Published on 26 February 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 26390/19
Edem Ayderovych BEKIROV
against Russia
lodged on 17 May 2019
communicated on 6 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application originates from the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation when the latter asserted its jurisdiction over Crimea in 2014. The applicant is a Crimean Tatar activist who has a physical disability and was diagnosed with a number of serious health conditions. The application concerns his arrest in the framework of the criminal proceedings against him.
On 12 December 2018 the applicant was on his way to Crimea to visit his relatives. At the checkpoint the authorities of the Russian Federation arrested him on suspicion of illicit firearms trafficking. Allegedly the accusations were solely based on the evidence of an anonymous witness whom the applicant was unable to question. On 13 December 2018 the Kyiv District Court of Simferopol refused the applicant’s petition for a milder preventive measure and ordered the applicant’s detention; this measure was prolonged on several occasions. During the hearings the applicant was held in a metal cage. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that preventive measure.
Referring to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains about: (a) the conditions of his detention and lack of medical care; (b) his placement in a metal cage during the judicial hearing concerning the preventive measure; (c) the allegedly arbitrary nature of his detention; (d) the unlawful and unreasonably harsh character of his deprivation of liberty, given his health condition; and (e) the prolongation of his detention on a number of occasions without proper argumentation, using only standard phrases and copying previous decisions. Invoking Article 18 of the Convention, the applicant further submitted that all these violations intended to punish him for his Crimean Tatars protection activities as a part of the Crimean Tatars persecutions, and that his detention intended to pressure him into acknowledging his guilt.
On 11 June 2019 the Court indicated to the Government of the Russian Federation under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that they should “ensure respect for the Convention rights” of the applicant and “to immediately place him in hospital for proper medical examination and treatment”. The Court has also decided that the public should not be allowed access to the documents deposited with the Registry (Rule 33 § 1 of the Rules of Court) in connection with the application.
On 23 August 2019 the applicant underwent a medical examination in a State-Funded Health Institution. At the outset of the examination, the applicant’s medical condition was regarded as a condition which precluded his detention.
By letter dated 6 September 2019 the Russian Government asked the Court to lift the interim measure stating that the applicant had been released on 27 August 2019.
On 7 September 2019 the applicant was transferred to Ukraine as part of a prisoners’ exchange between Russia and Ukraine. He had been held in custody in a pre-trial detention centre in Simferopol between 12 December 2018 and 7 September 2019.
On 9 September 2019 the Court decided to lift the interim measure given that the applicant had been released from prison and had returned to Ukraine.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 35 of the Convention?
2. Taking into account the applicant’s medical history, have the Government met their obligation to ensure that his health and well-being were adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Regard being had to the applicant’s disability and, in particular, his existing health problems, were the conditions of his detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, the parties are requested to describe the physical/general care afforded to the applicant with his everyday needs (eating, bathing, moving around the facility, and so on) and how often and by whom such care was provided to the applicant.
4. Was the applicant subjected to degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?
5. Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, § 150, 23 February 2016)?
6. Was the duration of applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with the requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial?
7. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by this provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?