BYKOVTSEV v. RUSSIA

Communicated on 10 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 27728/08 and 44353/08
Valeriy Gennadyevich BYKOVTSEV against Russia
and Sergey Dmitriyevich PRACHEV against Russia
lodged on 11 April 2008
and 23 August 2008 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicants are Russian nationals, Mr Valeriy Gennadyevich Bykovtsev, who was born in 1966, and Mr Sergey Dmitriyevich Prachev, who was born in 1967. They are currently serving their sentences in correctional facilities. Mr Prachev is represented before the Court by Mr Yevgeniy Chernushkin, a lawyer practising in Voronezh.

2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A. The application of Mr Bykovtsev

1. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

3. On 19 March 2007 at 6 a.m. the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a murder and brought to the Voronezh Department for the Fight against Organised Crime (региональное управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью по Воронежской области, “RUBOP”).

4. His arrest record was drawn up at 8.40 a.m. by an investigator of the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office.

5. Between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. the applicant was ordered to stand facing the wall in the corridor and then in one of the offices.

6. At 3 p.m. he was taken to another office where he was beaten up by policemen who punched and kicked him in the stomach. Then three or four policemen restrained him so that he found himself lying on his back with his hands shackled behind. Then they put a gas mask on his head and administered electric shocks to his ears and genitals through metal clips connected by a wire to a box. They threatened the applicant that they would urinate on him and rape him. The applicant’s ill-treatment continued until 10 p.m. The names of two of four or five police officers who participated in his ill-treatment were S. and G.

7. At 10.30 p.m. the applicant was brought to the temporary detention facility of the Voronezh regional police department (“IVS”). The duty officer in the presence of police officer S. recorded the following injuries on the applicant: bruises on the nose bridge, under both eyes, on the left shoulder blade, hands, stomach and buttocks. He called the ambulance. The ambulance doctor confirmed the injuries recorded by the duty officer and took the applicant to an emergency medical center. The applicant was examined by a traumatologist who found that it was not necessary to hospitalise him.

8. On 22 March 2007 the applicant was transferred to pre-trial detention facility IZ-36/1 of Voronezh, where the following injuries were recorded on him: a 2 cm bruise on the left forearm, a 3 x 1.5 cm bruise on the right forearm, and abrasions on both hands, right hip and shank.

9. On 23 March 2007 an investigator of the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination, putting the following questions before the expert: “did the applicant sustain any injuries and, if so, what was their gravity; when and how were they inflicted; could they be sustained as a result of a fall, self-harm, fighting or self-defence”.

10. On 27 March 2007 the applicant was examined at the Voronezh Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau in the presence of police officer S. The forensic expert noted in his report of 27 March 2007 that the applicant had bruises and abrasions on both wrists which could have been inflicted by a blunt hard object shortly before the examination. The expert excluded a fall as the origin of the injuries, while not ruling out self-harm.

11. On 30 March 2007 the investigator ordered an additional forensic examination with a view to determining whether the injuries could have been sustained as a result of beatings or handcuffing. In his report of 26 April 2007, prepared without the applicant’s examination, the expert stated that the wrist injuries could have been caused by handcuffs, approximately 7-11 days prior to the date of the applicant’s examination, i.e. between 16 and 20 March 2007.

12. On 24 February 2011 a new report by a forensic medical expert was obtained. It was prepared on the basis of the two previous reports and the applicant’s medical records from the IVS and IZ-36/1. The expert concluded that the applicant could have sustained injures on his hands either on the day or prior to his arrest. As for the numerous injuries recorded at the IVS, the expert found their description too general to determine the time of their origin. As regards the applicant’s examination at IZ-36/1, the expert concluded that the recorded injuries could have been inflicted by a blunt object on the day of the applicant’s arrest and very unlikely prior to his arrest. The expert found it impossible to establish if the injures could have been inflicted as a result of torture by electricity, while being certain that they could have been self-inflicted, except for the bruise on the back, and that they could not have originated from a fall.

2. Pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment

(a) The investigative authorities’ decisions

13. On 25 and 30 March 2007 the applicant complained about his ill‑treatment by police officers S. and G. to the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office. On 9 April 2007 his complaint was transferred to the Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office of Voronezh.

14. No criminal case was opened into his alleged ill-treatment. The Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office, and later the Leninskiy district investigative committee issued seven refusals to bring criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers, pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), which were all revoked by the head of the same investigative authority or a higher investigative authority as based on incomplete inquiries:

- decision of 20 April 2007, revoked on 19 September 2007;

- decision of 29 September 2007, revoked on 2 October 2007;

- decision of 12 October 2007, revoked on 28 November 2007;

- decision of 10 December 2007, revoked on 15 January 2008;

- decision of 25 January 2008, revoked on 11 February 2011;

- decision of 24 February 2011, revoked on 15 April 2011;

- decision of 28 April 2011, revoked on 6 July 2011.

15. The decision of 11 February 2011 (see paragraph 14 above) triggered new acts by the investigators, in particular several police officers and an alleged eyewitness’s interview.

16. It was stated in the refusal to bring criminal proceedings of 28 April 2011 that despite the applicant’s allegations of his ill-treatment by the police officers and his wife’s explanation that prior to the arrest the applicant did not have injures, the applicant’s account of the events was not reliable for the following reasons: (i) the applicant alleged that Mr S.B. had witnessed his ill‑treatment in the RUBOP building but S.B. had denied that; (ii) the applicant’s injures could have been inflicted prior to his arrest according to the forensic medical report, and (iii) the applicant’s allegation that he was tortured by electricity had not been confirmed by the forensic medical examinations.

17. In the decision of 6 July 2011 to revoke the above refusal to bring criminal proceedings the supervising investigating authority stated that the investigator had erroneously interviewed Mr S.B. (the applicant’s co‑defendant), whereas the applicant had mentioned a different eyewitness, Mr V.B. (S.B.’s father).

(b) Judicial review of the investigators’ decisions

18. The applicant’s appeals against the refusals to bring criminal proceedings of 20 April, 12 October and 10 December 2007, 24 February and 28 April 2011, under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), were not examined by the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh on the ground that the impugned decisions had already been revoked by the investigative authorities before the relevant court hearings.

19. The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 January 2008 was examined and dismissed on the grounds that the refusal was reasoned and lawful in the District Court’s decision of 18 March 2008, upheld by the Voronezh Regional Court on 15 May 2008.

The applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s refusal of 22 April 2011 to examine the applicant’s complaint was dismissed by the Voronezh Regional Court on 12 July 2011.

3. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s detention on remand

(a) The applicant’s detention pending investigation

20. On 20 March 2007 the District Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand on the grounds of the gravity of crimes which he was suspected to have committed (murder, robbery and theft), and high risk of his absconding. This reasoning was reiterated in the District Court’s decisions for extension of his detention dated 17 May 2007 (upheld by the Regional Court on 5 June 2007), 9 June 2007 (upheld on 26 June 2007) and 14 September 2007.

21. On the latter date the District Court held a hearing in the absence of the applicant who allegedly required urgent medical assistance and was, therefore, unable to attend. According to the applicant’s lawyer, on the day of the hearing the applicant was brought to the courthouse; before the hearing he felt unwell and asked to call the ambulance; the ambulance doctor confirmed that the applicant required urgent hospitalisation; however, investigator M. did not allow to take the applicant to the hospital and, instead, ordered that he be taken back to the detention facility. According to the ambulance doctor’s report, the applicant suffered from pain due to the abdominal surgery (on 30 April 2007) and he was given a painkiller. The report also stated that despite the doctor’s recommendation the applicant’s hospitalisation was refused.

22. On 24 September 2007 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision of 14 September 2007, stating that he himself had refused to participate in the hearing in protest against the court’s unlawful decision to deprive the applicant of his right to participate in that hearing despite the lack of the prosecutor’s objection and the fact that the applicant had been at the court premises at the time of the hearing.

23. On 11 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 September 2007, finding that the applicant’s right to defend himself had not been violated as, according to the records of the hearing, his lawyer had in fact participated in the hearing. The applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing before the Regional Court, while the applicant was not.

24. On 12 December 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 16 March 2008. In addition to the reasons of gravity of crimes and the risk of the applicant absconding, it noted that the investigative authorities had not finalised important investigative measures, such as additional interrogations of victims and psychological expert examinations and had not brought final charges against the applicant and his co‑accused. On 17 January 2008 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 12 December 2007 on appeal.

25. In its decisions for extension of the applicant’s detention of 17 March and 11 June 2008 (the latter decision appealed against by the applicant on 23 June 2008), which were upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia on 20 May and 11 September 2008, the Regional Court noted, in addition to the reasons indicated in the previous court orders, the risk of the applicant putting pressure on other co-accused V.Z. and A.S.

(b) The applicant’s detention pending trial

26. On 16 September 2008 the Regional Court held a preliminary hearing in the case against the applicant. The court ordered that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial mainly on the grounds of the gravity of charges and the risk of his absconding. On 27 January 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 16 September 2008 on appeal. The same reasons were relied on in extending the applicant’s detention in the Regional Court’s decision of 25 February 2009, upheld by the Supreme Court on 10 June 2009.

27. The applicant’s detention was further extended pending trial by the Regional Court’s decisions of 25 August 2009, 23 November 2009 (upheld on 25 February 2010), 19 February 2010 (upheld on 27 July 2010), 21 May 2010 (upheld on 2 September 2010), 25 August 2010 (upheld on 25 November 2010), and 24 November 2010. In the latter decision the Regional Court noted that the protraction of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had mainly been caused by the applicant’s numerous requests which required adjournment of the proceedings for many times.

4. Solitary confinement

28. According to the applicant, he was held in solitary confinement in pre-trial detention facility no. IZ-38/1 in Voronezh continuously between 2009 and 2012.

5. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

29. The applicant’s criminal case was heard in a jury trial. On 29 December 2010 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of banditry (Article 209), several accounts of theft (Article 158) and robbery (Article 162), murder (Article 105) and illegal use of weapons (Article 222), and sentenced the applicant to 24 years’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of 400,000 Russian roubles (RUB).

30. On 23 August 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment in a part concerning the sentence, on the ground of the Regional Court’s failure to take account of the legal effect of the applicant’s previous convictions of grave crimes committed while he was on parole, and upheld the judgment for the remainder.

31. On 17 October 2011 the Regional Court increased the applicant’s sentence in view of his previous convictions to 25 years’ imprisonment. The amount of the fine remained unchanged. On 29 March 2012 the Supreme Court reduced the applicant’s sentence in relation to one of the crimes so that the overall sentence amounted to 24 years’ imprisonment.

32. The applicant did not raise the complaint about his alleged ill‑treatment in police custody at his trial.

6. Proceedings concerning the place of serving the sentence

33. On 24 June 2011 the Head of the Federal Penitentiary Service (“FSIN”) ordered that the applicant serve his sentence in the Khabarovsk region.

34. On 19 March 2012 the applicant requested the Head of the FSIN that he be allowed to serve his sentence in the Voronezh region where his family resided. On 27 April 2012 his request was refused pursuant to Article 73 § 4 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences.

35. In July 2012 the applicant arrived at correctional facility IK‑8 located in the Khabarovsk region.

36. On 13 July 2012 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh dismissed the applicant’s mother’s appeal against the FSIN’s decision of 24 June 2011, relying on Article 73 § 4 of the Code.

37. On 7 November 2012 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh dismissed the applicant’s wife’s similar appeal on the same ground.

38. On 11 January 2013 the applicant again requested the FSIN that he be transferred to the Voronezh region for serving his sentence. On 25 February 2013 his request was refused.

39. In April 2013 the applicant challenged the FSIN’s refusal before the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow. He complained, in particular, that his transfer to the remote correctional facility makes it impossible to have visits from his wife, two children and mother with the first-degree disability, born in 1938. The proceedings are pending.

B. The application of Mr Prachev

1. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

40. On 19 March 2007 at 7 a.m. the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder and brought to the Voronezh RUBOP. His arrest record was drawn up at 9 a.m. by an investigator of the Voronezh district prosecutor’s office.

41. Three or four police officers undressed the applicant and restrained him on the floor with his hands shackled behind his back. They put a gas mask on his head and administered electric shocks to his ears and genitals through metal clips connected by a wire to a box. The applicant’s ill‑treatment continued until 10.30 p.m. According to the applicant, he can still identify police officers who subjected him to ill-treatment.

42. On 20 March 2007 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention facility IZ-36/1. According to the records of that detention facility, the applicant had no visible injuries.

43. On 23 March 2007 following an order by the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office the applicant was examined at the Voronezh Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau in the presence of police officer S. In a report of 23 March 2007 an expert stated that the applicant had the following injuries: 13 cm stripe bruises and small abrasions on both wrists, a 2.2 cm abrasion on the left forearm, a 3.5 to 2.5 cm bruise on the right shank, and a 0.7 to 0.3 cm bruise and abrasions on the left shank. The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted 3-5 days before the examination (not earlier than 3 days as regards the injuries on the wrists) by a hard blunt object; that they could not have originated from a fall and that self-harm was not excluded. The expert stated in the report that the applicant had denied his ill-treatment by the police officers.

44. According to the applicant, his examination was conducted in the presence of several police officers, including S., who had tortured him. His hands were handcuffed and he was not able to take off his clothes for the examination. It was only when the applicant received the expert’s report that he received, for the first time, a copy of the decision ordering his medical examination.

2. Pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment

45. On 15 August 2007 the applicant complained about his alleged ill‑treatment by the police officers to the Voronezh regional prosecutor’s office. No criminal case was opened into his alleged ill-treatment. The Leninskiy district prosecutor’s office of Voronezh, and later the Leninskiy district investigative committee, which examined his application, issued four refusals to bring criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers, pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of CCrP: on 1 October 2007, revoked on 24 October 2007; 6 November 2007, revoked on 16 November 2007; 26 November 2007, revoked on 27 November 2007; and 7 December 2007.

46. In its latest decision of 7 December 2007 the investigative committee stated that the applicant had sustained injures 5 days prior to his forensic medical examination, that in the course of the examination the applicant had denied his ill-treatment by the police officers and that the injuries sustained by the applicant had not included traces of the use of electric shocks.

47. On 14 February 2008 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 7 December 2007 on the ground that there was no evidence in support of his allegations of ill-treatment. On 1 April 2008 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision.

3. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s detention on remand

48. On 20 March 2007 the District Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand on the grounds of the gravity of charges and the risk of his absconding. His detention was subsequently extended for the same reasons by the District Court’s decisions of 17 May, 8 June (upheld on 3 July 2007 by the Regional Court), 6 September and 12 December 2007, and by the Regional Court’s decisions of 18 March (upheld by the Supreme Court on 20 May 2008) and 16 June 2008.

4. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

49. On 29 December 2010 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of banditry (Article 209), several accounts of theft (Article 158) and robbery (Article 162) and illegal use of weapons (Article 222), and sentenced him to 22 years’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of RUB 400,000.

50. On 23 August 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal.

C. Relevant domestic law and practice

51. Under Article 73 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences (“CES”), persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty shall serve their sentences in the federal entity (region) where they had their residence and where they were convicted. Derogations from this rule are possible only on medical grounds or in order to secure the safety of a detainee, or at his or her own request. Article 73 § 2 provides further that should there be no appropriate institution within the given region or if it proves impossible to place the convicted person in the existing penal institutions the convicted person is to be sent to the nearest penal institutions located on the territory of the said region, or, exceptionally, they may be sent to penal institutions located on the territory of the next closest region. Article 73 § 4 stipulates, inter alia, that persons who are sentenced to prison sentences for certain grave crimes, including banditry (Article 209 of the Criminal Code), are sent to serve their sentences in the order provided for by the federal penitentiary body.

52. Under Article 81 § 1 of the CES, persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty should serve the whole term of the sentence, as a rule, in the same penitentiary facility, unless a court changes the type of a penitentiary facility.

53. Examining the compatibility of Article 73 § 4 of the CES with the Russian Constitution, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows in its decision no. 1716-O-O of 16 December 2010 declaring a complaint inadmissible:

“Article 73 § 4 of the CES is directed at the individualisation of punishment and differentiation of sentence conditions depending on the type of the crime and its dangerousness ... It thus creates a basis, in accordance with Article 43 of the Russian Criminal Code, for social justice, correction of a convict and prevention of new crimes.”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were tortured in police custody. They complain under the same provision and also under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their complaints of torture.

2. The applicants further complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of their detention on remand was unreasonable.

3. Mr Bykovtsev also complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his solitary confinement between 2009 and 2012, and under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the court hearings of 14 September and 11 October 2007 concerning the extension of his detention on remand were held in his absence and that it took the Supreme Court too long to examine his appeal against the decision of 11 June 2008. Lastly, he complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his transfer to the remote colony for serving his sentence effectively amounted to a breach of family ties between him on one side and his mother, wife and children on the other.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Having regard to:

(a) the applicants’ questioning by police officers of the Voronezh Department for the Fight against Organised Crime on 19 March 2007 about their alleged involvement in crimes,

(b) the injuries found on the applicants after the questionings, and

(c) the forensic medical experts’ conclusions concerning the injuries sustained by the applicants and their origin,

have the applicants been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999‑V; and, among many other authorities, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 122-23, 19 March 2009; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 57, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, §§ 53‑54, 56, 17 January 2012; A.A. v. Russia, no. 49097/08, §§ 75, 77 and 80-81, 17 January 2012; Yudina v. Russia, no. 52327/08, §§ 67-68, 10 July 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 49-50, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 53-55, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 60-61, 4 April 2013; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 52-53, 18 July 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 61-62, 28 November 2013; and Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, § 51, 30 January 2014)?

2. Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicants’ injuries were caused (see Selmouni, cited above, § 87, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII)?

3. Having regard to:

(a) the investigative committees’ refusals to open criminal cases and carry out a full investigation into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment by the police,

(b) the revocation of those numerous refusals by the investigative committees’ superiors as based on the incomplete pre‑investigation inquiries, and

(c) the investigative committees’ inability to carry out the investigative measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, e.g. confrontations and identification parades,

was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?

4. 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?

5. The Government are invited to submit documents containing the following information in respect to the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment in police custody:

(a) the time of their arrival and stay at the police departments, cells for administrative offenders at the police departments, the temporary detention facilities (IVS), the pre-trial detention facilities (SIZO), the medical institutions (ambulance, traumatology centre, hospital, forensic medical examination bureau, etc.), where applicable;

(b) the applicants’ injuries and/or their state of health, as recorded in the places listed above in paragraph “a”;

(c) the time when the applicants were recognised as suspects in the criminal proceedings, informed of their rights as suspects, informed their families or other third parties about their detention, and had access to a lawyer;

(d) the forensic medical experts’ conclusions about the applicants’ injuries, investigators’ decisions ordering the applicants’ forensic medical examinations in respect of each forensic medical expert’s report, and explanations by the applicants and the police officers as to the origin of the injuries, on the basis of which the experts’ opinions were sought;

(e) the summary of the information from the above list (paragraphs from “a” to “d”) in respect of each applicant.

6. As regards the inquiry into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment, the Government are invited to submit:

(a) the numbered list of all decisions by investigating authorities in each of the two cases in chronological order (name of the relevant authority, date, the ground for the refusal to open a criminal case under the Code of Criminal Procedure), and – in relation to each decision – the relevant decision to revoke it or set it aside (with the name of the relevant authority, date, and the reason for the revocation or setting aside);

(b) the numbered list of all court decisions of the first and appeal instances on the applicants’ appeals against the investigators’ decisions in each of two cases in chronological order (court, date and outcome);

(c) copies of the above decisions by the investigating authorities and the courts in the same order.

7. Was the length of Mr Bykovtsev’s pre-trial detention between 19 March 2007 and 17 October 2011, and of Mr Prachev’s from 19 March 2007 to 29 December 2010 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic authorities’ decisions extending the applicants’ detention founded on “relevant and sufficient” reasons?

The Government are invited to provide copies of the Voronezh Regional Court’s decisions concerning the extension of Mr Bykovtsev’s detention of 25 February 2009, 25 August 2009, 23 November 2009, 19 February 2010, 21 May 2010 and 25 August 2010.

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

8. As regards Mr Bykovtsev’s solitary confinement between 2009 and 2012 in detention facility no. IZ-36/3 in Voronezh, were the conditions of his detention in solitary confinement during that period compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Was his physical and psychological capacity to deal with long-term solitary confinement assessed regularly by a medical specialist?

The Government are requested to indicate the dates when the solitary confinement commenced and when it ended and to submit copies of the relevant supporting documents. The Government are also invited to submit the relevant medical documentation, if any, the decisions ordering the applicant’s solitary confinement and other relevant documents.

9. Given Mr Bykovtsev’s absence at the hearings before the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh on 14 September 2007 and the Voronezh Regional Court on 11 October 2007, was the procedure by which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 161-64, 22 May 2012 and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007)?

The Government are invited to provide copies of the court hearing records of 14 September and 11 October 2007 and any amendments to those records, as well as any medical documents on which the domestic court could have relied in deciding that the applicant was not able to participate in the hearing on 14 September 2007.

10. Did the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for the examination of Mr Bykovtsev’s appeal against the Voronezh Regional Court’s decision of 11 June 2008, by which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

11. Has there been an interference with Mr Bykovtsev’s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the decision to transfer him to the penitentiary facility in the Khabarovsk region for serving his 24 years’ sentence, while his wife, two children and disabled mother reside in the Voronezh region, in which the applicant resided before his conviction? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue one or more legitimate aims, and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, did the provisions of Article 73 § 4 of the Code on the Execution of Sentences of the Russian Federation, according to which the place of the applicant’s serving his sentence was determined, meet the “quality of law” requirements contained in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, that is, were they sufficiently precise and foreseeable?

The Government are invited to submit a review of the relevant case-law of the high courts. They are also invited to submit information concerning the dates of birth of the applicant’s two children.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy