FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF PUGACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 75045/11 and 12 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 September 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Pugachev and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Armen Harutyunyan,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 September 2023,
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. Some applicants 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).
LOCUS STANDI7. Following the deaths of the applicants, Mr Shabalin (application no. 35939/18) and Mr Tuntuyev (application no. 41254/18), Ms O. Shabalina and Ms Kh. Rasueva, respectively, expressed their wish to pursue the applications on behalf of the deceased applicants. The Government did not object.
8. The Court has accepted that in applications concerning Article 3 of the Convention, a close relative of the deceased applicant has standing to pursue the application (see Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 32631/09 and 53799/12, § 176, 27 August 2019, with further references).
9. In the light of the above, the Court accepts that Ms Shabalina and Ms Rasueva have a legitimate interest in pursuing the applications in place of the deceased applicants. It will therefore continue to deal with the case at their request. For convenience, however, it will continue to refer to Mr Shabalin and Mr Tuntuyev as the applicants in the present judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention10. The applicants complained principally of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.
11. The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was 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).
12. 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.
13. 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. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and observes that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 71757/13, 75937/17 and 41254/18, in respect of whom it finds only a violation of the procedural limb of that provision.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW14. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the attached 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 Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018; Vakhitov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18232/11 and 2 others, §§ 58-64, 31 January 2017; Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 76, 11 December 2012; and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69-71, 26 November 2019.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS15. The applicant in application no. 41254/18 also raised other complaints under the Convention.
16. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, they either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
17. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
18. In addition, some applicants also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine these complaints separately in the light of its findings under Article 3 of the Convention (see Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016, and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION19. 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.”
20. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see Ksenz and Others, cited above, § 120; and, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v.Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), 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;Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ complaints as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;Declares that Ms Shabalina and Ms Rasueva have standing to pursue applications nos. 35939/18 and 41254/18 in the stead of the late applicants, Mr Shabalin and Mr Tuntuyev, respectively;Declares the applicants’ complaints about torture or inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of State officials, and other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible, finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, and dismisses the remainder of application no. 41254/18 as inadmissible;Holds that there has been a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants, with the exception of the applicants in applications nos. 71757/13, 75937/17 and 41254/18, in respect of whom there has only been a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3.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/their heirs, where relevant, 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 28 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda
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
Name of representative 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
Information relating to conviction
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
75045/11
30/11/2011
Valeriy Terentyevich PUGACHEV
1958
On 19/12/2009 officers of the Cheremushki district police department in Moscow beat the applicant during his administrative detention.
Certificate of 20/12/2009 by Moscow City clinic no. 23: bruise and hematoma on the right side of the rib cage, hematoma on the forehead, compression of the soft tissues of both wrists.
Forensic medical examination act no. 5572 of 25/06/2010-29/06/2010 by the Moscow Forensic Bureau: hematomas on the rib cage and the forehead were caused by blunt force; the time of the infliction of the injuries could not be determined.
On 21/12/2009 complaint to the Moscow prosecutor’s office/Refusals to open a criminal case of 05/02/2010 and 30/06/2010.
On 26/04/2011 the Cheremushki District Court in Moscow rejected the applicant’s complaint about the first refusal / On 01/06/2011 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision.
The administrative proceedings against the applicant were terminated the day they were initiated (19/12/2009).
26,000
71757/13
14/10/2013
Igor Yevgenyevich SMIRNOV
1970
On 17/07/2012 the police interviewed the applicant in connection with a murder. When on 19/07/2012 he arrived at police station no. 2 in Saratov for another interview, officer K. and his colleagues subjected him to ill‑treatment to make him to confess to the crime: they beat him on the head and neck with fists and plastic water bottles. The applicant confessed under duress.
Medical examination report no. 3333 completed on 23/07/2012 by the Saratov Forensic Bureau: bruises on the shoulders, right elbow, and ankle, left shin, abrasion on the left shin, caused by blows of hard blunt objects for at least ten times; injuries inflicted between several hours and three days prior to the examination on 20/07/2012.
On 23/07/2012 the applicant complained to the Saratov Investigative committee / On 11/10/2012 refusal to open a criminal case for lack of corpus delicti: according to the police officers, the applicant’s wife and his daughter, the applicant had already had some injuries upon arrival at the police station on 19/07/2012.
02/11/2012 the applicant’s appeal against the refusal was rejected by the Zavodskoy District Court in Saratov as unsubstantiated / The applicant did not appeal further as the criminal case against him was sent for trial in December 2012/The Zavodskoy District Court examined the applicant’s complaint during the trial and dismissed it as unsubstantiated with reference to the refusal to open a criminal case and stating that the injuries recorded by the forensic examination on 23/07/2012 indicated that they could have been inflicted after the applicant’s interview with the police/On 20/06/2013 that decision was upheld on appeal by the Saratov Regional Court.
On 22/02/2013 the Zavodskoy District Court in Saratov convicted the applicant of causing injuries leading to death / Upheld on 20/06/2013 by the Saratov Regional Court.
12,500
75937/17
10/10/2017
Yevgeniy Valeryevich MINKIN
1975
Dolgopolova Kseniya Aleksandrovna
Cherepovets
On 17/03/2015 during a planned operation the police stopped the applicant’s vehicle and took him, handcuffed, to police unit no. 2 in Cherepovets. Allegedly, he had to stand, several times, for up to an hour, in a strained pose; any move resulted in blows to legs or arms; one officer hit him with a fist to the plexus; another one grabbed his neck. He was interviewed as a witness and spent the night sitting in a chair. On 18/03/2015, still without counsel, he gave "spontaneous confessions" to two thefts of snowmobiles and was released.
The wife, parents and two co-workers stated to the inquiry that between 18 and 20/03/2015 they had seen abrasions on the applicant’s forehead, hematomas on his wrists and behind the left ear.
On 30/07/2015 complaint to the Cherepovets investigative committee/
Between 31/08/2015 and 06/07/2017 four refusals to open a criminal case, each overruled by the investigators’ superiors / last refusal on 06/07/2017 issued for the lack of evidence of ill-treatment was overruled on 19/07/2017, new inquiry ordered, the outcome of which is unknown.
The applicant contested the last refusal before the Cherepovets Town Court, which on 29/07/2017 dismissed his complaint as unsubstantiated / On 15/08/2017 the Vologda Regional Court issued a special ruling criticising the procrastination in the inquiry into the ill-treatment complaint.
On 09/02/2017 the Cherepovets Town Court convicted the applicant of theft / Upheld on 05/07/2017 by the Vologda Regional Court.
Art. 5 (1) (c) - unlawful pre-trial detention - Detention for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76‑79, 26 June 2018), forced attendance without evidence of proper summons to appear or of failure by the applicant to comply without a valid excuse (see Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017): the applicant was arrested, while being a witness, and detained from 9 a.m. on 17/03/2015 to 5.45 p.m. on 18/03/2015.
16,250
81205/17
17/11/2017
(4 applicants)
Alibek Ali Magomedovich GADZHAYEV
1985
Dzhambulat Arasulovich ATABIYEV
1986
Khasan Magometovich KHUBIYEV
1973
Daut Anzorovich TEMIRLIYEV
1968
Yermolayeva Nadezhda Viktorovna
Moscow
Applicant 1 (Mr Gadzhayev): arrested at 4 p.m. on 21/10/2013 in Kislovodsk, the Stavropol region, by eight plainclothes officers of police department no. 1 in the Karachay-Cherkessia Republic. They blindfolded the applicant and took him to an undisclosed location where they subjected him to electric shocks, suffocation with a plastic bag and beatings to make him confess to murdering Mr. Ch. Then he was taken to a police station where he was questioned and forced to sign a self-incriminating statement in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer and was placed in detention.
Applicant 2 (Mr Atabiyev): arrested at 5 p.m. on 25/10/2013 in Stavropol by officers of police department no. 6 who subjected him to electric shocks pressurising him to confess to the murder of Mr. Ch. He was forced to sign a self-incriminatory statement, placed in detention and instructed to submit that he had been injured while playing football.
Applicant 3 (Mr Khubiyev): at 9 p.m. on 21/10/2013 the applicant and his minor son were taken from their home in Zelenchukskiy District in Karachay-Cherkessia by 9-10 police officers in balaclavas to an undisclosed location. The officers cuffed the applicant’s hands and subjected him to electric shocks and beatings to force him to confess to several episodes of murder, including the murder of Mr. Ch. The applicant was threatened that his son would be beaten as well. The ill-treatment lasted through the night; the applicant lost consciousness several time. Then he was taken to the IVS in Cherkessk. Later that day the officers took the applicant from the IVS to another building and subjected him to electric shocks again. The applicant signed a self-incriminatory statement and was placed in detention.
