Communicated on 16 November 2020
Published on 7 December 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 39383/08
Azamat Salykhovich AKHKUBEKOV against Russia
and 20 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The list of applicants is set out in Appendix No. 1. Mr Kashirgov (no. 55234/08), Mr Khubolov (no. 2619/09) and Mr Boziyev (no. 6658/09) are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre, an NGO based in Moscow.
All other applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.Background of the caseThe events of 13-14 October 2005
On 13 October 2005 a group of about 250 armed persons launched attacks on several government institutions in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, including the Federal Security Service (the FSB), special police forces (OMON), Department for Combatting Organised Crimes (UBOP), Centre for Combatting Terrorism (Centre “T”), police stations and also the Nalchik airport. The Russian authorities deployed regular troops and special forces to regain control of the city (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Pshibiyev and Berov v. Russia, no. 63748/13, 9 June 2020).
In the ensuing hostilities between the State forces and the armed men, which lasted until the next day, according to various sources, about 35 law‑enforcement officers, 95 armed men and 15 civilians were killed, about 130 law-enforcement officers and 92 civilians were injured.Criminal investigation into the attack
On 13 October 2005 the authorities opened criminal case no. 25-78-05 into the organisation of a terrorist attack, premeditated murder, use of weapons and explosives and other crimes under the Criminal Code of Russia. The investigation was entrusted to a special investigating group of the Prosecutor’s General Office of the Russian Federation.
By 9 December 2005 the law-enforcement authorities had arrested about fifty-nine persons on suspicion of participation in the Nalchik attack.The applicants’ arrests and alleged ill-treatment and investigationThe applicants’ arrests and alleged ill-treatment
On different dates and locations (see Appendix No. 2) the applicants were arrested and taken to UBOP or Centre “T”, where State officers allegedly beat them with truncheons, gun butts, subjected to electric shocks, forcing them to confess to their participation in the attack and testify against other applicants and other persons suspected in the attack.
Shortly after the arrests, on different dates the applicants underwent forensic medical examinations. Forensic medical experts recorded injuries of different type and severity on all applicants, except for Mr Berov (no. 66215/10), Mr Kelemetov (no. 17322/13) and Mr Khakulov (no. 46445/16) (see Appendix No. 2).Inquiries into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment
On different dates between 2005 and 2007 the applicants complained about ill-treatment to the Prosecutor’s office. According to those applicants who complained in 2007, they were afraid to complain earlier because of the threats of further ill-treatment.
On different dates the Investigation Department in Nalchik issued decisions not to open criminal proceedings into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment. The investigators found the applicants’ allegations unfounded, referring, among other things, to the explanations of police officers. The applicants’ attempts to challenge the investigators’ decisions before domestic courts were unsuccessful (see Appendix No. 2).The applicants’ criminal proceedings
(a) First instance court proceedings
On 23 December 2014 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic convicted fifty-seven persons for thirteen separate episodes of attacks on law-enforcements units. The applicants were found guilty in participation in eight attacks (see below). The court sentenced them to different prison terms varying between nine and twenty-three years. Mr Mashukov (no. 38376/16), Mr Bapinayev (no. 43794/16), Mr Aslan Kuchmenov (no. 45053/16), Mr Mironov (no. 48040/16) and Mr Kudayev (no. 48034/16) were sentenced to life imprisonment.
The conviction judgment of 23 December 2014 was based on the applicants’ confession statements and incriminating statements made by their co-defendants, victims’ and witnesses’ statements, victims’ forensic medical examinations, ballistic expert reports, records on crime scenes, confrontation reports, identification parades records and so forth.
The applicants were convicted of the participation in the following episodes and on the following basis.
(i) Attack on UBOP
Mr Shavayev (no. 879/13) was convicted on the basis of, among other things, his confession statements, as well as incriminating statements of co‑defendants Kh., Er. and Ul., who were allegedly ill-treated by the police. The conviction judgment contains information about co-defendants’ injuries, recorded in their forensic medical examinations reports, and about the refusals to open a criminal case into their alleged ill-treatment.
(ii) Attack on Centre “T”
Mr Mashukov (no. 38376/16), Mr Sokmyshev (no. 44927/16) and Mr Khamukov (no. 47874/16) were convicted on the basis of, among other things, their confession statements and statements incriminating each other.
