FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9187/04
by Vadim Vladimirovich BOGDANOV
against Russia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 February 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vadim Vladimirovich Bogdanov, was a Russian national who had been born in 1965 and lived in the town of Svetlogorsk, in the Kaliningrad Region. The respondent Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 11 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an aggravated assault.
The applicant claimed that he had been intimidated by the investigation authorities. According to him, on 16 September 2001 a police officer beat him up with a rubber truncheon, urging him to confess.
On 15 September 2001 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was apparently authorised by a prosecutor.
The applicant alleged that on 18 September 2001 he had tried to commit suicide by cutting veins on his wrists.
He submitted that from 11 to 22 September 2001 he had been detained in the police station in the town of Svetlogorsk in a cell measuring 1.5 m x 1.5 m, with only one meal per day.
A. The applicant’s pre-trial detention in IZ-39/1
On 22 September 2001 the applicant was transferred to detention facility IZ-39/1 in the town of Kaliningrad. He claimed that he had been given a spoon and an aluminium plate. According to the applicant, he was not given any mattress, blanket or pillow.
The applicant submitted that all the cells were heavily overcrowded with two times as many detainees as there were beds. The cells were infested with mice, lice and other insects. There were no proper windows, no fresh air or daylight, no separate toilet area and no possibility of washing clothes. Cold water was available at scheduled times between 6 and 9 a.m. and from 7 to 9.30 p.m.
According to the applicant, the detainees and the prison administration coerced and put pressure on him because of his Jewish ethnicity.
The applicant submitted that in December 2001 and January 2002 he had been administered medical treatment, as a result of which he felt bad and his overall health worsened.
On 28 April 2002 the applicant was allegedly again ill-treated by two officers and on 12 May 2002 was allegedly beaten with rubber truncheons by a prison officer. This ill-treatment was allegedly witnessed by his cellmates.
In mid-October 2002 the applicant was allegedly again beaten by prison officers.
B. The first-instance judgment in the applicant’s criminal case
On 3 February 2003 the applicant’s criminal case was examined by the Svetolgorsk Town Court. The applicant was found guilty and sentenced to five years and one month’s imprisonment.
This judgment was apparently not appealed against.
The applicant claimed that he had asked for the time-limit for appealing to be restored but had received no response.
C. The applicant’s detention in facility OM-216/13
On 8 April 2003 the applicant was transferred to penitentiary establishment OM-216/13 to serve the rest of his sentence.
On 23 September 2003, whilst still in detention in OM-216/13, the applicant sued the administration of IZ-39/1 for damages in connection with the poor conditions of his detention in that facility.
The applicant informed the court about his wish to attend the court hearing in his case. In support of this request, he referred to the factual complexity of his case. He also requested the court to summon a number of witnesses.
On 23 December 2003 the Centralnyy District Court of the town of Kaliningrad examined and dismissed the applicant’s claims as unfounded.
The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Kaliningrad Regional Court. He complained that the court had failed to summon and examine the witnesses he had mentioned in his application and had refused his request for personal attendance.
In an appeal decision of 10 March 2004 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment in its entirety.
On 27 January 2005 the applicant was released from prison.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He also complained that he had been ill-treated and detained in appalling conditions.
2. As regards the civil proceedings against the prison authority, the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied the right to attend the court hearings in person as well as to study the case file and the authority’s position properly.
THE LAW
On 12 December 2008 the President of the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court.
On 24 February 2009 the Government submitted an information note concerning the death of the applicant on 21 March 2008. According to entry no. 1567 in the civil register of the Oktyabrskiy District of the town of Kaliningrad, dated 26 March 2008, the applicant died of a gunshot wound to his head on 21 March 2008. A letter from the Ministry of the Interior dated 6 February 2009 explained that according to the conclusions of the investigation, on 12 March 2008 the applicant, a drug addict in urgent need of money to buy drugs, had attacked and murdered his mother and apparently only close relative, and on 21 March 2008 he had also killed a family of four persons. On the same day the applicant shot himself.
In view of the information submitted by the Government, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. The Court finds no reasons concerning respect for human rights warranting the further examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy