyarsk Region Forensic Bureau: two parallel band-like bruises on the back of the chest, a bruise on the left thigh 20 by 13 cm; they were caused by blunt solid objects or upon impact with them, 1-3 days before the date of the examination; thus, they could not originate on 23-24/08/2017. Medical expert report no. 442 of 09/11/2017 by the same bureau: the same injuries, the back injury could not have originated from a fall on a staircase whereas the thigh injury could. Expert report no. 77 of 11/03/2019: the injuries could be sustained on 31/08/2017 in a fall down the stairs.
| Prior to the early November 2017 the applicant complained to the investigator in his criminal case, the complaint was transferred to the Khakassia Republic investigative committee/Between 15/12/2017 and 20/12/2019 nine refusals to open a criminal case; the last refusal on 20/12/2019, according to which the applicant's injuries could have been sustained around 02/09/2017 upon his transfer to the Krasnoyarsk Region. | On 03/03/2020 the Abakan Town Court rejected the applicant's appeal against the last refusal/Upheld on 22/04/2020 by the Supreme Court of the Khakassia Republic. | On 25/10/2018 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder/Upheld on 04/02/2019 by Supreme Court of Russia. The courts considered that the confession on 01/09/2017 and its verification at the crime scene on 04/09/2017, partly confirmed at the trial, were consistent and thus truthful, no duress issue as no criminal case had been opened into the matter. | Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings - the applicant was convicted with reference to his confession made on 01/09/2017. | 26,000 | |
14/04/2019 | Mikhail Igorevich AVDEYEV 1989 |
| On the night between 31/05/2013 and 01/06/2013 the applicant had a brawl with another person. He was arrested shortly thereafter (at 5 a.m.) and was taken to the Savelovskiy police station in Moscow. Allegedly, police officers kicked him on the neck and torso, and choked him with a plastic bag pulled over his head; he was stripped naked and electrocuted on the genitals; the officers filmed the ill-treatment on a mobile phone and threatened him with rape. The applicant confessed to the murder. | Certificate of 01/06/2013 (7 a.m.) by trauma unit of Polyclinic no. 142: incised wound on the right hand. Certificate of 02/06/2013 by Temporary Detention Centre no. 1 for the Northern Circuit of Moscow: injury of soft tissues of the left auricle, abrasions of the left shoulder, bruises of the right forearm and shoulder and on the back - received after arrest, in the police station. Certificate of 03/06/2013 by Detention Centre no. 77/4 in Medvedkovo, Moscow: same findings.
| On 17/06/2013 complaint to the Internal Security Service of the Moscow police/On 12/09/2013 internal inquiry report by the head of the Savelovskiy police station with the refusal to prosecute the officers/Complaints to various prosecutors' offices/Between 30/10/2015 and 23/10/2018 several refusals to open a criminal case, the last refusal on 23/10/2018. | On 05/10/2018 the Savelovskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the applicant's complaint as the refusal of 19/10/2017 had already been overruled. The applicant did not appeal against the last refusal of 23/10/2018. | On 20/06/2015 the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant of murder |
| 26,000 | |
10/04/2020 | Igor Borisovich NAGAVKIN 1980 | Vanslova Yekaterina Nizhniy Novgorod | On 14/12/2017 the applicant was taken from SIZO-2 in Moscow (without injuries, as confirmed by witnesses A.M. and A.V.) to the Moscow City Court for a hearing in a criminal case. During his search before the hearing the applicant, stripped of his clothes and handcuffed, was allegedly repeatedly punched and kicked by escort police officers G. and T. Four witnesses (detainees S., P., M. and B.) heard him shouting, and two of them saw the traces of beatings on him during or immediately after the hearing. During and after the hearing, the applicant's requests for an ambulance were ignored. A witness (detainee V.P.) held in the same room saw the injuries on the applicant's head and alerted a judge in his case who requested that the ambulance be called. | Ambulance records of 14/12/2017: abrasion on the hip and contusion to the face on the right side. Medical records of 14/12/2017 by SIZO-2 (after the alleged ill-treatment): redness on the right side of the forehead (3 cm by 3 cm) and right cheekbone (3 сm by 4 сm), right shoulder (4 cm by 1.5 cm) and the left side of the chest (7 cm by 3 cm); abrasions in the area of the left elbow, right forearm, wrists, left hip (8.5 cm by 6 cm), left knee (11.5 cm by 8 cm), right knee and feet. Forensic medical expert examination of the applicant's medical records on 31/07/2018 ordered by the investigator: the abrasions originated from the impact of hard blunt objects. Examination of the applicant's medical records by the "European Bureau of Forensic Experts" in Moscow of 28/01/2019: the applicant's bruises originated from four impacts by hard blunt objects and the abrasions originated from at least six impacts by hard blunt objects. The injuries could have been received at the time and in the circumstances indicated by the applicant. Explanations for the origin of the injuries in the police internal inquiry (the applicant himself hitting a table or being pressed against a wall for handcuffing) were not plausible, and explanations for the remaining injuries were missing.
| On 14/12/2017 the use of force against the applicant was reported by the escort officers and the head of the Moscow police department was informed of an undergoing internal inquiry. On 28/03/2018 a member of the Public Oversight Committee ceased by the applicant lodged a complaint on his behalf with the Preobrazhenskiy unit of the Moscow Investigative Committee/Between May 2018 and October 2019 several refusals to open criminal proceedings against the escort officers/The latest refusal - on 02/10/2019 as the use of force had been justified by the applicant's resistance to the body search. Recordings from video cameras in the courthouse had not been obtained due to the expiration of the time-limit for their storage. | Most recent decision of 25/10/2019 by the Preobrazhenskiy District Court in Moscow: the proceedings terminated as the refusal of 02/10/2019 had been overruled by the investigators' superiors. |
|
| 26,000 | |
28/04/2020 | Aleksey Vitalyevich SEMENOV 1967 | Fayzullina Diana Rashitovna Kazan | On 27/07/2019 the applicant participated in a demonstration in Moscow against the plans of the local authorities on garbage disposal. He was taking a photograph of the protest from a fence when a police officer hit him with a baton making him fall on the ground. | Medical examination act no. 29840 on 29/07/2019 by the Moscow medical clinic no. 22: hematoma on the ribs of 15x6 cm. | On 10/08/2019 a complaint to the Russian Investigative Committee / On 12/08/2019 a letter with refusal to register the complaint as no indication of criminal actions by the police officer had been detected - the use of force against the applicant was justified. | On 02/09/2019 the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow dismissed the appeal against the refusal to register the ill-treatment complaint for the lack of the subject-matter: the applicant's complaint had not been registered by the law-enforcement authorities and no decision refusing to open a criminal case had been taken / On 11/11/2019 the Moscow City Court upheld it on appeal. | The applicant was not charged. |
| 16,000 | |
05/09/2020 | Artur Akhmedpashayevich KADIYEV 1990 | Markin Konstantin Aleksandrovich Velikiy Novgorod | On 03/05/2018 the applicant was detained in Yaroslavl by three officers of the Federal Security Service (FSB) on suspicion of a terrorism-related crime. Then FSB officers searched the applicant's flat and found a self-made explosive device. In the morning on 04/05/2018 the applicant was taken to undisclosed FSB premises for interrogation. During the interrogation the officers banged his head against a wall, subjected him to waterboarding and electrocution to make him confess to the crime. On the same day the applicant signed a confession. | Findings by doctor L.S. who examined the applicant on 04/05/2018 at the FSB premises: abrasions on the left shin: 4 cm in diameter, and on the right wrist joint: 3 cm in diameter. Examination of 05/05/2018 by medical ward no. 5 of remand prison no. 1 (SIZO-1) in Yaroslavl: three hematomas on the inner surface of the right shoulder, two abrasions on the outer surface of the right wrist joint. These findings were reported to the police.
| On 25/05/2018 the Frunzenskiy district police department in Yaroslavl refused to open a criminal case into the applicant's ill-treatment/On 01/08/2018 the Frunzenskiy district prosecutor overruled that decision and ordered a new inquiry/On 24/12/2018 the applicant's complaint was forwarded to the investigative department of the Yaroslavl military garrison/On 22/01/2019 refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti, although there was medical evidence of injuries on the applicant at his arrival in SIZO-1. | On 11/11/2020 the applicant's appeal against the refusal of 22/01/2019 was rejected by the Yaroslavl Garrison Military Court and upheld on 09/02/2021 by the Second Western Circuit Military Court.
The applicant also raised the ill-treatment complaint during his trial at the Second Western Circuit Military Court, which examined it and rejected with reference to the refusal of 22/01/2019/On 09/07/2020 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant's conviction of a terrorism-related crime. | On 09/07/2020 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant's conviction and the sentence of 14 and a half years' imprisonment. | Art. 6 (1) in conjunction with Art. 6 (3) (c) and (d) - unfair criminal proceedings in view of a violation of the applicant's right to legal assistance, the use of his confession statements as the ground for his conviction and failure to examine decisive arguments raised by the applicant in his defence - the search in the applicant's flat was performed after the institution of the criminal proceedings but in the absence of a lawyer required by the domestic law for this type of crime. The first interviews of the applicant were carried out in the presence of a legal aid counsel whose assistance the applicant did not want to accept. The applicant was compelled to refuse the assistance of a lawyer retained by his parents. The applicant was undoubtedly affected by the restrictions on his access to a lawyer in that his statement of confession was used for his conviction (Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 58, ECHR 2008). The statements of confession obtained as a result of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 were used as evidence so as to establish the relevant facts in the criminal proceedings - it rendered the proceedings, as a whole, unfair (Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, § 70, 26 November 2019). The conviction was based to a large extent on a self-made explosive device found during the search. The applicant argued that it was "planted evidence"; the domestic courts failed to examine that allegation (Kobiashvili v. Georgia, no. 36416/06, § 73, 14 March 2019). The domestic courts further refused to examine the evidence presented by the defence, namely: expert examination reports of handwriting (confirming that the confessions were made under pressure) and of messages between the applicant and the chief of the alleged terrorist organisation (confirming passive role of the applicant in the organisation); testimony given by witness of defence. | 26,000 | |
17/03/2021 | Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN 1986 |
| The applicant, a life prisoner, was taken from his prison in the Orenburg Region to remand prison IZ-2 in Sosnogorsk, Komi Republic, within the framework of criminal proceedings against other individuals. On 16/11/2016 he was allegedly beaten up by the wardens of the remand prison and officers of the special unit of FSIN who punched him in the stomach, legs, head, twisted his arms and stretched his tendons. | Medical statement of 16/11/2016 by the medical unit of IZ-2 in Komi Republic: hematoma next to the right eyebrow. | On 16/11/2016 complaint to the Sosnogorsk investigative committee /No reply given, complaint reiterated on 10/02/2017/ Between 01/12/2016 and 31/01/2021 six refusals to open a criminal case, all overruled by the investigators' superiors; last (7th) refusal on 31/01/2021, after the additional inquiry ordered by the Sosnogorsk Town Court on 15/09/2020. | On 15/09/2020 the appeal against the refusal of 09/04/2020 was granted by the Sosnogorsk Town Court, the investigators were to carry out an additional inquiry into the applicant's allegations / Upheld by the Komi Supreme Court on 27/11/2020. | In 2009 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment |
| 12,500 | |
13/10/2021 | Anna Valeryevna KRECHETOVA 1970 | Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna Strasbourg | On 04/03/2016 the applicant's late husband M. was allegedly ill-treated by prison guards in IK-4 Kotlas, Arkhangelsk Region. Allegedly, M. was subjected to punching and kicking, and one of the officers jumped on his spine. He was then transferred to SIZO-2 in Kotlas. According to the applicant, M. could not walk. On 16/03/2016 he was fully examined and diagnosed with a spinal fracture. On 25/06/2016 he was admitted to a hospital. On 15/12/2018 a videorecording of the events of 04/03/2016 was posted on the Internet. On 28/05/2020 the applicant's husband M. died from the injuries.
| Forensic report no. 400 of 17/03/2016: consolidated compression fractures of the 1st and 2nd lumbar vertebrae. The injuries caused serious harm. They could not be caused by a blow to the lumbar region. The injuries occurred within 3 weeks prior to the examination. Expert explanations no. 19041/ФЭ of 09/08/2019: the findings of forensic report no. 400 are not reliable, as it was based on the X-ray, the report did not mention signs of fracture of the 5th and 7th ribs along the paravertebral line on the right, either.
| On 11/03/2016 complaint to the Arkhangelsk Regional investigative committee / Latest (6th) refusal of 20/07/2020 (the use of force and handcuffs had been caused by the applicant's disobedience). | On 14/02/2020 the applicant and her husband M. appealed against the fifth refusal to open a criminal case. On 29/12/2020 the Kotlas Town Court partially granted the appeal having found that the refusal was unlawful and the inquiry - ineffective. It, however refused to find as unlawful inaction of the investigators and to open the criminal proceedings. The court also refused to acknowledge that M.'s injuries were the result of the ill-treatment on 04/03/2016/ that decision was upheld by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 13/04/2021.
|
| Art. 10 (1) - disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators - in Moscow, on 06/09/2021 the applicant staged a solo picket in support of Crimean Tatars, she was charged under article 20.2 § 8 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced to administrative detention of 18 days, the final decision was taken on 13/09/2021 by the Moscow City Court,
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - On 06/09/2021 the applicant was taken to the police station as an administrative suspect for the purposes of compiling an offence record: no written record of the administrative escort (Art. 27.2 § 3 CAO) (see Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017) , Detention as an administrative suspect: the applicant remained in detention after the offence record had been compiled (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 35, 8 October 2019) , Detention as an administrative suspect: no evidence / assessment of "exceptional circumstances" under Art. 27.3 § 1 CAO (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-64, 13 February 2018; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018) ,
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision on 13/09/2021, by the Moscow City Court | 52,000 | |
04/09/2022 | Aleksandr Aleksandrovich PONOMARENKO 1983 | Ayrapetyan Narine Pavlovna Stavropol | At 8 a.m. on 04/06/2021 the applicant, who was detained in remand prison SIZO-1 in Stavropol, was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison staff, who pulled a plastic bag over his head and electrocuted him via wires attached to his hands to make him confess to a terrorism-related crime. | Medical examination act no. 3725 of 03/11/2021 the Stavropol Regional Forensic bureau: traces of healing burns, electrical marks on the right forearm and back of the left palm. | Prior to July 2021 complaint to the investigative department of the Stavropol Military Garrison/ Refusals to open a criminal case on 14/08/2021, 17/02/2022, and 06/04/2022 overruled by the investigators' superiors. Last refusal issued on 04/05/2022. | On 09/02/2022, 30/03/2022 and 29/04/2022 the Stavropol Military Garrison Court refused to examine the applicant's appeals against the refusals as the impugned decisions had been overruled. | The criminal case against the applicant appears to be still pending. |
| 52,000 | |
22/12/2022 | Olga Aleksandrovna SHVETSOVA 1978
Valeriy Muradovich MALAKHOV 1974
| Zadorozhnaya Mariya Aleksandrovna Nizhniy Novgorod | On 14/04/2018 both applicants were arrested on suspicion of murder and brought to the Gulkevich investigative department in the Krasnodar Region, where five police officers severely and repeatedly beat the applicants and poured hot water on the second applicant (Mr Malakhov). On 19/04/2018 the first applicant (Ms Shvetsova) was subjected to more beatings by the same officers. | Applicant 1: the applicant's injuries were not medically recorded in detention or afterwards. On 19/04/2018, at the police station, she lost consciousness and was treated by the first-aid ambulance, which refused to record any information on ill-treatment and the injuries sustained. The first applicant's injuries (bruises on the back and arms) are confirmed by written statements of her IVS inmate of 11/07/2019 (who had met the applicant in the remand prison on 20/04/2018) and of the applicant's niece of 17/07/2019 given to the applicant's representatives.
Applicant 2: Forensic medical examination no. 191/2018 of 24/04/2018 by the Krasnodar Forensic Bureau: thermal burn of the back of the head and neck caused by hot liquid, hematoma on the right hip caused by a blunt object. | On 07/05/2018 complaint to the Krasnodar Regional investigative committee / Between 17/05/2018 and 13/09/2021 several refusals to open a criminal case on 17/05/2018. Last refusal on 13/09/2021. | On 17/06/2022 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Krasnodar rejected the applicant's complaint against the last refusal to open a criminal case /On 23/08/2022 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld it on appeal. | On 25/12/2019 the first applicant, Ms Shvetsova, was convicted of murder. |
| 26,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
