CASE OF BULATOV AND DAMBEGOV v. RUSSIA

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BULATOV AND DAMBEGOV v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 8306/07)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

16 June 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bulatov and Dambegov v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Russian nationals, Mr Radzh Khadisovich Bulatov and Mr Magomed Dambegov (“the applicants”), on 25 January 2007;

the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning ill-treatment in custody and the lack of effective domestic remedy to complain about that;

the parties’ observations;

the absence of the Government’s objection against the examination of the case by a Committee;

Having deliberated in private on 19 May 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

The case concerns the applicants’ allegations that they were ill-treated by law-enforcement officers during their arrest and subsequent detention, and that the ensuing criminal investigation into that matter was not effective.

THE FACTS

1.  The first applicant was born in 1978 and resides in the town of Ivanovo, in the Ivanovo Region. The second applicant was born in 1966 and resides in the town of Nalchik, in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“the KBR”). The applicants, who were granted legal aid, were represented by Ms I. Sokolova, a lawyer practising in Ivanovo.

2.  The Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin.

3.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.The applicants’ arrest and alleged ill-treatment

4.  On 27 September 2006 the T. Centre (“Центр Т” МВД КБР), a counterterrorism department with the Ministry of the Interior located in the KBR, in cooperation with the Consolidated Rapid Reaction Unit (Сводный Отряд Быстрого Реагирования, hereinafter “the SOBR”) and the Federal Security Service (Федеральная Служба Безопасности (ФСБ), hereinafter “the FSB”) carried out a special operation in respect of the applicants in relation to suspected illegal possession of firearms.

5.  On that day at about 6.20 p.m. a group of SOBR officers in a white Gazel minivan, four officers from the T. Centre (Officers A., E., K., and M.), and one FSB officer arrived at the first applicant’s sister’s house in Nalchik and arrested the applicants, who were outside the house at the time.

6.  As submitted by the applicants and not disputed by the Government, the arrest was carried out in a violent manner. Armed officers in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas ran towards the applicants, knocked them to the ground with the butts of their rifles, handcuffed them and put dark plastic bags over their heads.

7.  According to the Government, as soon as the applicants were immobilised, the arresting officers carried out a personal inspection (личный досмотр) in respect of them in the presence of two attesting witnesses, and found a handmade gun and a grenade on them. The applicants contested the latter submission, stating that law-enforcement officers had planted the gun and the grenade on them.

8.  The applicants were then forced into the Gazel minivan and, as appears from the statement by Officers A. and E. (see paragraph 37 below), were driven to the T. Centre in Nalchik.

9.  According to the applicants, the arresting officers continued to beat them while they were being transported to the T. Centre. At the premises, Officers A., E., K., M. and other law-enforcement officers put pressure on them, forcing them to confess to the illegal possession of the gun and the grenade allegedly found on them. The officers kicked and punched the applicants and gave them electric shocks. The ill-treatment continued until the early hours of 28 September 2006.

10.  In the early hours of 28 September 2006 the applicants were taken to Prokhladnyy police station. At about 7.00 a.m. they were admitted to the temporary detention unit of that facility (ИВС Прохладненского ГОВД). According to the registration logs and the Government’s submissions, at that time the first applicant had contusions on his back and forehead, and the second applicant had a haematoma on his right eye and contusion of the ribs. Subsequent records, dated 29 and 30 September 2006, mentioned contusion of the applicants’ backs and kidneys.Search for the applicants

11.  On the evening of 27 September 2006 the applicants’ relatives noticed that the applicants were absent and started looking for them.

12.  It appears that at 11.30 p.m. on 27 September 2006 the second applicant called his superior – the military commander of the Prokhladnyy District, Mr P. – at work, and informed him about his arrest and detention in the T. Centre. Mr P. passed that information to the applicants’ families. Immediately after receiving the call he went to the T. Centre, together with his wife and Mr S. (a neighbour). Upon their arrival they saw the second applicant at one of the windows of the T. Centre, and saw that he had blood on his face. Despite Mr P.’s attempts to enter the T. Centre to see the applicants, he was not let in (see paragraph 41 below).

13.  In the meantime the applicants’ relatives had gone to operational‑search bureau no. 2 (ОРБ-2) in Nalchik. At their request, an officer on duty had made a telephone call to the T. Centre and had confirmed that the second applicant was detained there.Criminal proceedings against the applicantsInstitution of criminal proceedings and the applicants’ questioning

14.  On 28 September 2006 at 5.15 a.m. a deputy chief of the investigative department at Prokhladnyy police station opened a criminal case against the applicants in relation to suspected illegal possession of a gun and a grenade.

15.  On 29 September 2006 the applicants were questioned as suspects in the criminal case. They denied the charges against them and stated that the arresting officers had beaten them and then driven them to the T. Centre, where they had been ill-treated for hours and tortured by means of electric shocks to make them confess to crimes which they had not committed.Forensic medical examination of the applicants

16.  On 29 September 2006 the investigators ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicants. On the same day the applicants were taken to the Forensic Medical Bureau of the KBR, where a forensic expert questioned and examined them.

17.  At the interview, the first applicant stated that during the arrest on 27 September 2009 law-enforcement officers had forced him to the ground, hitting him with the butts of their rifles; the officers had then handcuffed him and kicked him in the head. They had then dragged him into their vehicle. Inside the vehicle, they had put a black plastic bag over his head, and had punched and kicked him. He had then been driven to the T. Centre, where the law-enforcement officers had beaten him on his back and passed an electric current through his body via an electric wire attached to his left ear, forcing him to confess.

18.  The second applicant provided a similar description of the events. He mentioned that while he had been lying handcuffed in the vehicle with a plastic bag over his head, the arresting officers had jumped on his back. In the T. Centre he had been beaten on different parts of his body. The officers had also attached an electric wire to his right ear and to his handcuffs, and had passed an electric current through it.

19.  The expert established that the first applicant had numerous bruises and abrasions on his nose, forehead, shoulders, shoulder blades, wrists, right leg and left foot, as well as an abrasion on his left earlobe and wounds on his left forearm and left wrist. He found that the bruises, abrasions and wound on the first applicant’s wrists could have been sustained as a result of impact from solid blunt objects with a rather long surface area. The abrasion on his left ear could have been caused by a high-frequency current, possibly from an electroshock device. The remaining bruises and abrasions could have been sustained as a result of blows from solid blunt objects with a limited surface area. Overall, the expert concluded that the first applicant could have sustained his injuries at the time and in the circumstances which he had described. Lastly, the expert noted that in order to establish whether the first applicant had broken any ribs, he needed the conclusions of a traumatologist and a radiologist, which had not been submitted to him, therefore any finding on the issue was impossible.

20.  As regards the second applicant, the expert noted that he had numerous bruises and abrasions on his forehead, temple, cheeks, right eye socket, thorax, abdomen, back, forearms, shoulders and right thigh. He also had abrasions on both ears. The expert concluded that the injuries to the second applicant’s wrists and forearms could have been caused by handcuffs, and the abrasions on his ears could have been caused by a high‑frequency current, possibly from an electroshock device. The other bodily injuries could have been sustained as a result of blows from solid blunt objects with a limited surface area.

21.  Overall, the expert considered that the second applicant could have sustained his bodily injuries at the time and in the circumstances which he had described. Lastly, the expert noted that it was impossible to establish whether the second applicant had sustained a closed craniocerebral injury or rib fracture, because the relevant X-ray was of bad quality and the second applicant had not been examined by a neurologist.Subsequent developments

22.  On 29 September 2006 the Prokhladnenskiy District Court of the KBR authorised the applicants’ pre-trial detention. The pre-trial detention was subsequently extended several times until the applicants were convicted.

23.  On 13 October 2006 the investigators interviewed eyewitnesses to the applicants’ arrest. One of them, Mr V.D., stated that the applicants had been arrested by six officers in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. The second applicant had attempted to run away, but the officers had thrown him and the first applicant to the ground. The witness had been unable to see if the applicants had been beaten while they had been on the ground. Officers had then taken the applicants to their (the officers’) vehicle. On the way to the vehicle, one of the escorting officers had punched the first applicant in his side.

24.  Another witness, Ms S. Sh., had seen three to four officers in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas approaching the applicants. She had not seen the arrest, but had heard screams and the sounds of a fight. The remaining witnesses had only seen a group of officers arriving at the scene of the incident.

25.  On 5 October 2006 the applicants were charged with the unlawful acquisition, storage and possession of arms, and they were questioned. The first applicant said that he had nothing to add to his statement of 29 September 2006. The second applicant mentioned that the officers had not only beaten them for hours, but had also insulted and threatened them. He was unable to describe the appearances of the officers involved in the ill‑treatment, because they had been in balaclavas.

26.  On an unspecified later date the applicants’ case was sent to the Prokhladnenskiy District Court of Nalchik for trial. Throughout the proceedings they consistently denied having committed the crimes of which they were accused.

27.  On 5 April 2007 the Prokhladnenskiy District Court of Nalchik found the applicants guilty as charged. The first applicant was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment, and the second applicant to seven months’ imprisonment.

28.  On 22 June 2007 the Supreme Court of the KBR upheld the judgment on appeal.Criminal case in respect of the applicants’ ill-treatment

29.  According to the applicants, on 28 September and 5 October 2006 the second applicant’s relatives complained to the Prokhladnyy town prosecutor and the KBR prosecutor of the second applicant’s abduction and subsequent ill-treatment by law-enforcement officers.

30.  On 20 October 2006 the Nalchik prosecutor refused to open a criminal case in respect of the incident, for lack of any evidence of a criminal offence. He held that the complaints of abduction and ill-treatment were no more than allegations, and noted that the person who had lodged them had not been witness to the events in question.

31.  On 8 November 2006 the first applicant asked the KBR prosecutor to open a criminal case in respect of his ill-treatment by law-enforcement officers, including Officer E. The first applicant’s allegations were substantiated by the medical report of 29 September 2006 (see paragraph 19 above). The KBR prosecutor sent the request to the Nalchik prosecutor.

32.  On 24 November 2006 the Nalchik prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the alleged ill-treatment under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power with the use of violence).

33.  On 28 and 29 November and 1 December 2006 the investigators questioned the applicants’ wives, the first applicant’s mother, and the second applicant’s sister and two nieces. Those relatives had learned about the applicants’ arrest from eyewitnesses to the incident and Mr P., who had said that the second applicant was detained in the T. Centre. According to the applicants’ relatives, an officer on duty at operational-search bureau no. 2 had confirmed that information at their request.

34.  On 28 November and 7 December 2006 respectively the second applicant’s wife and the first applicant’s wife handed to the investigators the clothes which the applicants had been wearing at the time of their arrest. The clothes of the second applicant were stained with blood. The first applicant’s clothes had been cleaned by his relatives, so no visible blood traces remained.

35.  On 8 December 2006 the investigators questioned the eyewitnesses to the applicants’ arrest. They confirmed the statements which they had made during the interview on 13 October 2006.

36.  On 12 February 2007 the applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings and questioned. They said that during the trial court hearings they had recognised that prosecution witnesses – Officers A., E., K. and M. – had been involved in their ill-treatment. On the same day the investigators took blood samples from the applicants (apparently to compare these with the traces of blood found on their clothes).

37.  On 20 February 2007 the investigators questioned Officers A. and E. They stated that on 26 September 2007 law-enforcement authorities had planned a special operation to arrest the applicants on suspicion of illegal possession of a firearm and an explosive device. The arrest had been entrusted to four officers from the T. Centre (Officers A., E., K., and M.), one officer from the FSB, and a group of officers from the SOBR. The group from the SOBR had carried out the arrest itself. During the arrest the applicants had attempted to escape. To prevent them from doing so, the SOBR officers had had to force them to the ground. As soon as the applicants had been immobilised, Officers A. and E. had inspected them and found a gun on the second applicant and an explosive device on the first applicant. The arrest and the inspection had been observed by two attesting witnesses. After the arrest the applicants had been put in a Gazel minivan and taken to the T. Centre. Officers A. and E. had followed them in another vehicle. The officers stated that the applicants had been driven to the T. Centre instead of being directly transported to Prokhladnyy police station, to ensure that there was an expert examination of the gun and the explosive device found on them. The applicants had remained at the T. Centre premises from 8 p.m. until 3 a.m. while the investigators had prepared the relevant documents, including personal inspection records. Thereafter they had been taken to the Prokhladnyy police station.

38.  On 2 March 2007 the investigators questioned the two attesting witnesses. They stated that the law-enforcement officers had forced the applicants to the ground and immobilised them to prevent their escape. The applicants had not resisted the arrest or had any visible injuries on their bodies. The witnesses had not seen the applicants’ ill-treatment.

39.  On 17 and 18 March 2007 respectively the investigator questioned Officers M. and K. They denied any involvement in the applicants’ ill‑treatment. According to them, they had not left their vehicle during the applicants’ arrest, and had been unable to see it properly.

40.  On 19 March 2007 the investigators asked the T. Centre to provide them with a list of the SOBR officers who had been involved in the special operation. On the same day the T. Centre replied that it was unable to do so, because the SOBR officers were on a mission in the Republic of Dagestan.

41.  On 2 May 2007 the investigators questioned Mr P.’s wife. She stated that at 11.30 p.m. the second applicant had called her husband and told him that he was detained in the T. Centre. She, Mr P. and their neighbour had gone to the T. Centre. Mr P. had asked an officer on duty if the second applicant had been brought to the premises, but the officer had denied that. Another officer had then opened a window on the first floor and told Mr P. that the second applicant was not in the building. At the same time, the second applicant (who had heard the conversation between the officer and Mr P.) had appeared at the neighbouring window. He had shouted that he was inside. His face had been bloody. Immediately afterwards someone had pulled the second applicant away from the window. Mr P. had insisted on meeting with the second applicant, but to no avail. He had not been allowed to go in.

42.  On 20 June 2007 the investigators questioned the second applicant in the presence of Officer M. and then Officer K. The second applicant maintained his allegation of ill-treatment, and the officers contested it.

43.  On 24 June 2007 the investigators suspended the proceedings because it was not possible to ensure the participation of Officers A. and E., on account of the fact that they had left to go on a mission in Chechnya.

44.  On 27 November 2007 the second applicant appealed against the above decision to the prosecutor of the KBR, who dismissed the claim.

45.  On an unspecified date in November 2009 the first applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the KBR that the investigating authorities were delaying the investigation. He asserted that under the relevant regulations of the Ministry of the Interior, the police officers’ official mission could not last more than a year, yet the investigation had been suspended three years earlier on the grounds that they were away from the KBR on a mission. The KBR Supreme Court rejected the complaint on formal grounds.

46.  On 7 March 2010 the first applicant challenged the decision of 24 June 2007 before the Nalchik Town Court, alleging that the authorities had deliberately delayed the investigation.

47.  On 2 April 2010 the Nalchik Town Court dismissed the claim, finding that the impugned decision had already been overruled on 31 March 2010.

48.  On 6 April 2010 the deputy chief of the Nalchik investigative committee overruled the decision of 24 June 2007 on the basis that it was ill-founded, because it contained no reasoning and the case file did not contain any documents confirming that the suspects had left the KBR. The proceedings were resumed and the investigators were ordered to carry out a number of investigative steps, in particular: establishing the whereabouts of Officers A. and E; identifying and questioning the FSB officer who had been involved in the operation; ordering a medical examination of the applicants’ clothes which had been included in the case material; questioning Mr P. and his neighbour, who had arrived at the T. Centre after the second applicant’s telephone call; examining the T. Centre’s detainee registration logs; questioning an officer who had been on duty in the T. Centre at the time of the events (if necessary); and cross-examining the applicants in the presence of officers who had been involved in the special operation.

49.  On 6 May and 10 October 2010 the investigators suspended the proceedings on the same grounds as before. The deputy chief of the Nalchik investigative committee overruled those decisions on 4 August 2010 and 20 May 2013 respectively, on account of the investigators’ failure to comply with the order given to them on 6 April 2010. It appears that the investigation is still ongoing.

RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK

50.  For a summary of relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, see, in so far as relevant, Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 42-52, 14 November 2013) and Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 99-102, 24 July 2014).

THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

51.  The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that during and after their arrest on 27 September 2006 they had been subjected to ill‑treatment, and that the national authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into that matter. Article 3 reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”Admissibility

52.  The Government submitted that the applicants’ complaints concerning their ill-treatment were premature, because the criminal investigation into the matter was still ongoing.

53.  The applicants maintained their complaints. They stated that the case-file material, including the results of their forensic medical examination, confirmed their account of events. According to the applicants, the investigation into their ill-treatment had been ineffective, on account of the investigators’ failure to carry out the required investigative measures in a thorough and timely manner. The applicants noted that a number of key investigative steps, including those ordered by the supervising authority on 6 April 2010, had never been taken. As a result, the officers involved in their ill-treatment had not been prosecuted.

54.  The Court considers that the question of whether or not the applicants’ complaints are premature, as asserted by the Government, is closely linked to the question of whether the investigation into their allegations of ill‑treatment was effective. However, these issues relate to the merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court therefore decides to join this issue to the merits (see Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, § 27, 17 January 2017).

55.  The Court notes that the complaints under examination are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.MeritsGeneral principles

56.  The relevant general principles have been summarised by the Court in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015) and Lyapin, cited above, §§ 109-15.Application of the above principles to the present case

(a)   Credibility of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, and presumption of fact

57.  It is not in dispute between the parties that before the arrest on 27 September 2006 the applicants did not have any injuries on their bodies. After spending several hours in custody the applicants were found to have multiple injuries, as noted when they were placed in the Prokhladnyy police station’s temporary detention unit (see paragraph 10) and when they were examined by a forensic medical expert (see paragraphs 19-21 above). Moreover, the second applicant was seen to have blood on his face when he was at the premises of the T. Centre (see paragraph 41 above), and his clothes were stained with blood (see paragraph 34 above). The applicants’ description of the alleged ill-treatment was detailed and consistent throughout the proceedings (see paragraphs 15, 17, 18 and 25 above). The forensic expert found that the applicants’ injuries could have been sustained at the time and in the circumstances which they had described – that is to say, the injuries could have been sustained during their arrest, and the alleged ill-treatment could have involved the use of electroshock devices (see paragraphs 19 and 21 above).

58.  In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants’ injuries could arguably have resulted from the violence which they allegedly suffered at the hands of the law-enforcement officers. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants’ account of events and to satisfy the Court that their allegations of police violence were credible.

(b)   Whether an effective investigation was carried out into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the police

59.  The Court is satisfied that the applicants raised an arguable claim of ill-treatment by the police, and that the authorities were under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation in response to their complaints. Although the authorities opened a criminal case in respect of the events of 27 and 28 September 2006, the Court is not convinced that the ensuing investigation has been sufficiently thorough and expeditious to meet the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

60.  While the Court may accept that the criminal proceedings were instituted without excessive delay, it notes that the investigation has not yet been completed. The Court finds it striking that the case has been pending before the investigating authorities for over eight years and those authorities have so far failed to clarify the circumstances of the case and deliver a reasoned decision on the matter (compare to Barakhoyev, cited above, § 36, 17 January 2017).

61.  The Court also notes that basic investigative steps had not been taken by 6 April 2010, that is to say more than three and a half years after the criminal investigation had been launched. As was noted by the Nalchik investigative committee, the investigators had failed: to establish the whereabouts of Officers A. and E.; to identify and question an FSB officer who had been involved in the operation; to order a medical examination of the applicants’ clothes which had been included in the case material; to question Mr P. and his neighbour, who had arrived at the T. Centre after the second applicant’s telephone call; to examine the T. Centre’s detainee registration logs; and to carry out other important investigative measures (see paragraph 48 above). The Court finds it particularly dissatisfying that even after repeated orders by the supervising authority to that end (see paragraph 49 above), the above-mentioned shortcomings have not been rectified.

62.  The Court also notes that the investigators have never made a genuine attempt to identify the SOBR officers involved in the special operation, or assessed the necessity of the physical force used against the applicants during their arrest and the proportionality of that measure.

63.  In view of the absence of any meaningful developments in the investigation in the last few years, the Court does not consider that the applicants should have waited for the investigation to be completed before making their application to the Court, as the conclusion of those proceedings would not in any way have remedied the overall delay in conducting the proceedings (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007‑IX). Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s argument that the applicants’ complaints were premature.

64.  In the light of the above, and taking into account that the Government did not contest the applicants’ allegation that the investigation had been ineffective, the Court finds that the State has failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter as required by Article 3 of the Convention.

(c)   Whether the Government provided explanations capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ account of events

65.  The Court observes that neither the Government nor the investigating authority provided any explanation which would cast doubt on the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment during their arrest and their detention in the T. Centre. Accordingly, the burden of proof lying on the Government has not been discharged.

(d)   Legal classification of the treatment

66.  The Court observes that law-enforcement officers beat the applicants, handcuffed them, blindfolded them and subjected them to electric shocks in order to inflict pain, with the aim of extracting their confessions to crimes. Having regard to the violence suffered by the applicants at the hands of the officers, the Court finds that such treatment amounted to torture (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 119-20).

(e)   Conclusion

67.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

68.  The applicants complained, under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3, that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into their complaints of ill-treatment. Article 13 reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

69.  The Government contested that claim, arguing that the applicants had been able to challenge the investigators’ decisions or alleged inaction in court, and had made use of that opportunity.

70.  The Court notes that the complaint submitted under Article 13 of the Convention is closely linked to the issue raised under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, and that therefore this complaint should be declared admissible. However, having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural head on account of the respondent State’s failure to carry out an effective investigation, it considers that it is not necessary to examine this complaint separately under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin, cited above, § 144).OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

71.  The applicants raised a number of further complaints under Articles 5, 6, 7, 9 and 14. The first applicant also submitted complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

72.  The Court has examined those complaints. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

73.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”Damage

74.  Each of the applicants claimed 150,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (EUR 100,000 for their ill-treatment, and EUR 50,000 for the ineffectiveness of the investigation).

75.  The Government submitted that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants’ suffering, and that in any event the amounts claimed by the applicants were excessive.

76.  The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the applicants’ suffering and anguish cannot be compensated for by the mere finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers that EUR 67,600 should be awarded to each of the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.Costs and expenses

77.  The applicants claimed 27,300 Russian roubles (RUB) – (approximately EUR 627) in respect of costs and expenses.

78.  The Government submitted that the claim was unsubstantiated.

79.  Bearing in mind that the applicants were granted legal aid for their representation by Ms I. Sokolova, the Court dismisses the claim.Default interest

80.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the complaints concerning the applicants’ ill-treatment and the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of that complaint admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb, in that the applicants have been subjected to torture;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb, on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegation of ill-treatment;Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention;Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 67,600 (sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Alena Poláčková
Deputy RegistrarPresident

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy