THIRD SECTION
CASE OF CHEMURZIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 16678/17 and 4 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Chemurziyeva and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table
2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In application no. 16678/17, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
Jurisdiction6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention7. The applicants complained principally of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.
8. The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact arise in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).
9. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128‑40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention. This is all the more so in the cases where the authorities have refused to carry out an official inquiry into the applicants’ allegations (see the appended table).
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.
11. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that these complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants with the exception of the applicant in application no. 16678/17 in respect of whom it finds only a violation of the procedural limb of that provision given the lack of evidence allowing to establish beyond the reasonable doubt the fact of the ill-treatment of the applicant in the hospital between 31/10/2015 and 07/11/2015.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. The applicant in application no. 16678/17 submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 79-82, 26 June 2018.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, 13 October 2020, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid, cited above) the Court considers it appropriate to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to the facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill‑treatment of the applicants, with the exception of the applicant in application no. 16678/17 in respect of whom there has only been a violation of the procedural limb of that Convention provision;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Factual information
Medical evidence of ill-treatment
Date of first complaint
Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment
Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP
Appeal decision
Other complaints under well‑established case‑law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
16678/17
20/02/2017
Leyla Nazyrovna CHEMURZIYEVA
1984
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
On 31/10/2015, when the applicant was driving in the vicinity of a special operation against illegal armed groups in Nazran, Ingushetia, the police opened gunfire at her car. She received several firearm wounds and was taken by the police to the Ingushetia Clinical Hospital. Between 31/10/2015 and 07/11/2015 her room was guarded by the police and no visitors were allowed. Within that time frame law-enforcement officers visited her regularly and subjected her to ill‑treatment to extract confession to membership in illegal armed groups: they twisted her wounded arm, strangled her, pressed on her wounds to make them bleed and threatened her with rape and murder. They did not let the doctor to come into the room.
The applicant complained to the Court about the ill-treatment at the hospital between 31/10/2015 and 07/11/2015 by the police.
Forensic examination report no. 565 of 31/12/20216 by the Nazran Forensics Bureau: penetrating gunshot wound to the left shoulder, tangential gunshot wound to the left elbow joint, chest gunshot wound on the left side.
On 07/11/2015 the applicant’s lawyer complained of her ill‑treatment and unlawful detention at the hospital/On 10/11/2015 the lawyer requested that a forensic medical examination of the applicant and her hospital linens with the traces of blood appeared as a result of the pressing on the wounds be carried out/On 25/12/2015 the examination confirmed that the blood on the linen could be the applicant’s and on 31/12/2015 it found, based on the hospitalisation records, that it was impossible to establish whether mechanical pressure had been applied on the applicant’s wounds as they had already healed/On 14/03/2016 refusal to open a criminal case against the officers who had opened gunfire at the applicant; the allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful detention were left unexamined/On 28/03/2016 refusal to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment: the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated and her hospital room had been guarded by the police for her own safety.
On 26/04/2016 the Magas Town Court refused to examine the complaint against the refusal of 28/03/2016 as the criminal case against the applicant had been transferred to a local court for trial/On 11/08/2016 the Magas Town Court convicted the applicant of membership in illegal armed groups and sentenced her to 8 year’s imprisonment. It left the allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful detention t the hospital without examination/On 20/11/2016 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld the conviction and lowered the applicant’s sentence to 6 years’ imprisonment.
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - Between 31/10/2015 and 05/11/2015 the applicant was subjected to unrecorded detention at the hospital (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 79‑82, 26 June 2018).
16,000
45034/18
12/09/2018
Alexander Grigoryevich KIM
1981
Vanslova Yekaterina
Nizhniy Novgorod
On 21/02/2017 the applicant was subjected to an identity check in the Moscow metro owing to his Asian appearance. In reply to the applicant’s statement that the check based on racial profiling was unlawful, police officer P. used physical force against the applicant while dragging him to the metro’s police station.
Medical certificate of 21/02/2017 by the Moscow City Hospital no. 129: fracture of the base of the first finger of the left hand and abrasion of the third finger of the left hand.
On 21/02/2017 complaint to police station no.6 in Moscow/On 15/04/2017, 03/06/2017 and 10/09/2017 refusals to open a criminal case as the use of force against the applicant was justified, although the latter did not use physical force against the officer.
On 08/05/2018 the Cheryomushki District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the last refusal without assessing either the necessity or proportionality of the physical force used against the applicant/On 13/06/2018 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.
16,000
50874/19
10/09/2019
Ruslan Sergeyevich SEMOV
1982
Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich
Moscow
On 05/05/2018 the applicant participated in Moscow in a manifestation against Presidential elections. He was taking close-up photos of police officers who were dispersing the crowd when one of them hit him twice with a truncheon, on the left arm and shoulder. The officer’s photographs were taken by the applicant’s colleagues.
Medical certificate of 05/05/2018 by the Moscow City Hospital no. 4: contusion, haematoma of the left shoulder and left forearm.
On 11/05/2018 complaint to the Moscow investigative committee/On 07/12/2018, 08/05/2019 and 31/05/2019 refusals to open a criminal case as the use of physical force was necessary. The refusals, save for the last one, were overruled by the investigators’ superiors as unlawful and premature.
The applicant appealed against the refusal to the Tverskoy District Court in Moscow/On 23/04/2019 the court refused to examine it as the impugned decision had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors/On 03/06/2019 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.
16,000
48843/22
23/09/2022
Anna Alekseyevna RAKHIMOVA
1993
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
On 31/01/2021 during a political rally in Kazan police officers beat the applicant with truncheons on various parts of her body. She was then taken to a police station and released on 01/02/2021.
Medical certificate of 02/02/2021 on the applicant’s examination carried out on 01/02/2021 at outpatient hospital no. 7 in Kazan: bruises of soft tissue, hematomas of the right shoulder, right hip and lower back, closed fracture of the 10th right rib.
Forensic expert examination of 16/03/2021 by the Tatarstan Forensic Bureau: bruises of soft tissue, hematomas of the right shoulder, right hip, and lower back, closed fracture of the 10th right rib. The injuries could not have been obtained as a result of a fall from the patient’s height.
On 05/02/2021 complaint to the Vakhitovskiy investigative department in Kazan/On 12/03/2021 and 11/05/2021 the complaint forwarded to the internal investigations department/On 24/05/2021 refusal to open a criminal case as no physical force was used against the applicant. Subsequently, on 18/03/2022 and 22/04/2022 and then on 02/06/2022 the investigators refused to open a criminal case; the applicant was informed thereof only after 18/03/2023.
On 24/06/2021 the Vakhitovskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 24/05/2021/On 24/08/2021 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan remitted the complaint for a fresh examination. On 06/09/2021 the District Court again rejected the appeal and on 16/11/2021 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan quashed the refusal and ordered that the investigators remedied numerous procedural violations.
On 01/02/2022 the applicant appealed against the investigators’ inaction before the District Court which on 28/02/2022 rejected her complaint as a new inquiry into the ill-treatment had been opened on 17/02/2022. On 10/06/2022 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan upheld that decision on appeal.
16,000
16804/23
31/03/2023
Konstantin Ramazovich MIKHAYLOV
1991
Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich
Kazan
On 10/08/2019 the applicant took part in a peaceful manifestation for fair elections to Moscow City Duma. He was approached by four officers of the National Guard Service who grabbed him, threw him on the ground, twisted his arms behind his back, hit him on his torso and carried him to a police bus. The applicant did not resist. Just before putting him into the bus, the officers kicked him on his legs and banged his head against the vehicle.
Medical certificate of 11/09/2019 by the Moscow Municipal Clinic: bruises on the top of the head, neck, right shoulder and left shoulder blade, a knee injury.
Medical certificate of 11/09/2019 by traumatologist from a private clinic: knee injury and bruises on the head, neck, right shoulder and left shoulder blade.
On 15/08/2019 complaint to the Basmanniy district investigative committee/No reply followed. At some point later the applicant learned that the complaint had been transferred to the National Guard Service for an internal inquiry.
On 30/09/2019 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow challenging the inaction of the investigating authorities/Four decisions by the District Court were quashed on appeal. The fifth decision of 26/10/2022, was upheld on appeal on 12/12/2022 by the Moscow City Court. The courts found that the investigators had acted within their discretionary powers when they had decided to transfer the complaint for an internal inquiry.
16,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.