THIRD SECTION
CASE OF SPORYKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 40930/06 and 5 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 December 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sporykhin and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peeter Roosma, President,
Dmitry Dedov,
Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 40930/06 and 5 others) 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 Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 16 November 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applications concern, among other things, the alleged ill‑treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard.
THE FACTS
2. The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various regions of Russia. A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix.
3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, the then Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, their successor in that office.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Sporykhin v. Russia, application No. 40930/06The events of the alleged ill-treatment5. On 17 August 2001 police officers arrested the applicant in Skopin, the Ryazan Region, on suspicion of participation in an organised gang. According to the applicant, on their way to the police station and upon the arrival the officers beat him on his buttocks, shoulders, back, arms and legs. They also allegedly threatened him with further violence in order to force him to confess and hand down his accomplice. The applicant confessed on the next day.
6. On 24 August 2001 a medical examination in a detention centre found no injuries on the applicant’s body.
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment7. On 12 September 2001 the applicant complained about the ill‑treatment to investigative authorities.
8. On 12 October 2001 a forensic medical examination found healing marks of abrasions on the applicant’s left shoulder and both shins. According to the report, the injuries could have possibly been inflicted on 17 or 18 August 2001.
9. On 15 October 2001 the regional prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings having found the complaint unsubstantiated. He referred to the medical examination of 24 August 2001 (see paragraph 6 above) and statements of the police officers who had denied the use of force.
10. On 22 May 2002 and 18 July 2006 the applicant lodged two more complaints. The investigator dismissed them with a reference to the initial refusal. Domestic courts subsequently upheld those refusals.
Murskiy v. Russia, application No. 30055/17The events of the alleged ill-treatment11. On 17 March 2015 police officers arrested the applicant in Nizhniy Novgorod on suspicion of drug dealing. According to the applicant, they handcuffed him and escorted to a police station. At the station, in order to obtain his confession, the officers allegedly beat him on the face, stomach and other parts of the body and pulled his hair. They further threatened to kill him or put in jail. The applicant subsequently confessed.
12. On the following day a medical examination found a contusion and an abrasion on the forehead and established signs of a fracture of the cervical spine.
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment13. On 19 March 2015 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment to investigative authorities.
14. On the same day a forensic medical examination found a number of bruises on the applicants head, an abrasion on the forehead and bruises on the right wrist inflicted with a blunt object between one and three days prior to the examination.
15. On the same day the applicant was transferred to a hospital. According to his medical record, he had a concussion and a craniocerebral injury, contusion of the cervical spine and chest, numerous bruises and abrasions on the face, a bruise on the back of the head.
16. Between 23 March 2015 and 10 March 2016 the investigator issued several refusals to institute criminal proceedings. They were subsequently annulled for incomplete inquiry.
17. On 22 June 2015 another forensic medical examination confirmed the findings of the previous examinations (see paragraphs 23 and 30 above).
18. On 22 April 2016 the investigator issued the latest refusals to institute criminal proceedings. He referred to explanations of the police officers and attesting witnesses who had denied the allegations as well as to the outcome of the prior inquiries. Domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal.
19. On 22 May 2019, that is more than four years after the initial complaint, the investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings.
20. On 30 October 2019 the officers were charged with abuse of power. The criminal proceedings in their respect are still pending.
Knyazevich v. Russia, application No. 79720/17The events of the alleged ill-treatment21. On 14 February 2014 police officers arrested the applicant in St Petersburg on suspicion of murder and other crimes. According to the applicant, the officers beat him and threatened to kill him and his family in order to obtain his confession. They further allegedly took him to a forest and buried naked in snow up to his waist. The applicant subsequently confessed.
22. On 16 February 2014 a medical examination found bruises on the applicant’s left eye and right hand and an abrasion on the neck.
23. On the next day another medical examination recorded a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, multiple bruises on the neck, upper limbs and the left eye.
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment24. On 29 April 2015 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment within the criminal proceedings against him.
25. On 8 July 2015 the applicant’s mother complained to investigative authorities.
26. On 11 March 2016, that is more than ten months after the applicant’s complaint, a forensic medical examination studied the applicant’s medical record and found that he had had a bruise and contusion of the left eye, numerous abrasions on the neck and upper limbs. It failed to determine the timeframe of the injuries for the lack of information.
27. Between 6 August 2015 and 10 June 2018 the investigator issued numerous refusals to institute criminal proceedings. All the refusals, but the latest one, were subsequently annulled for incomplete inquiry. In the latest refusal the investigator stated that the applicant had never sustained any of the alleged injuries. He referred to explanations of the police officers who had denied the allegations. He did not address the forensic medical examination of 11 March 2016 (see paragraph 26 above).
Amakhanov v. Russia, application No. 41692/18The events of the alleged ill-treatment28. On 9 September 2014 at around 12 noon police officers arrested the applicant in Krasnodar on suspicion of murder. According to the applicant, during the arrest they twisted his hands, handcuffed and punched several times in the face and stomach. Upon their arrival at a police station, in order to obtain his confession, they allegedly knocked him down on the floor, blocked with a chair, put on him a gas mask and closed the inlet. They then tied him up and applied electric shocks to the shins. They further beat him with a bottle of water and a belt and kicked in the head and back and threatened to rape him. The applicant subsequently confessed.
29. On 10 September 2014 a forensic medical examination found abrasions on the face and back inflicted with a blunt object one day earlier.
30. On 11 September 2014 a medical examination at a hospital found abrasion on the applicant’s back, wrists and the left eyelid. On the same day an examination conducted in a detention centre recorded the same injuries.
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment31. On 27 November 2014 the applicant complained about the ill‑treatment to investigative authorities.
32. Since 1 January 2015 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on numerous occasions. All the refusals, but the latest one dated 11 August 2019, were subsequently annulled for incomplete inquiry. In the latter refusal the investigator referred to explanations of the officers who had denied the allegations. He further argued that the applicant had not furnished sufficient evidence and that he could have sustained the injuries prior to his arrest.
Rukhtayev v. Russia, application No. 45341/18The events of the alleged ill-treatment33. Since 25 December 2015 the applicant has been serving his sentence in the medical penitentiary facility LIU-4, the Republic of Karelia.
34. According to the applicant, on 19 December 2016 officers of LIU-4, in order to prevent him from complaining about conditions of detention, twisted his left arm and forced down into a leg split. They then knocked him down on the floor so he hurt his knee. Then an officer sat on the applicant’s legs and hit his feet and heels with a mallet. Another officer then covered the applicant’s face with a hat to suffocate him and disguise his screams. The officers also pressed sensitive points behind the applicant’s ears, causing him pain.
35. On the same day a medical examination found no injuries on the applicant’s body.
36. Allegedly, on the same and the following days two officers of LIU-4 again forced the applicant into a split and hit his feet and heels with a mallet. Another medical examination conducted on the following day found no injuries.
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment37. On 29 December 2016 the applicant’s lawyer complained about the ill-treatment to investigative authorities. Three other LIU-4 prisoners confirmed having heard the applicant screaming of the alleged ill-treatment.
38. On 22 February and 3 April 2017 the investigator issued two refusals to open criminal proceedings. They were subsequently annulled for incomplete inquiry.
39. On 23 March 2017, that is almost three months after the applicant’s complaint, a forensic medical examination studied the applicant’s medical record and found no injuries.
40. On 23 June 2017 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings. He referred to explanations of the officers who had denied the allegations, the medical reports finding no injuries on the applicant’s body (see paragraphs 35, 36 and 39 above) and the prior unsuccessful inquiries. He further refuted the statements of the witnesses as they had not seen the alleged events and could have been slandering the officers. Lastly, he found that, in any event, the officers acted in accordance with internal regulations. Domestic courts subsequently upheld the refusal.
Gmyrya v. Russia, application No. 44879/18The events of the alleged ill-treatment41. On 28 August 2017 police officers arrested the applicant in Krasnodar on suspicion of attempted murder. According to the applicant, after the arrest the officers beat him on different parts of the body in order to obtain his confession.
42. On the same day an ambulance doctor recorded bruises and a contusion on the applicant’s face and left eye.
43. On the following day a medical examination at a detention centre recorded contusions and bruises on the applicant’s head, face, left eye and forearms.
Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment44. On 1 September 2017 the applicant complained about the ill‑treatment to investigative authorities.
45. On 7 September 2017 a medical examination at a hospital found a bruise on the applicant’s left eye.
46. Between 3 November 2017 and 12 April 2018 the investigator issued three refusals to institute criminal proceedings. In the latest refusal he referred to explanations of police officers who had submitted that they had used force during the arrest since the applicant attempted to resist the arrest. They further admitted that the applicant had surrendered and followed the officers’ orders before they had arrested him. All the refusals were subsequently annulled for incomplete inquiry. Domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the latest refusal.
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
47. For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 48‑52, 14 November 2013.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS48. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLEs 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION49. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill‑treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of the Convention provisions read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”
Admissibility50. The Court notes that the applications are neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible.
MeritsThe parties’ submissions51. The applicants maintained their complaints, claiming that they had sustained the injuries as a result of their ill-treatment by the State officers.
52. As regards the cases of Mr Sporykhin, Mr Murskiy, Mr Amakhanov and Mr Rukhtayev, the Government maintained the conclusions of the domestic inquiries. In the cases of Mr Knyazevich and Mr Gmyrya the Government did not submit their observations.
The Court’s assessment(a) The applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment
(i) Mr Rukhtayev
53. The Court observes from the outset that Mr Rukhtayev submitted no medical documents or other credible evidence in support of his allegations of ill-treatment. He solely referred to rather limited witness statements who had not seen the alleged events (see paragraph 37 above).
54. In the light of the above the Court cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Rukhtayev was indeed subjected to the treatment complained of (see, for example, Nekrasov v. Russia, no. 8049/07, §§ 90‑96, 17 May 2016, and Uzhakov and Albagachiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 76635/11, § 108, 23 June 2020). Consequently, the Court cannot find a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of his alleged ill-treatment.
(ii) The other applicants
55. The Court observes that all the other applicants were arrested by the police on suspicion of their having committed various crimes. After spending different periods of time at the hands of State officers, the applicants were found to have sustained injuries of various degrees, as recorded by forensic medical experts, detention facilities or medical institutions (see paragraphs 8, 12, 23, 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 42, 43 and 45 above).
56. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants’ accounts of events and to satisfy the Court that their allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were credible.
(b) Effectiveness of the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment
57. The Court observes that the applicants, including Mr Rukhtayev, brought to the investigative authorities detailed and consistent accounts of the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment corroborated with either medical documents or witness statements. However, their complaints were dismissed as unfounded, based largely on the statements of the officers denying the applicants’ ill-treatment (see paragraphs 9, 18, 27, 32, 40, and 46 above). Refusals to open criminal proceedings in most cases were each time annulled by the superior authorities for having been based on an incomplete investigation and a fresh inquiry was ordered (see paragraphs 16, 27, 46, 38, and 46 above). In the cases of Mr Sporykhin, Mr Murskiy, Mr Rukhtayev and Mr Gmyrya the investigators’ most recent refusals to open a criminal case were upheld by the domestic courts (see paragraphs 10, 18, 40 and 46 above).
58. The Court observes that in the case of Mr Murskiy, after more than four years and following several refusals, a criminal case was eventually opened (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above). However, after two years, the Court still has not received further information from the Government regarding the progress of that investigation.
59. As regards the quality of the forensic expert examinations, the Court reiterates that proper medical examinations are essential safeguards against ill-treatment (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 55 and 118, ECHR 2000‑X). However, in the case of Mr Gmyrya such an examination was not carried out. In the cases of Mr Sporykhin, Mr Knyazevich and Mr Rukhtayev the forensic examinations were conducted with significant delays ranging from one to ten months since the applicants had lodged their complaints (see paragraphs 8, 26 and 39 above). Moreover, in the cases of Mr Knyazevich and Mr Rukhtayev those examinations were based on the applicants’ medical records and did not involve their physical examination by the experts.
60. The Court reiterates its finding that the mere carrying out of a pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill‑treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129 and 132‑36, 24 July 2014). In itself, a refusal by the authority to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of serious ill‑treatment in the police custody is indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation (ibid., §§ 132‑36).
61. The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases, which involve credible allegations of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention. It finds that the State has failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of police violence.
(c) The Government’s explanations
62. The Government maintained the conclusions of the investigating authorities (see paragraph 52 above). In particular, they argued that the applicants’ injuries had not been attributable to the conduct of the police officers or that the application of force had been lawful.
63. Given that the Government’s explanations were provided as a result of superficial domestic inquiries falling short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that in these cases the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the account of events provided by the applicants, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 83-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 102‑04, 12 December 2017).
(d) Legal classification of the treatment
64. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.
65. Having regard to the applicants’ injuries confirmed by medical evidence, the Court finds that the police subjected Mr Sporykhin, and Mr Gmyrya to inhuman and degrading treatment. As regards Mr Amakhanov’s allegations of being suffocated and subjected to electric shocks (see paragraph 37 above), the Court finds them unsubstantiated. However, his injuries clearly originated from the beatings by the State officers, and in this connection the Court concludes that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.
66. The Court further observes that Mr Murskiy and Mr Knyazevich alleged that they had sustained serious injuries as a result of ill-treatment. Indeed, medical examinations recorded, among other things, concussions and craniocerebral injuries in respect of both applicants (see paragraphs 15 and 23) as well as a contusion of the cervical spine in respect of Mr Murskiy (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). In these circumstances the Court finds that Mr Murskiy’s and Mr Knyazevich’s particularly severe physical pain and suffering are attested by the medical reports and their statements regarding their ill‑treatment were not refuted by the Government. The sequence of events also demonstrates that the pain and suffering were inflicted on them intentionally, namely with a view to extracting confessions to having committed crimes (see paragraphs 11 and 21 above) (see, mutatis mutandis, Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 53, 2 October 2008, and Lolayev v. Russia, no. 58040/08, § 79, 15 January 2015).
67. In such circumstances, the Court concludes that, taken as whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill-treatment of Mr Murskiy and Mr Knyazevich amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
(e) Conclusion
68. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in respect of Mr Sporykhin, Mr Murskiy, Mr Knyazevich, Mr Amakhanov and Mr Gmyrya. There has also been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of all of the applicants. In the light of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONs UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW69. Mr Amakhanov and Mr Gmyrya submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). Those 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 a violation of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 108, 27 November 2012).
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION70. Lastly, the Court has examined the remaining complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention submitted by the applicants Mr Sporykhin and Mr Gmyrya regarding conditions of their pre-trial detention and the fairness of the criminal proceedings. Having regard to all the material in its possession and in so far as the complaints fall within the Court’s competence, it 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 these parts of the applications must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION71. 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.”
72. The applicants claimed various amounts in damages and costs and expenses.
73. The Government submitted that Article 41 of the Convention should be applied in accordance with the established case-law.
Damage74. The Court considers that the applicants must have suffered anguish and distress as a result of the violations found above. In those circumstances, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table, where relevant with an indication of sums claimed.
Costs and expenses75. As to costs and expenses, the Court reiterates that an applicant is entitled to their reimbursement only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. That being so, the Court awards the sums in this respect indicated in the appended table.
76. 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,
Decides to join the applications;Declares Mr Sporykhin’s and Mr Gmyrya’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of their pre-trial detention and Mr Sporykhin’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible and the remainder of the applications admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb on account of the alleged ill-treatment by the State officers in respect of Mr Sporykhin, Mr Murskiy, Mr Knyazevich, Mr Amakhanov and Mr Gmyrya, and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of all of the applicants;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of unreasonable length of pre-trial detention in respect of Mr Amakhanov and Mr Gmyrya;Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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 amounts indicated in the appended table 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 7 December 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Peeter Roosma
Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Case name
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Nationality
Represented by
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
Amount awarded for non- pecuniary damage
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
1
Sporykhin. v. Russia
40930/06
22/06/2006
Yuriy Borisovich SPORYKHIN
1965
Russian
Tumas Arsenovich MISAKYAN
-
EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros)
-
2
Murskiy v. Russia
30055/17
05/04/2017
Leonid Georgiyevich MURSKIY
1992
Russian
Committee Against Torture
-
EUR 52,000 (fifty-two thousand euros)
-
3
Knyazevich v. Russia
79720/17
16/11/2017
Ivan Vitalyevich KNYAZEVICH
1986
Russian
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KUZNETSOV
-
EUR 17,000 (seventeen thousand euros)
(as claimed by the applicant)
EUR 250 (two hundred and fifty euros)
4
Amakhanov v. Russia
41692/18
16/08/2018
Chingiz Ibragimovich AMAKHANOV
1980
Russian
Tatyana Aleksandrovna TRETYAK
Art. 5 § 3. Excessive length of pre‑trial detention between 11 September 2014 and 21 June 2019. The courts referred to the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant would abscond and reoffend or hinder the conduct of the proceedings.
EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros)
EUR 3,000
(three thousand euros)
5
Rukhtayev v. Russia
45341/18
20/09/2018
Artem Aleksandrovich RUKHTAYEV
1983
Russian
Leonid Leonidovich KRIKUN
-
EUR 12,500 (twelve thousand five hundred euros)
-
6
Gmyrya v. Russia
44879/18
06/09/2018
Vladislav Andreyevich GMYRYA
1990
Russian
Leonid Nikolayevich MAKHOVITSKIY
Art. 5 § 3. Excessive length of pre‑trial detention between 30 August 2017 and 18 February 2019. The courts referred to the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant would abscond and reoffend or hinder the conduct of the proceedings.
EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros)
EUR 1,740
(one thousand seven hundred and forty euros)