(iii) Attack on weapon store “Okhotnik Plus”
Mr Kashirgov (no. 55234/08), Mr Ruslan Kuchmenov (no. 17325/13), Mr Aslan Kuchmenov (no. 45053/16) and Mr Bapinayev (no. 43794/16) were convicted on the basis of, among other things, their confession statements and statements incriminating each other. The applicants were also incriminated by co-defendants So. and Na. who were allegedly ill‑treated by the police. The conviction judgment contains information about co-defendants’ injuries, recorded in their forensic medical examinations reports, and about the refusals to open a criminal case into their alleged ill-treatment.
(iv) Attack on Department of the Interior no. 3 (“OVD no. 3”)
Mr Malyshev (no. 547/09) was convicted on the basis of, among other things, incriminating statements of Mr Aslan Kuchmenov (no. 45053/16) and Mr Kudayev (no. 48034/16).
(v) Attack on OMON
Mr Berov (no. 66215/10), Mr Pshibiyev (no. 48038/16), Mr Khakulov (no. 46445/16) and Mr Kelemetov (no. 17322/13) were convicted on the basis of, among other things, their confession statements and statements incriminating each other. The applicants were also incriminated by their co‑defendant Urusov (no. 47544/10, see communication of 29 August 2013) and by co-defendant Sh. who was allegedly ill-treated by the police. The conviction judgment contains information about Sh.’ injuries, recorded in his forensic medical examinations report, and about the refusal to open a criminal case into his alleged ill-treatment.
(vi) Attack on FSB Border Guard Service office no. 43
Mr Khupsirgenov (no. 45222/16) refused to testify. He was convicted on the basis of, among other things, incriminating statements of co-defendants Ye., Se., At., who were allegedly ill-treated by the police. The conviction judgment contains information about co-defendants’ injuries, recorded in their forensic medical examinations reports, and about the refusals to open a criminal case into their alleged ill-treatment.
(vii) Attack on Patrol Service Regiment
Mr Mironov (no. 48040/16) was convicted on the basis of, among other things, his confession statements.
(viii) Attack on checkpoint “Khasanya”
Mr Akhkubekov (no. 39383/08), Mr Khulamkhanov (no. 35080/11) and Mr Kudayev (no. 48034/16) were convicted on the basis of, among other things, their confession statements and statements incriminating each other. They were also incriminated by co-defendants No., So., Akh., K.A. and K.Sh. who were allegedly ill-treated by the police. The conviction judgment contains information about co-defendants’ injuries, recorded in their forensic medical examinations reports, and about the refusals to open a criminal case into their alleged ill-treatment.
(b) Appeal proceedings
On 28 January 2016 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction. In dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the use of confession and incriminating statements made allegedly under duress, the court referred to refusals to open a criminal case into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment and held that no evidence had been found in support of their allegation of ill‑treatment.
It further found that the right not to incriminate oneself had been explained to the applicants and that the applicants had been represented by lawyers at all investigative steps.Other materials submitted by the applicants
On 26 October 2005 online news portal “Rupor” published an article “Deputy, United Russia member, talked about “sweeping” operation in Nalchik: people are tortured in basements until they confess”. As follows from the article, a local deputy, Mr R.T., was arrested on 23 October 2005 and taken to UBOP, where in its basements he saw people who had been arrested on suspicion of having participated in the attack on 13 October 2005. According to R.T., the detainees were “stoned to death or beaten until they confess or incriminate other people”.
On 1 November 2005 online news portal “Caucasian Centre/News” published an article “Suspected in the attack on Nalchik confirm information about torture practice in UBOP”. One of the suspected persons, who wished to remain anonymous, told that when he had been taken to UBOP, there were between 50 and 100 other suspects held in the building. He was beaten by gun butts and truncheons with a view to extracting a confession in the attack. He heard groans and screams of other detainees.
On 21 November 2005 newspaper Novaya Gazeta published an article of journalist Ms A.P. with heading “Nalchik a month later. How the investigation is going”, pointing out that “torture was the main method of investigation”. The article described lawyers’ attempts to meet their clients, suspects in the attack, who had confessed in crimes due to ill-treatment and reiterated their statements out of fear for further ill-treatment.
On 9 December 2005 web portal “Caucasian Knot” published an article about the prosecutor’s office press-conference which had been triggered by publication of photos of the suspects with numerous visible injuries. The photos had been sent to journalists and foreign media. During the press‑conference, Prosecutor of KBR, Mr Yu.K., stated that “the facts of alleged ill-treatment had not been confirmed” and that “there had been no breaches of the suspects’ rights”.
The applicants referred to many other articles published by various newspapers and human rights organisations about alleged ill-treatment of suspects in the attack by UBOP officers with the aim to force them to confess about their participation in the attack in Nalchik.Other relevant information
Application no. 20559/19 was lodged by six applicants, Mr Bapinayev, Mr Mironov, Mr Aslan Kuchmenov, and their mothers, Ms Shavayeva, Ms Akhmetova and Ms Kuchmenova.
Ms Shavayeva, Ms Akhmetova and Ms Kuchmenova live in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic.
Following the appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Russia of 28 January 2016, Mr Aslan Kuchmenov and Mr Mironov were transferred to serve their sentences in correctional colony no. 6 in Elban in the Khabarovsk Region, which is located about 9,500 kilometres from the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic. Mr Bapinayev was transferred to serve his sentence in correctional colony no. 6 in Sol-Iletsk in the Orenburg Region, which is located about 2,000 kilometres from the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic.
On 26 February 2019 the applicants’ requests to the Russian Federal Penal Correction Service to transfer applicants Mr Bapinayev, Mr Mironov and Mr Aslan Kuchmenov closer to their home region were dismissed for the lack of legal grounds for transfer.Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 48‑52, 14 November 2013, and Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014.
For relevant domestic law and practice concerning the rights of suspects, see Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, §§ 46-49, 6 October 2015.
For relevant domestic law governing the geographic distribution of prisoners, see Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, §§ 45-57, 7 March 2017.
COMPLAINTS
Under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention applicants:
Mr Akhkubekov (no. 39383/08),
Mr Kashirgov (no. 55234/08),
Mr Malyshev (no. 547/09),
Mr Khubolov (no. 2619/09),
Mr Boziyev (no. 6658/09),
Mr Berov (no. 66215/10),
Mr Khulamkhanov (no. 35080/11),
Mr Shavayev (no. 879/13),
Mr Kelemetov (no. 17322/13),
Mr Ruslan Kuchmenov (no. 17325/13),
Mr Bapinayev (no. 43794/16),
Mr Sokmyshev (no. 44927/16),
Mr Aslan Kuchmenov (no. 45053/16),
Mr Khupsirgenov (no. 45222/16),
Mr Khakulov (no. 46445/16) complain that they had been ill-treated by State agents during the criminal proceedings against them and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect, and that they did not have effective remedy in respect of their grievances.
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complain that their trial proceedings were unfair, in particular, that their conviction judgment was based on their confession statements and statements of other applicants and their co-defendants, which had been obtained under duress.
Under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention Ms Kuchmenova, Ms Akhmetova, Ms Shavayeva, Mr Aslan Kuchmenov, Mr Bapinayev and Mr Mironov (no. 20559/19) complain that the respective transfers of Mr Aslan Kuchmenov, Mr Murat Bapinayev and Mr Eduard Mironov to remote penitentiary facilities amount to breach of family ties between the detainees and their family members.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
I. Article 3 of the Convention
A. Questions on admissibility
1. Applications nos.:
45222/16 Khupsirgenov v. Russia
46445/16 Khakulov v. Russia
Did the applicants exhaust domestic remedies in respect of their complaints about alleged police ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003)? In answering the question, the parties are invited to address the following points:What was the final decision in respect of the complaints?Did the applicants lodge their complaints within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Applications nos.:
66215/10 Berov v. Russia
43794/16 Bapinayev v. Russia
44927/16 Sokmyshev v. Russia
45053/16 Aslan Kuchmenov v. Russia
Did the applicants comply with the six-month time-limit for raising their complaints under the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention?
B. Questions on merits
1. Applications nos.:
66215/10 Berov v. Russia
46445/16 Khakulov v. Russia
Having regard to the findings of the forensic experts in their reports nos. 1530-A and 1531-A of 27 October 2005, have the applicants made out a prima facie case that they had been ill-treated by the State officers following their respective arrests on 24 October 2005 and 26 October 2005?
2. Applications nos.:
39383/08 Akhkubekov v. Russia
55234/08 Kashirgov v. Russia
547/09 Malyshev v. Russia
2619/09 Khubolov v. Russia
6658/09 Boziyev v. Russia
66215/10 Berov v. Russia
35080/11 Khulamkhanov v. Russia
879/13 Shavayev v. Russia
17322/13 Kelemetov v. Russia
17325/13 Ruslan Kuchmenov v. Russia
43794/16 Bapinayev v. Russia
44927/16 Sokmyshev v. Russia
45053/16 Aslan Kuchmenov v. Russia
45222/16 Khupsirgenov v. Russia
46445/16 Khakulov v. Russia
a) Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015, and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, 11 October 2016)?
b) Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants’ injuries were caused (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?
c) Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. The following applicants are requested to provide a copy of their passports or any other national identity document:
Mr Albiyan Malyshev (no. 547/09),
Mr Khusei Khubolov (no. 2619/09),
Mr Arsen Boziyev (no. 6658/09),
Mr Aslan Berov (no. 66215/10),
Mr Rasul Khulamkhanov (no. 35080/11),
Mr Azret Shavayev (no. 879/13),
Mr Ruslan Kuchmenov (no. 17325/13),
Mr Zaur Sokmyshev (no. 44927/16).
5. The wife of deceased Mr Murat Kashirgov (no. 55234/08), Ms Rusana Kashirgova, who maintained the application, is requested to provide a copy of her passport (or any other national identity document) and a copy of the marriage certificate with Mr Murat Kashirgov.
6. The wife of deceased Mr Amur Khakulov (no. 46445/16), Ms Fatima Sonova, who maintained the application, is requested to provide a copy of her passport (or any other national identity document).
II. Article 6 of the Convention
1. Applications nos.:
39383/08 Akhkubekov v. Russia
66215/10 Berov v. Russia
35080/11 Khulamkhanov v. Russia
879/13 Shavayev v. Russia
17322/13 Kelemetov v. Russia
17325/13 Ruslan Kuchmenov v. Russia
43794/16 Bapinayev v. Russia
44927/16 Sokmyshev v. Russia
45053/16 Aslan Kuchmenov v. Russia
45222/16 Khupsirgenov v. Russia
46445/16 Khakulov v. Russia
47874/16 Khamukov v. Russia
48034/16 Kudayev v. Russia
48038/16 Pshibiyev v. Russia
48040/16 Mironov v. Russia
38376/16 Mashukov v. Russia
In the determination of criminal charges against the applicants, did they have a fair trial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that in the conviction judgment of 23 December 2014 of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic, upheld on appeal on 28 January 2016 by the Supreme Court of Russia, the courts relied on:
a) the applicants’ confession statements given during the investigation and allegedly obtained under duress,
b) the applicants’ incriminating statements against other applicants given during the investigation and allegedly obtained under duress, and
c) the co-defendants’ incriminating statements against the applicants given during the investigation and allegedly obtained under duress (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, § 202, 26 July 2011; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015; Urazbayev v. Russia, no. 13128/06, §§ 60-62, 8 October 2019; and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, § 79, 26 November 2019)?
2. The parties are requested to prepare a table with the details on the applicants’ and their co-defendants’ respective confession and incriminating statements that were used as evidence in convicting the applicants in each episode of the attack. The table should reflect:
a) dates of statements,
b) names of the applicants who gave confession statements,
c) names of their co-defendants who gave incriminating statements against the applicants and, respectively,
d) names of the applicants against whom the statements were used.
III. Article 8 of the Convention
Application no. 20559/19, Kuchmenova and Others v. Russia
1. Was there a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the transfer of applicants Mr Bapinayev, Mr Aslan Kuchmenov and Mr Mironov from their home towns to remote detention facilities, and the effect it had on the applicants’ contacts with members of their families?
2. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints about detention in remote facilities?
APPENDIX No. 1
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
1
39383/08
Akhkubekov v. Russia
13/02/2009
Azamat Salykhovich AKHKUBEKOV
1973
Bestyakh
2
55234/08
Kashirgov v. Russia
07/11/2008
Murat Sarabiyevich KASHIRGOV
1978
Nalchik
3
547/09
Malyshev v. Russia
30/09/2008
Albiyan Anatolyevich MALYSHEV
1978
Nalchik
4
2619/09
Khubolov v. Russia
05/12/2008
Khusei Magomedovich KHUBOLOV
1981
Nalchik
5
6658/09
Boziyev v. Russia
23/01/2009
Arsen Leonidovich BOZIYEV
1978
Nalchik
6
66215/10
Berov v. Russia
15/10/2010
Aslan Borisovich BEROV
1981
Yekaterinburg
7
35080/11
Khulamkhanov v. Russia
12/05/2011
Rasul Yusupovich KHULAMKHANOV
1982
Nalchik
8
879/13
Shavayev v. Russia
24/12/2012
Azret Ismailovich SHAVAYEV
1976
Nalchik
9
17322/13
Kelemetov v. Russia
14/02/2013
Artur Zaurbiyevich KELEMETOV
1978
ncu
10
17325/13
Kuchmenov v. Russia
14/02/2013
Ruslan Bashirovich KUCHMENOV
1978
Kopeysk
11
38376/16
Mashukov v. Russia
13/04/2016
Anzor Vladimirovich MASHUKOV
1973
Kharp
12
43794/16
Bapinayev v. Russia
13/07/2016
Murat Khanaliyevich BAPINAYEV
1981
Shalushka
13
44927/16
Sokmyshev v. Russia
25/07/2016
Zaur Amurbiyevich SOKMYSHEV
1984
Omsk
14
45053/16
Kuchmenov v. Russia
27/07/2016
Aslan Bashirovich KUCHMENOV
1980
Elban
15
45222/16
Khupsirgenov v. Russia
25/07/2016
Khasanbi Kadirovich KHUPSIRGENOV
1984
Moscow
16
46445/16
Khakulov v. Russia
28/07/2016
Amur Abubovich KHAKULOV
1972
Kirovo-Chepetsk
17
47874/16
Khamukov v. Russia
25/07/2016
Daniil Ruslanovich KHAMUKOV
1979
Markovo
18
48034/16
Kudayev v. Russia
28/07/2016
Rasul Vladimirovich KUDAYEV
1978
Sol -Iletsk
19
48038/16
Pshibiyev v. Russia
28/07/2016
Batyr Khazrataliyevich PSHIBIYEV
1978
Kyzyl
20
48040/16
Mironov v. Russia
28/07/2016
Eduard Vilovich MIRONOV
1974
Elban
21
20559/19
Kuchmenova and Others v. Russia
10/04/2019
Raya Abdullayevna KUCHMENOVA
1953
Yanikoy
Eduard Vilovich MIRONOV
1974
Elban
Maryam Khasanovna AKHMETOVA[1]
1953
Nalchik
Murat Khanaliyevich BAPINAYEV
1981
Shalushka
Aslan Bashirovich KUCHMENOV
1980
Elban
Fazika Dzhebrilovna SHAVAYEVA
1954
Shalushka
APPENDIX No. 2 (facts concerning complaints under Article 3 of the Convention)
No.
Case name
Application no.
Details about arrest
Location after the arrest
Medical evidence: document type / number / date
Description of injuries
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
Judicial review under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
1
Akhkubekov v. Russia
39383/08
Reported himself to UBOP on 09/12/2005
Forensic medical examination act no. 1783-A of 10/12/2005
(hematoma on his chest, abrasion on his lip, contusion of the soft tissues and abrasions on his legs inflicted by hard blunt objects within 1-3 days before the examination)
No date of first complaint
First refusal of 09/04/2006
Latest refusal of 25/10/2008
(unfounded allegations of ill-treatment aimed at evading criminal responsibility)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 15/04/2009
(upheld the findings of the refusal)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 19/06/2009
(appeal dismissed)
2
Kashirgov v. Russia[2]
55234/08
Arrested on 17/11/2005 at 6 a.m. at his house, taken to Centre “T”
Forensic medical examination act no. 1658-A of 18/11/2005
(hematomas on his back, in the lumbar area and head inflicted by hard blunt objects within 1-3 days before the examination)
First complaint of 10/11/2007
First refusal of 03/01/2008
Latest refusal of 09/05/2008
(unfounded allegations of ill-treatment aimed at evading criminal responsibility)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 22/05/2008
to discontinue the proceedings
(latest refusal quashed)
3
Malyshev v. Russia
547/09
Reported himself to UBOP on 18/10/2005 at 9 a.m.
Forensic medical examination act no. 1436-A of 18/10/2005
(hematomas on his face, back, in the lumbar area, abrasions on his legs, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
Remand prison medical notes of 21/10/2005
(12 hematomas on his back; three scratches on his left cheekbone and a bruise under his left eye)
No date of first complaint
Refusal of 03/01/2006
(reference to the applicant’s explanations that the officers had not treated him)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 24/01/2008
(refusal quashed as unfounded, no explanations of the applicant’s injuries)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 04/03/2008
(court decision quashed)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 31/03/2008
(the applicant’s complaint dismissed)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 10/06/2008
(appeal dismissed)
4
Khubolov v. Russia
2619/09
Arrested on 22/11/2005 around 6 a.m. at his house, taken to UBOP
Forensic medical examination act no. 1688-A of 23/11/2005
(hematomas on his limbs, chest, face, inflicted by hard blunt objects within one day before the examination)
First complaint of 18/06/2007
First refusal of 06/12/2007
Latest refusal of 06/06/2008
(the applicant did not complain about ill‑treatment)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 26/05/2008
(the applicant’s complaint dismissed)
5
Boziyev v. Russia
6658/09
Arrested on 13/10/2005 around 10 a.m. at the hospital, taken to Centre “T”
Forensic medical examination act no. 1412-A of 16/10/2005
(gunshot wound on his right knee-joint, haemorrhage in his right eye, abrasion on his face, hematomas on his face, neck, legs, back, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
No date of complaint
Latest refusal of 09/02/2008
(unfounded allegations of ill-treatment aimed at evading criminal responsibility)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 16/05/2008
(complaint not examined)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 25/07/2008
(appeal dismissed)
6
Berov v. Russia
66215/10
Arrested on 24/10/2005, taken to UBOP in Nalchik
Photos of the applicant with alleged injuries
Forensic medical examination act no. 1530-A of 27/10/2005
(no injuries)
First complaint lodged in May 2008
First refusal of 09/05/2008
Latest refusal of 22/07/2009
(lack of elements of crime)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 26/08/2009
to discontinue the proceedings
(latest refusal quashed)
7
Khulamkhanov v. Russia
35080/11
Arrested on 23/10/2005 around 7.30 a.m. at his house, taken to UBOP
Forensic medical examination act no. 1471-A of 24/10/2005
(bruises on his neck, back, arms and left leg, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
No date of complaint
Refusal of 06/09/2006
(no evidence of the alleged police ill‑treatment)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 27/02/2008
(refusal quashed as unfounded)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 29/04/2008
(court decision quashed)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 27/05/2008
(applicant’s complaint dismissed)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 02/04/2010
(court decision quashed, no explanation of the applicant’s injuries, no assessment of medical evidence and his allegations)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 10/09/2010
(refusal quashed as unfounded)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 12/11/2010
(court decision quashed, proceedings discontinued)
8
Shavayev v. Russia
879/13
Reported himself on 20/10/2005 to Centre “T”, taken to UBOP in Nalchik
Forensic medical examination act no. 1457-A of 21/10/2010
(bruises on his back, limbs, contusion of soft tissues, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
First complaint
of 01/12/2005
First refusal of 04/12/2005
Refusal of 29/04/2010
Latest refusal of 17/07/2010
(unfounded allegations of ill-treatment aimed at evading criminal responsibility; self-inflicted injuries after an escape attempt)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 19/09/2012
(the refusals of 29/04/2010 declared unlawful, no assessment of medical evidence)
9
Kelemetov v. Russia
17322/13
Arrested on 26/10/2005, taken to UBOP
Photo of the applicant with alleged injuries
IVS record of 26/10/2005
(bruises on the body)
Remand prison medical act of 28/10/2005
(bruises near both eyes)
Forensic medical examination act no. 1528-A of 27/10/2005
(no injuries)
No date of complaint
First refusal of 29/03/2006
Latest refusal of 05/08/2012
(lack of elements of crime)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 12/10/2012 to discontinue the proceedings
(latest refusal quashed)
10
Kuchmenov v. Russia
17325/13
Arrested on 10/11/2005 in Krasnokamensk, taken to Center “T” in Nalchik
Photos of the applicant with alleged injuries
Forensic medical examination act
no. 1652-A of 18/11/2005
(bruises on his face, shoulder-blade area, abrasions on his left subscapular and underarm areas, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
First complaint of 17/11/2005
First refusal of 27/01/2006
(no copy)
Latest refusal of 25/05/2012
(no copy)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 19/10/2012
to discontinue the proceedings
(latest refusal quashed)
11
Mashukov v. Russia
38376/16
For details, see Statement of Facts in the case of Mashukov v. Russia, no. 24515/10, communicated on18 March 2011.
12
Bapinayev v. Russia
43794/16
Arrested on 17/11/2005 at his house, taken to Centre “T” in Nalchik
Photos of the applicant with alleged injuries
Forensic medical examination act
no. 1654-A of 18/11/2005
(hematomas on his head, chest and right shank, inflicted by hard blunt objects within 1-3 days before the examination)
No date of complaint
Refusal of 30/12/2005
(the applicant explained that police officers had not used physical force against him)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 15/02/2008
(refusal quashed as unfounded)
KBR Supreme Court, decision of 06/05/2008
(court decision quashed)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 26/05/2008 (applicant’s complaint dismissed)
13
Sokmyshev v. Russia
44927/16
Arrested on 20/11/2005 in Moscow, taken to UBOP in Nalchik
Forensic medical examination act
no. 1687-A of 23/11/2005
(compound wound on his head, hematomas on his face, both arms and legs, chest, abrasions on his right arm and left leg, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
No date of complaint
On 17/08/2009
KBR Supreme Court ordered an inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
Latest refusal of 28/01/2015
(no copy)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 07/09/2015
to discontinue the proceedings
(latest refusal quashed)
14
Kuchmenov v. Russia
45053/16
Arrested on 10/11/2005 in Krasnokamensk, taken to Centre “T” in Nalchik
Forensic medical examination act
no. 1655-A 18/11/2005
(hematoma on his face, abrasion on the right arm, inflicted by hard blunt objects within 1-3 days before the examination)
No date of complaint
Latest refusal of 05/06/2011
(no copy)
Nalchik Town Court, decision of 23/07/2013 to discontinue the proceedings
(latest refusal quashed)
15
Khupsirgenov v. Russia
45222/16
Arrested on 29/11/2005 by police officers in UBOP
Forensic medical examination act
no. 1744-A of 03/12/2005
(hematomas on both legs and iliac bone area on the left, abrasions on the neck, contusions of the soft tissues of his head and left shank, inflicted by hard blunt objects)
No date of complaint
Latest refusal of 22/11/2009
(lack of elements of crime)
No information
16
Khakulov v. Russia[3]
46445/16
Arrested on 26/10/2005 by police officers, taken to UBOP
Forensic medical examination act
no. 1531-A of 27/10/2005
(no injuries)
No date of complaint
Refusal of 29/03/2006
(no copy)
No information
17
Khamukov v. Russia
47874/16
For details, see Statement of Facts in the case of Khamukovy v. Russia, no. 26591/08, communicated on 31 August 2011.
18
Kudayev v. Russia
48034/16
For details, see Statement of Facts in the case of Kudayev and Others v. Russia, no. 4261/06, communicated on 3 November 2011.
19
Pshibiyev v. Russia
48038/16
For details, see Statement of Facts in the case of Pshibiyevy v. Russia, no. 4271/06, communicated on 3 November 2011.
20
Mironov v. Russia
48040/16
For details, see Statement of Facts in the case of Mironov and Others v. Russia, no. 30466/08, communicated on 3 November 2011.
[1] The applicant deceased on 23 July 2020. Applicant Eduard Mironov, her son, maintained the application.
[2] The applicant deceased on 19 June 2016. The applicant’s wife maintained the application.
[3] The applicant deceased on 7 October 2016. The applicant’s wife maintained the application.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy