Communicated on 23 October 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 9183/09
Vadim Kurbanovich BAROVOV
against Russia
lodged on 10 December 2008
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Vadim Kurbanovich Barovov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Irkutsk.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The financial crimes division of the Leninskiy district police department of Irkutsk carried out operational and search activities in order to establish who had allegedly handed over a false fifty-rouble banknote to a third person. On 22 April 1998 they took the applicant to the police station. P., a deputy head of the division, T., an operational officer reporting to P., and K., head of the criminal police of the Leninskiy district police department of Irkutsk, coerced the applicant into confessing to the crime by using violence. In particular, they punched and kicked him repeatedly and put handcuffs around his hands between his thumbs and forefingers thereby squeezing his hands and inflicting great pain. Following the applicant’s confession, he was arrested and charged with uttering a counterfeit banknote. The criminal proceedings against him were subsequently discontinued for lack of the elements of a crime in his actions (decision of 14 March 2001).
4. On 24 April 1998, in view of the serious injuries found on the applicant on his admission to a detention facility, criminal proceedings were brought into alleged ill-treatment by the police and he was granted victim status. An investigation was carried out by investigators at the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office of Irkutsk, the Kuybyshevskiy district prosecutor’s office of Irkutsk, the Irkutsk regional prosecutor’s office and the investigative committee at the Irkutsk regional prosecutor’s office. The criminal proceedings against the police officers P. and T. were discontinued and reopened many times, and remitted for additional investigation, until 18 March 2008, when the case was transferred to the Leninskiy District Court of Irkutsk for trial. Some evidence was also lost during the investigation.
5. On 13 November 2002 the applicant complained under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the failure of the Irkutsk regional prosecutor to ensure an effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment by the police. His application was dismissed on many occasions in decisions by the Kirovskiy District Court, which were then set aside by the Irkutsk Regional Court. On 27 March 2008 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the criminal case against the police officers had been transferred to court for trial. That decision was upheld by the Irkutsk Regional Court on 10 June 2008.
6. On 30 April 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Irkutsk convicted Officers P. and T. under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) and sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment and a three-year ban on occupying certain posts within the Ministry of the Internal Affairs. It further exempted them from the punishment by virtue of Article 78 of the Criminal Code as the ten-year limitation period from the time of the crime had already passed. The police officers were also convicted under Article 111 § 3 of the Criminal Code (deliberate infliction of grave harm to health) and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The court considered that there was no need for the police officers’ actual imprisonment in view of the long period of time that had passed since the crime had been committed and the fact that no criminal or administrative proceedings had been brought against the police officers in the meantime. It therefore held that the sentences were conditional, with a four-year probation period.
7. The parties appealed against the judgment. In particular, the prosecutor and the applicant argued that the punishment was not adequate for the grave and very grave crimes committed by the police officers, who had not pleaded guilty. On 21 September 2010 the Irkutsk Regional Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment.
8. On 21 March 2011 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the State authorities, claiming compensation of 2,500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers. In a judgment of 23 May 2011 the Irkutsk Regional Court found that the criminal proceedings related to the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody had lasted for more than twelve years and that the investigation had clearly been ineffective. It allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him RUB 350,000. The applicant disagreed with the amount and appealed. On 26 July 2011 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. A cassation appeal by the applicant against the judgment and the decision of 26 July 2011 was not examined for failure to comply with the relevant time‑limit for lodging such an appeal (Irkutsk Regional Court decision of 10 August 2012).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that no effective investigation was carried out into his ill-treatment in police custody, and that the prosecutor’s office and domestic courts did not protect his rights. The police officers’ punishment was not commensurate to the sufferings he had endured as a result of his ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, given the fact that the police officers were exempted from punishment under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code and given the conditional sentences with probation period under Article 111 § 3 of the Criminal Code, did such sentences show that the acts committed by the police officers could in no way be tolerated by the State (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 141, 29 July 2010)?
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy