SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TARASOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 15380/19 and 10 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 September 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tarasov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President,
Frédéric Krenc,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 July 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).
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 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).
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.
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. The Court thus 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.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW12. In applications nos. 39527/19 and 9351/22 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 Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017, and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69-83, 6 November 2019.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS13. Some applicants also submitted complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. 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. They must therefore be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that there is no need to examine them 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 CONVENTION14. 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.”
15. Having regard to the documents in its possession, its case-law (see, 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) and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid , cited above, § 138) the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
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 the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of both substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment;Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately 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, 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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lorraine Schembri Orland
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
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]
15380/19
14/03/2019
Igor Ivanovich TARASOV
1969
Vanslova Yekaterina
Nizhniy Novgorod
At 1 a.m. on 31/03/2018 the applicant’s probation officer D. from police unit no. 3 in Orsk arrived at the applicant’s home for an official visit and beat the applicant up.
Medical record of 31/03/2018, issued by the emergency department of the Novotroitsk public hospital: abrasions on the hands and arms, bruises on the face; blunt injury of the belly.
Forensic report no. 263 issued by the Forensic Bureau of the Orenburg Region on 18/04/2018: injury on the parietal region; bruises on the right eye, the right cheekbone, the right cheek, the chin, the forehead, bruises on the right forearm and hand; these injuries could have been caused by hard blunt objects;
Witness statements of the applicant’s wife and son about the incident and witness statements of neighbours and others on the lack of injuries on the applicant prior to the incident and his injuries thereafter.
On 31/03/2018 complaint to the police unit / On 07/05/2018 its internal inquiry concluded that the use of force by the probation officer was lawful. The officer explained that he had arrived at the applicant’s home to check the latter’s involvement in drug trafficking and that the applicant attacked him. According to forensic report no. 308 issued by the Forensic Bureau of the Orenburg Region on 19/04/2018 officer D. had minor bruises on his face/ Between 02/05/2018 and 14/11/2018 six refusals to open a criminal case, all overruled by the investigators’ superiors, lastly on 02/03/2019.
26,000
39527/19
14/07/2019
Andrey Elfidovich ZAKURNAYEV
1975
Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich
Mytishchi
At approximately 12.30 a.m. on 20/10/2015 the applicant was detained near a post office in Prokopyevsk by plainclothes police officers; he was subjected to beatings while being driven to the Novokuznetsk Police Department in the Kemerovo Region. At the police station the beatings continued in order to pressure him to give incriminating statements against his brother who was charged with murder; the applicant was released on 21/10/2015 at about 1 a.m.
Expert report of 22/10/2015 of the Kemerovo Region Forensic Bureau: abrasions to the right radial joint, which were caused by hard objects, possibly by the edges of the handcuffs; bruises to the face, left auricle, shoulder joints, thorax, upper extremities, lumbar region, abrasions to the red fringe of the upper lip, mucosal cheeks, caused by at least sixteen impacts of a hard blunt object.
Discharge summary of the Kemerovo Municipal Hospital no. 3 of 30/10/2015: concussion of the brain, fracture of nasal bones, contusions, soft tissue haematomas of the head, chest, upper extremities, lumbar region.
Expert report of 30/08/2016 of the Novokuznetsk Town Forensic Bureau: closed craniofacial trauma in the form of concussion of the brain, with a fracture of the nasal bones without dislocation of the fragments, with bruising on the back of the nose, bruising of the soft tissues of the parieto-occipital region.
1) On 04/11/2015 to the Head of the Investigative Committee of the Kemerovo Region; on 27/11/2015 to the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia / 14 refusals to open a criminal case between 12/11/2015 and 03/01/2018. Each of the refusals was overruled by the investigators’ superiors as premature and ungrounded and a new round of inquiry was ordered; the investigators were instructed to take a number of steps. Each time those compulsory orders were not complied with.
2) Criminal investigation was opened on 12/02/2018 by the Novokuznetsk Department of the Investigative Committee / Three decisions to close the criminal case between 12/12/2018 and 25/04/2019. The first two decisions were overruled by the investigators’ superiors for the failure to take basic investigative steps; the investigators were given compulsory orders on the steps to be taken, but to no avail. The last decision to close the investigation for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers was taken on 20/06/2019.
In view of the persistent numerous refusals to open a criminal case and then the repeated terminations of the investigation into the ill-treatment (all those decisions were issued within the time frame of
3.5 years) and considering that each of those decisions was subsequently overruled by the investigators’ superiors whose orders to remedy the indicated shortcomings remained uncompiled with, the applicant did not lodge complaints under Art 125 of the CCrP deeming that it would be ineffective and devoid of purpose in the particular circumstances of the case .
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – detention without any legal order from approximately 12.30 a.m. on 20/10/2015 to about 1.00 a.m. on 21/10/2015
52,000
48371/19
11/09/2019
Denis Vladislavovich BELYANIN
1975
Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
On 02/09/2017 the applicant was subjected to beatings (punched in the chest, kicked in the legs and feet) by special police force officers during their intervention after a football match in Orenburg. The incident was recorded on video. Then the applicant was taken to police station no. 5 for finger printing, where he spent seven hours and was subjected to a few punches by the police officers. On 03/09/2017 the applicant returned to his hometown of Samara.
Examination on 06/09/2017 by the emergency department no.1 of the Pirogov hospital in Samara:
subjected to beatings at the stadium by the police, complained of pain in the left leg, recommended examination by a trauma specialist.
Forensic medical report
no. 04-8п/1330
of 06/09/2017 by the Samara Forensic Bureau: contusion and bruises on the inner ankle of the left shin of 8x7 cm.
On 11/09/2017 complaint to the Yuzhniy Investigative Department in Orenburg / Between 30/10/2017 and 08/12/2018 eight refusals to open a criminal case, all overruled by the investigators’ superiors. Latest decision – on 16/08/2019 (the use of force was necessary due to the applicant’s resistance during the police intervention).
On 09/07/2019 the Leninskiy District Court in Orenburg refused to examine the complaint as the refusal of 08/12/2018 had been overruled by the investigator’s superior on 28/06/2019.
6,500
11410/20
20/02/2020
Ibragim Saydayevich YANGULBAYEV
1994
Vanslova Yekaterina
Nizhniy Novgorod
On 21/05/2017 the applicant was taken to the Grozny police department under suspicion of managing a social media group critical of the Chechen authorities. Mr D., the Deputy Head of the department, and five other persons subjected the applicant to ill‑treatment to make him confess: they pulled a bag over his head, handcuffed him, electrocuted him, beat him with a plastic pipe and hung him upside down.
The applicant was charged with petty hooliganism and kept at the police station until 25/05/2017 when he was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen days of administrative detention.
Medical examination act no. 166 of 25/05/2017 in the IZ in Grozny: multiple bruises on the head, back, upper and lower limbs.
Forensic medical examination act no. 1420 of 21/07/2017: abrasions on the left and right forearm and right shin that could have been caused by a hard blunt object up to ten-fifteen days prior to the examination.
On 05/07/2017 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chechnya prosecutor’s office / Refusals to open a criminal
case: 16/08/2017, 28/09/2017 and 16/10/2017.
On 22/04/2019 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the last refusal/ on 20/08/2019 the Supreme Court of the Chechnya Republic upheld that decision.
26,000
17996/20
22/04/2020
Denis Albertovich KARIMOV
1985
Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
On 01/05/2017 the applicant was handcuffed, subjected to beatings and electric shocks at the Gelendzhik police station in order to force him to confess to a robbery.
Description of physical injuries in the lawyers’ complaint of 05/05/2017 to the Investigative Committee (two scratches of about 1.5 cm each on the wrist of the right hand; a scratch of about
2 cm on the wrist of the left hand; a scratch of about 12 cm on the right side of the lower left shin; a scratch of about 3 cm on the lower lumbar, numbness in the left thumb and right foot, and in the kidney area).
Forensic medical report
no. 1072/2017 of 10/08/2017 of the Gelendzhik Forensic Bureau: light brown pigmented skin patches of an oblong shape measuring 2.0 x 0.3 cm on the outer surface of both radial joints in the projection of the first finger; a superficial arc-shaped skin scar measuring 3.0 x 0.1 cm on the inner surface of the left tibia, in the lower third; the origin and age of injuries could not be determined.
On 05/05/2017 complaint to the Gelendzhik Investigative Department of the Krasnodar region/
Six refusals to open a criminal case between 14/05/2017 and 23/05/2018, all overruled by the investigator’s superiors/Latest - 18/06/2018, upheld by the courts.
On 27/08/2019 the Gelendzhik City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the last refusal /upheld on 22/10/2019 by the Krasnodar Regional Court (allegations of ill‑treatment dismissed as unfounded with reference inter alia to the applicant’s criminal conviction of 03/08/2018).
On 03/08/2018 the Gelendzhik City Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment / On 26/09/2018 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the conviction.
26,000
24917/20
22/06/2020
Denis Shamsundinovich MURDALOV
1977
Galagan Yanna Sergeyevna
Krasnodar
On 21/10/2012 the applicant was taken to the Krasnodar Regional Investigative Committee by unidentified police officers on suspicion of aggravated murder; there the officers tied his hands, pulled a bag over his head, beat him with blunt objects and repeatedly hit him in the scrotum with a stick. Fearing further violence, the applicant agreed to sign a confession.
Report by an IVS staff member on 22/10/2012: haematoma of the left eye, abrasions to both arms and torso.
Medical record by the Dinskiy District Central Hospital of 22/10/2012: injury to the left side of the lumbar area; injury to the vertebrae; injury to and haematoma on the face.
Expert report by a forensic expert of 26/10/2012: bruises on the lower eyelid of the right eye, the chest, the left shoulder, and the left ankle.
On 22/10/2012 complaint to the head of the Krasnodar police department / Report by an IVS staff member (an entry in the logbook of reports of a crime) of 22/10/2012 / The applicant’s statement in the course of the questioning on 15/02/2013 / Refusals to open criminal proceedings on 08/06/2013, 05/12/2013, 27/11/2014 - all overruled by the investigators’ superiors; last -on 26/10/2017.
Complaint about the last refusal lodged with the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Krasnodar / On 14/01/2020 the court dismissed it and upheld the refusal / On 17/03/2020 the decision was upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court.
26,000
17376/21
12/03/2021
Abdul-Malik Yusupovich ALBAGACHIYEV
1990
Sabinin Andrey Vasilyevich
Stavropol
On 04/02/2017 the applicant was arrested in Nazran allegedly for possession of an improvised explosive device. He was subjected to beatings, suffocation and electric shocks in order to extract confession of the membership in a terrorist organisation.
Forensic medical report no. 92 of 31/05/2017 by the Nazran Forensic Bureau: a fading bruise on the outer surface of the right leg in the middle third was caused by way of impact and compression with a hard blunt object within 7-10 days prior to the initial expert examination (the date of which is unknown); a healing abrasion on the inner surface of the left thigh in the lower third was caused by the sliding action of a hard blunt object, the age could not be determined; a pigment patch resulting from a healing abrasion in the left frontal area was caused by the sliding action of a blunt object within 10-15 days prior to the initial expert examination; headache, dizziness, cramps, sensory disturbances in the lower extremities, impaired thermoregulation, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, tachycardia, vascular wall permeability, mucous membrane haemorrhages under the oesophagus, stomach, duodenum bulb, accompanied by stomach bleeding, rapid hair loss, fear, anxiety, hallucinations, involuntary urination were manifestations of electrical trauma from 04/02/2017.
On an unspecified date in February 2017 a complaint to the Nazran Investigative Committee/on 07/05/2018 a criminal case opened/ between 28/06/2018 and 17/08/2020 –
11 decisions to suspend the investigation for two reasons alternatively: i) impossibility to identify the perpetrators; (ii) the whereabouts of the perpetrators is known, but no real possibility of his participation in the criminal case.
Latest – on 17/08/2020,
overruled by the investigators’ superiors on 04/10/2020; the investigation was pending on the date when the application was lodged with the Court.
On 06/10/2020 the Magas District Court refused to examine the complaint against the decision of 17/08/2020 as it had been overruled by the investigator’s superiors on 04/10/2020/
On 08/12/2020 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld the decision on appeal.
52,000
32470/21
21/06/2021
Albert Adamovich KHAMKHOYEV
1992
Vanslova Yekaterina
Nizhniy Novgorod
1) On 14/11/2017 the applicant was handcuffed by plainclothes police officers, who pulled a plastic bag over his head and took him to their car, where on the way to the Ingushetia Centre for Extremism Counteraction (CEC) he was beaten. Between 14 and 15/11/2017 at the CEC the officers subjected the applicant to punches, beatings with a plastic bottle full of water and electrocution to make him confess to illegal possession of firearms and fabrication of an explosive device. An ambulance was called for the applicant.
2) On 17 and 20/11/2017 the applicant was taken to the Ingushetia Department of the Federal Security Service where he was again subjected to electrocution to make him confess to the crimes.
Certificate of 24/11/2017 by the Republican Emergency Hospital (an ambulance called for the applicant on 15/11/2017 to the CEC found haematomas on his head and other parts of his body).
Certificate of 21/11/2017 by the Ingushetia public hospital:
the applicant arrived at the emergency unit on 17/11/2017 and was examined by doctors who found no “acute pathology.” On 19/11/2017 the applicant was brought again to the emergency unit with complaints about stomach pain; yellow haematomas and bruises on the right forearm, stomach, thighs, and legs were found.
Forensic expert report no. 512 of 01/12/2017 by the Ingushetia Forensic Bureau after the applicant’s examination on 20/11/2017: multiple bruises and injuries on the torso caused by hard blunt objects between 7 and 10 days prior to the examination.
Additional forensic expert report no. 336 of 13/08/2018 based on the applicant’s medical documents (fracture of the nose bones).
1) On 15/11/2017 and then on 16/11/2017 the applicant and his lawyer complained of the ill‑treatment by the CEC officers to the investigator in the criminal case opened against the applicant.
2) On 27/11/2017 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment by the FSB officers to unspecified authorities.
On 22/01/2018 a criminal case into both counts of ill-treatment was opened, the applicant was granted victim status, and police officer O., from the CEC, was named as the suspect/ On 27/10/2019 decision to terminate the criminal proceedings in respect of O. for the lack of corpus delicti, and the decision to suspend the criminal case for the failure to identify the perpetrators.
On 31/01/2020 the Nazran Prosecutor overruled the suspension and ordered that a number of steps be taken; the proceedings were resumed and on 11/01/2021 they were suspended again without the steps having been taken/
On 08/04/2021 the Deputy Ingushetia Prosecutor overruled the last suspension and instructed the investigators to take certain steps (e.g. to question medical staff which had examined the applicant as well as several police officers). The instructions were not complied with.
The applicant did not complain under Art 125 of the CCrP as it was to no avail given that the compulsory prosecutors’ orders remained not complied with by the investigators.
On an unspecified date the applicant was convicted of illegal possession of firearms.
52,000
44624/21
02/09/2021
Lyudmila Yuryevna FADEYEVA
1955
Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna
Nizhniy Novgorod
On 19/08/2015 the applicant was handcuffed and subjected to beatings by convoy officers in the building of the Moscow City Court.
Act of bodily examination of 19/08/2015 in remand prison
no. 6 of Moscow: haematomas on the left forearm 6.1 x 1.0 cm,
8.0 x 1.5 cm, haematoma on the right shoulder 15.0 x 10.0 cm.
Report
no. 1337/16 of 28/12/2016 of an independent expert bureau in Moscow (the time of infliction of the injuries described in the act of 19/08/2015 could not be established due to the lack of indication of the hematomas’ colour; the injuries could have been inflicted by hard blunt object(s), e.g. by at least three kicks.
Forensic medical report no. 6783m/7885 of 04/12/2017 by the Moscow Forensic Bureau: two hematomas on the left forearm, one hematoma on the right shoulder could have been caused by a blow or compression with hard blunt objects, impossible to indicate the time of infliction of the injuries without the description of the hematomas’ colour.
On unspecified date the applicant complained to the Preobrazhenskiy Investigative Department of Moscow / 15 refusals to open a criminal case between 05/10/2015 and 03/03/2020. Latest refusal on 25/05/2020, as allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded.
On 18/12/2019 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow declared one of the refusals to open a criminal file of 30/18/2019 unlawful and instructed the investigators to remedy the inquiry’s defects/ On 22/01/2021 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 25/05/2020/ On 11/03/2021 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal as the impugned decision was lawful and duly motivated.
On 29/07/2021 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 03/03/2020 having considered that the investigator had conducted a thorough inquiry and duly motivated his decision.
26,000
46756/21
02/09/2021
Valeriy Sergeyevich LASHCHEV
1977
Gayazova Regina Fargatovna
Kazan
On 15/10/2019 when trying to record on video irregular behaviour of traffic police officers, the applicant was handcuffed and severely beaten by two officers from police unit "Grom" with a call signs "Grom 222" and "Grom 221". He was then taken to the Aksay police station. His request for an ambulance was refused. The applicant was released later on the same date.
Certificate by the Aksay Central District Hospital of 16/10/2019: an injury to the soft tissues of both wrist joints. Discharge report from the Tbilisskaya Central Hospital of 29/10/2019 (the applicant, hospitalised on 21/10/2019, was diagnosed with a craniocerebral injury and a concussion).
Expert report by a forensic expert of 07/11/2019: healed abrasions on the left forearm and a concussion.
On 21/10/2019 complaint to the Aksay district police department /
Refusals to open criminal proceedings of 21/11/2019, 28/02/2020 and 27/07/2020, all overruled by the investigators’ superiors / Latest refusal was issued on 20/02/2021.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of 28/02/2020 to the Aksay District Court of the Rostov Region / On 20/07/2020 it terminated the proceedings on the impugned refusal because the refusal had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors on 17/07/2020/
This decision was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court on 07/09/2020.
As for the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 27/07/2020, on 20/02/2021 the Aksay District Court terminated the proceedings / On 12/04/2021 the decision was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court.
Proceedings initiated under
Article 19.3(1) of the CAO terminated for the lack of corpus delicti on 14/01/2020.
26,000
9351/22
16/01/2022
Omar Mutsalaliyevich MURTAZALIYEV
1994
Shabanov Arsen Khidirnabiyevich
Makhachkala
On 27/03/2017 the applicant was taken to the Counter-Extremism Centre (CEC) in Makhachkala, Dagestan, on suspicion of membership in an illegal armed group. Several officers ill‑treated him to make him to confess: they undressed him, pulled a bag over his head, electrocuted him and beat him all over the body. The applicant confessed and was questioned on video in the presence of the officers who had ill‑treated him. At 1 a.m. on 28/03/2017 he was taken to the temporary detention centre in Makhachkala.
Medical examination of 28/03/2017 on admission to the IVS in Makhachkala: multiple abrasions on the back and the right hand.
Forensic medical examination act no. 1169 of 11/05/2017: abrasions on the back and the right hand that could have been caused by a hard blunt object and pigmented areas on the right index finger and pinkie finger of the left hand.
On 05/03/2020 the Dagestan Human Rights Ombudsman complained of the applicant’s ill‑treatment to the Dagestan Investigative Committee/ Between 20/05/2020 and 08/06/2021 seven refusals to open a criminal case.
On 22/12/2017 the applicant complained of the ill-treatment before the trial court (see the transcript of 22/12/2017, 13/02/2020 and 11/09/2020). In its decision of 16/10/2020, the trial court examined and dismissed the allegations / The appeal and the first cassation instances upheld the trial court’s decision.
On 16/10/2020 the Sovetskiy District Court in Makhachkala convicted the applicant and sentenced him to
10 years and 3 months of imprisonment/upheld by the Dagestan Supreme Court on appeal on 02/02/2021 and by the Fifth Cassation Court on 29/09/2021.
Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings - The applicant insisted that his self-incriminating statements had been forced as a result of the ill‑treatment he had sustained on 27/03/2017 and of the subsequent threats from the officers who ill‑treated him. The applicant raised this complaint before the trial, appeal, and the first cassation instances
(see Belugin v. Russia,
no. 2991/06, §§ 69-83,
26 November 2019).
26,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.