Applicant 4 (Mr Temirliyev):
On 29 or 30/10/2013 the applicant was blindfolded in Rostov-on-Don by plainclothes police officers from Karachay-Cherkessia and taken to Cherkessk, where in an undisclosed location he was subjected to beatings and electrocution. He lost consciousness several times. He was forced to sign pre-filled documents. He was then taken to the IVS to be detained.
Applicant 1: Forensic medical examination act no. 720 of 30/10/2013 by the Karachay-Cherkessia Forensic Bureau: bruises of the chest on the right side, scars on the tongue, multiple bruises of the auricles, face, chest, back, lumbar and iliac regions, right shoulder, both elbow joints, left hip, abrasions on the second fingers of both hands. The injuries could have resulted from the impact of a blunt object, the abrasions on the fingers may have been caused by electric shocks on 21/10/2013 in the circumstances alleged by the applicant. The examination of the applicant was conducted in the presence of police officers.
Applicant 2:
(i) medical certificate issued by civil hospital no. 2 in Cherkessk on 26/10/2013: electro-thermal injury to soft tissue of the abdominal wall; (ii) forensic medical examination act no. 5382 of 31/10/2013 by the Karachay-Cherkessia Forensic Bureau: bruises in scapula area, abrasions on both knees. The injuries could have resulted from the impact of a blunt object on 25/10/2013 and/or from falling playing football.
Applicant 3:
(i) the IVS medical records of 22/10/2013: bruises and abrasions on his face, head and body;
(ii) forensic medical examination act no. 561 of 28/10/2013 by the Karachay-Cherkessia Forensic Bureau: bruised wound of the face, bruises and abrasions of the face, abrasions in the lumbar region, abrasions of the right shoulder and left wrist joint, small-point abrasions of the fifth finger of the right hand, bruises of the left shoulder, bruising of the right eye. The injuries could have resulted from the impact of a blunt object with an edge on 20-23/10/2013.
Applicant 4:
(i) the IVS medical records of 01/11/2013: bruises of the face, head and chest.
(ii) extract from medical card no. 22769 of 02/11/2013: bruises of the face, head and chest.
(iii) SIZO-1 medical records: on 14/04/2016 diagnosed with 2nd degree hypertension caused by the consequences of an undated traumatic brain injury.
Applicant 1:
on 24/10/2013
complaint during the court hearing on his arrest and on 25/11/2013 to the Karachay-Cherkessia investigative committee / Refusals to open a criminal case of 27/01/2014 and 13/02/2014.
Applicant 2:
on 31/10/2013 complaint during the court hearing on his arrest and on 26/02/2016 to the investigative committee / Refusals to open a criminal case of 07/03/2016, 14/12/2017 and 20/09/2018 (referred to the applicant’s submissions about traumas obtained at a football game).
Applicant 3:
on 01/11/2013
complaint to the investigative committee / Refusal to open a criminal case on 01/12/2013.
Applicant 4:
on 17/02/2016 complaint during the trial / on 20/04/2017 refusal to open a criminal case (referred to the lack of ill-treatment complaints before the trial), the medical evidence was not examined.
Applicant 1:
On 28/11/2017 the Cherkessk Town Court refused to examine his complaint against the refusal of 13/02/2014 as his criminal case had been dealt with by the trial court/ On 19/12/2017 the Supreme Court of the Karachay‑Cherkessia Republic upheld the decision.
Applicant 2:
on 02/04/2018 the Promyshlenniy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 14/12/2017 /on 07/09/2018 the Stavropol Regional Court overruled the contested refusal. As a result of the new inquiry, on 20/09/2018 the last refusal issued.
Applicant 3:
on 28/11/2017 the Cherkessk Town Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 01/12/2013 as his criminal case had been had been dealt with by the trial court/upheld on 19/12/2017 by the Supreme Court of the Karachay-Cherkessia Republic
Applicant 4:
on 28/11/2017 the Cherkessk Town Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint against the last refusal as his criminal case had been dealt with by the trial court / on 19/12/2017 the Supreme Court of the Karachay-Cherkessia Republic upheld the decision.
On 09/11/2016 the Supreme Court of the Karachay-Cherkessia Republic convicted
Applicant 1 and Applicant 2 of aggravated murder,
Applicant 3 – of banditry, aggravated murder and illegal possession of firearms,
Applicant 4 – of banditry, aggravated murder and infliction of serious injuries. The applicants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment (from 8 to 20 years)/Upheld on appeal on 17/05/2017 by the Supreme Court of Russia.
Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings - the conviction was based on the applicants’ confession statements obtained under duress on 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 22/10/2013 and 31/10/2013 respectively.
26,000, to each of the applicants
26756/18
23/05/2018
Yuriy Ivanovich SOLDATOV
1981
Pastukh Vladimir Nikolayevich
Gubkin
At about 8 a.m. on 26/05/2015 the applicant was stopped by three plainclothes police officers near his home in Gubkin, Belgorod Region, and was taken to a nearby forest in an unmarked vehicle where he was beaten in the chest and suffocated with a plastic bag pulled over his head. One of the officers also stepped on the inside part of the applicant’s left foot while stretching his right leg forcing him to confess to an armed robbery in Voronezh. He was then taken to his home which was searched (he requested a lawyer but to no avail) and at about 5 p.m. on 26//05/2015 he was taken to police station no. 4 in Voronezh.
At about 11 p.m. on 26/05/2015, in the presence of an appointed lawyer, the applicant signed a record of his examination as a suspect, without reading it as he feared of being subjected to ill-treatment again. The lawyer made no remarks about the circumstances of the applicant’s case. On 27/05/2015 the applicant was taken to the police station temporary detention facility (IVS).
Act of examination no. 183 of 29/05/2015 by the medical ward of remand prison no. 2 (SIZO-2) in Voronezh (including an ray examination on 29/05/2015: swollen left ankle, painful to touch, fragmentary fracture of the left foot without displacement.
Medical examination act no. 1037 of 10/09/2015 by the Belgorod Forensic Bureau: fragmentary fracture of the left foot without displacement; it could have been caused on 26/05/2015; this type of fracture does not normally occur from falling down.
According to the statement of the applicant’s mother of 30 April 2017, she had seen the applicant on the day of his arrest, 26/05/2015, at about 3 p.m., his hands had been swollen and he had been limping on his left leg.
On 01/06/2015 complaint to the Belgorod investigative committee/
between 2015 and 2017
several refusals to open criminal case. The last refusal was on 30/04/2017: it was established that at the time of his placement in the IVS on 27/05/2015, the applicant’s injury to the left ankle had been self-inflicted. No physical force had been used against the applicant during the arrest.
The inquiry included (i) statements by the applicant, arresting police officers and attesting witnesses; (ii) excerpts from the applicant’s hospital records showing that between 30/11/2014 and 12/01/2015 he had undergone treatment for a foot fracture; (iii) excerpts from the medical examination act of the Belgorod Forensic Bureau no. 1037 of 10/09/2015.
On 25/10/2017 the Gubkin Town Court in the Belgorod Region found the applicant’s complaint against the last refusal unsubstantiated/ upheld on 21/12/2017 by the Belgorod Regional Court.
On 15/06/2017 the applicant was convicted of armed robbery by the Kominternovsk District Court in Voronezh, sentenced to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment/
On 29/11/2017 the Voronezh Regional Court reduced the sentence to 8 years. Both courts also dismissed the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment.
Art. 6 (1) and Art. 6 (3) (c) – unfair criminal proceedings, including in view of the absence of free legal assistance - On 26/05/2015 absence of a lawyer immediately after the applicant’s arrest; incriminating statements made by the applicant in the absence of a lawyer at around 5 p.m., access to legal aid lawyer granted at 11 p.m., but his presence was a formality: no legal advice rendered before interrogation, no details asked about the applicant’s arrest, no objection made to the night-time interrogation of the applicant.
26,000
33769/18
15/06/2018
Ilya Viktorovich SHCHUKIN
1988
Mezak Ernest Aleksandrovich
Saint-Barthélemy d’Anjou
Between 7 and 8 p.m. on 12/04/2017 the applicant who was a police officer at the material time was apprehended in Tosno, the Leningrad Region, by officers of the Federal Security Service for St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. He was thrown in a minivan where for about two hours he was beaten and repeatedly electrocuted with a taser all over his body, including the anus and genital area. One of the officers also threatened to rape him with a broom stick if he did not confess to receiving a bribe. At about 4 a.m. on 13/04/2017 the applicant was taken to the FSB office where he was questioned and threatened with a taser and from there he was taken to the office of the Tosno Investigative Committee where he testified and complained about the ill-treatment.
Medical record (no number) of 13/04/2017 by the Trauma Unit of the Tosno
Interdistrict Hospital: abrasion on the right side of the forehead – can be detained in the temporary detention facility without medical supervision.
Certificate of medical examination no. 394 of 19/04/2017 by the Forensic Bureau of the Leningrad Region: hematomas on the left elbow, right ankle; abrasions on the face, both wrists, lower back, both buttocks, penis and lower extremities; could have been caused by a blunt force trauma within 5-10 days prior to the examination; not excluded that the abrasions resulted from the application of an electrical taser to the affected parts.
Medical certificate no. 22-19 of 12/02/2019 by the same bureau: hematomas on the left elbow, right ankle; abrasions on the face, both wrists, lower back, both buttocks, penis and lower extremities; some of the abrasions could have been caused by multiple applications of taser to the affected parts, including through the clothes.
Medical certificate no. 037-19 of 14/03/2019 by the same bureau: abrasions on both buttocks and penis are consistent with tearing on the applicant’s underwear.
Medical certificate no. 121-19 of 07/05/2019 by the same bureau: the thermal injuries could have been caused by a taser and could not have resulted from scratching.
On 03/12/2018 complaint to the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the Western Military Circuit /on 19/02/2019 a criminal case opened and on 12/02/2020 the proceedings were terminated for the lack of causal link between the actions of the arresting officers and the applicant’s injuries.
On 10/10/2020 the St Petersburg Military Garrison Court upheld the termination of the criminal case/on 15/12/2020 the Military Court for the Western Circuit upheld the decision on appeal.
14/06/2019 the Tosno Town Court in the Leningrad Region convicted the applicant of accepting the bribe.
Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - by van from 15/12/2017 to 15/06/2018, 0.3 sq. m of personal space, overcrowding.
52,000
35939/18
24/07/2018
Aleksandr Gennadyevich SHABALIN
1981
Deceased in 2019
Heir:
Oksana Gennadyevna SHABALINA
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
At 9 a.m. on 03/11/2015 the applicant was taken to the Nizhnekamskiy district police department on suspicion of a theft from a store. There officers hit him on the head, handcuffed him and gagged him with dirty clothes. Under pressure, the applicant confessed to the crime.
At 7 p.m. on 03/11/2015 he was subjected to a medical examination to establish intoxication; it concluded that he was under the influence of opioids. At 8.25 p.m. on the same day an administrative arrest record was drawn in respect of the applicant for an offense under Article 6.9 § 1 of the CAO (drug use) and he was put in a cell for administrative detainees. At night, the applicant lost his eyesight, the ambulance was called, and he was hospitalised.
Medical examination act of 11/11/2015 by the Tatarstan Ophthalmic Clinical Hospital: bilateral toxic neurouveitis, orthophoria, eyelid hematomas, pupil deformity.
Forensic examination act no. S/110 of 12/06/2016 by department no. 3 of the Federal Forensic Bureau: closed craniocerebral injury with visual impairment, the injury might have been the result of the alleged ill‑treatment on 03/11/2015.
On 07/11/2015 complaint by the applicant’s sister to the Nizhnekamskiy District Investigative Committee in Tatarstan / on 24/11/2015 a criminal case was opened against the police officers, then the proceedings were terminated / Between 02/03/2016 and 08/07/2017 the case was resumed and terminated on three occasions, the last decision to terminate was issued on 08/07/2017.
On 27/04/2018 the Nizhnekamskiy District Court in Tatarstan dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the last termination of the criminal proceedings / on 29/06/2018 the decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic.
The applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Article 6.9 § 1 of the CAO (drug use). No information about conviction.
On 25/11/2015 a criminal case against the applicant on account of the alleged theft was terminated as the CCTV video from the store proved that the crime had been committed by another person.
52,000, to be paid to the applicant’s heir, Ms O. Shabalina
38018/18
02/08/2018
Yegor Alekseyevich ARABEY
1991
On 29/06/2017 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing by the drugs unit of the Kanavinskiy District police station in Nizhniy Novgorod. The applicant was punched in the face and beaten by police officers to force him to reveal where he had hidden the drugs. According to the police, they had used force because the applicant had tried to flee.
Record of bodily search of 29/06/2017 at the police station (the applicant had no visible injuries).
certificate no. 30/1560 of 15/09/2017 issued by the temporary detention centre IVS (recorded on arrival to IVS on 30/06/2017): bruise on the left eye and a bruise on the back.
Certificate no. 881 of 02/10/2017 by remand centre IZ-1- on arrival to IZ-1 on 01/07/2017: purple bruise on the left eye of 2 cm in diameter.
Complaint to the prosecutor’s office on 25/07/2017/ on 07/11/2017 refusal to open a criminal case as it was impossible to establish with certainty due to the inquiry’s limitations the origin of the applicant’s injuries.
On 30/11/2017 the applicant challenged the refusal before the Kanavinskiy District Court in Nizhniy Novgorod. The outcome of this complaint is unknown. The applicant also complained about ill-treatment during his trial which started on 10/11/2017 and then on appeal. The trial court examined the medical evidence and questioned the police officers. It found no evidence of ill-treatment. That finding was confirmed on appeal.
01/12/2017 the Kanavinskiy District Court in Nizhniy Novgorod convicted the applicant of drug trafficking/ upheld on appeal on 06/02/2018 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court.
26,000
41254/18
20/08/2018
Ayub Kharonovich TUNTUYEV
1975
Deceased in 2019
Heir:
Khedi Ramzanovna RASUEVA
Kogan Vanessa
Moscow
On 17/05/2016 the applicant was beaten in the kidneys, chest and head and threatened with rape and poisoning by two individuals in plain clothes in IK-6 FSIN in the Vladimir Region in order to force him to confess. Later, on the same day and on then 20/05/2016, the applicant was threatened by FSB officers who demanded that he waived his right to a lawyer and kept the ill-treatment of 17/05/2016 to himself.
Forensic medical examination no. 6/230-16 of 27/07/2016 by the Vladimir Region Forensic Bureau (conducted on 21/07/2016): no bruises or abrasions recorded.
On 30/05/2016 complaint by the applicant’s lawyer to the Vladimir Regional Investigative Committee / Criminal case opened on 05/07/2016, decision to terminate the proceedings on 05/12/2017.
Complaint against the termination to the Kovrov Town Court, which rejected it on 21/12/2017 / upheld by the Vladimir Regional Court on 20/02/2018.
No relevant information
12,500,
to be paid to the applicant’s heir, Ms K. Rasueva
45802/18
13/09/2018
Andrey Igorevich KREKOV
1980
Moskalenko Karinna Akopovna
Strasbourg
On 26/07/2014 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of an administrative offence and was taken to police station no. 3 in Arkhangelsk. The applicant stated that police officers had beaten him all over the body.
Forensic medical examination act no. 3113 of 28/07/2022 by the Arkhangelsk Forensic Bureau: numerous hematomas all over the head, the body, and the upper and lower limbs that could have been caused by a hard blunt object between one and four days prior to the examination.
On 26/07/2014 complaint to police department no. 3 in Arkhangelsk / on 16/10/2014 refusal to open a criminal case / on 06/11/2014 a criminal case against the police officers was opened / Termination of the case on 06/11/2015 as the use of force against the applicant was justified as he had resisted arrest.
On 18/08/2017 the applicant lodged yet another appeal against the termination of the case with the Lomonosovskiy District Court, which refused to accept it/the Archangelsk Regional Court overruled that decision on 28/11/2017 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 19/01/2018 the Lomonosovskiy District Court dismissed the appeal/On 15/03/2018 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the decision.
On 22/07/2015 the applicant was convicted of use of violence against a public official.
26,000
45833/18
11/09/2018
Viktor Sergeyevich FILINKOV
1994
Sholokhov Igor Nikolayevich
Kazan
On the night of 24/01/2018 the applicant was arrested by FSB officers in St Petersburg on suspicion of membership in a “terrorist” group ‘Network’ (‘Сеть’). He was severely beaten during his transport; according to the officers, the force was used as he attempted to abscond. He was taken to the FSB headquarters in St Petersburg where the officers continued beating him and used an electric shocker on him to make him confess. The record of arrest was drawn up on 25/01/2018.
Certificate of 25/01/2018 by the medical ward of the remand prison: skin injury in the area of the right hip and chest, haematoma on the right shin, chin injury, handcuffing traces.
On 25/01/2018 and 02/02/2018 to the St Peterburg Investigative Committee / on 17/04/2018 refusal to open a criminal case as the use of force was justified due to the applicant’s attempt to abscond.
On 16/08/2018 the Appellate Decision of the Leningrad Regional Military Court upheld the refusal in the final instance.
On 22/06/2020 the Western Circuit Military Court sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment for participation in a terrorist organisation / On 21/12/2021 conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia (cassation decision).
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - unrecorded detention on the night of 24/01/2018 (no court order, the fact of arrest was officially recorded more than 28 hours after actual arrest),
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - Confession made by the applicant under duress had been used as evidence in his conviction, Final decision (cassation) by the Supreme Court of Russia on 21/12/2021.
26,000
48608/18
17/12/2018
Vladislav Khamitovich MIRKHAYDAROV
1977
On 03/08/2015 police officer B. arrested the applicant, following test purchases of drugs from him on 31/07/2015 and 03/08/2015. Officer B. and two other officers beat him up on the way to police station no. 8 in Ufa and during detention there until 05/08/2015, pressuring him to confess to the crime. On 05/08/2015 the applicant was released.
Medical certificate of 06/08/2015 by the trauma unit of Hospital no. 21 in Ufa: multiple abrasions on the neck, head and the right upper shoulder.
On an unspecified date between September and December 2015, complaint to the Oktyabrskiy District Investigative department in Ufa / On 15/05/2016 and 10/12/2016 refusals to open a criminal case, both overruled by the investigators’ superiors/ on 28/09/2018 another refusal to open a criminal case: according to officer B., the applicant had resisted the arrest and tried to abscond / on 27/12/2018 the refusal was overruled by the investigators’ superiors; no information on the outcome.
On 28/08/2018 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Ufa refused to examine the appeal against the refusal of 10/12/0216 as it had already been overruled by the investigators’ superiors.
On 18/05/2016 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Ufa convicted the applicant of drug trafficking/ Upheld on 03/08/2016 by the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic.
26,000
54239/18
30/10/2018
Ilya Anatolyevich KAPUSTIN
1990
Nikonov Maksim Andreyevich
Vladimir
At 9.30 p.m. on 25/01/2018 the applicant was apprehended in St Petersburg by FSB officers. He was thrown to the ground, beaten all over his body and dragged into a FSB minivan where he was handcuffed and repeatedly electrocuted, for three hours, with an electrical taser about 40 times on the right side of his naked torso and genitals, while being questioned about the involvement of other individuals in the criminal activity that he was allegedly implicated in. According to the applicant, as a result of that ill-treatment, he had electrocution marks which were inflicted all over the right side of his torso and on his penis. At about 1 a.m. on 26/01/2018 he was taken to the office of the St Petersburg FSB. On 26/01/2018 at about 7 a.m. the FSB officers took him to his flat; they searched it and seized computer equipment.
Medical certificate of 26/01/2018 by the Trauma Unit of St Petersburg City Outpatient Department no. 3: bruising of soft facial tissue, nose, lower lip; injuries on both shoulders and the right side of the chest; electrocution burns on the right side of the abdomen, right hip and genital area on the right.
Forensic report no. 10/00001779 of 29/01/2018 by the St Petersburg Forensics Bureau: bruising of the upper right eyelid, shoulders, knees, abrasions on upper extremities, abdomen, right hip and penis.
On 13/02/2018 complaint to the Investigative Committee of the Western Military Circuit / on 20/04/2018 - refusal to open a criminal case: the use of force against the applicant, including the use of taser, was justified as he had resisted the arrest. The refusal referred, inter alia, to the testimony of the trauma doctor (S.) who examined the applicant on 26/01/2018 and explained that in the medical certificate of 26/01/2018 he had recorded the abrasions on the applicant’s body as electrocution burns because the applicant had identified them as such, although such abrasions could have also been consistent with insect bites or symptoms of a skin disease.
On 17/07/2018 the Military Court of the St Petersburg Garrison upheld the refusal/on 06/09/2018 the Military Court of the St Petersburg District upheld that decision.
no information provided
Art. 5 (1) -unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - The applicant was detained by the FSB without any record for
ten and a half hours between 9:30 p.m. on 25/01/2018 and 7 a.m. on 26/01/2018. He was brought to the FSB office to be questioned as a witness in a
criminal case but according to the national law, before enforced appearance is
carried out, witnesses are first sent a notice to
appear failing which they could be apprehended for questioning and the applicant received no such summons.
Art. 5 (2) – failure to inform promptly of the reasons for arrest. The applicant was not provided with any reasons for his arrest or any information concerning charges against him at the time
of the arrest (see Vakhitov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18232/11 and 2 others, §§ 58‑64, 31 January 2017)
52,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.