Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 93

January 2007

Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia - 59334/00

Judgment 18.1.2007 [Section I]

Article 3

Torture

Torture and wrongful detention of Chechnyan applicants: violation

Article 5

Article 5-5

Compensation

Denial of compensation due to malfunction of judicial system and lack of final decisions ordering discontinuance of criminal proceedings: violation

Article 13

Effective remedy

Denial of effective domestic remedy in respect of ill-treatment by the police: violation

Facts: Following the outbreak of hostilities in Chechnya, the applicants moved their families and valuables to their parent's house which was searched by officers many times without a warrant. Household items and personal documents were seized. Following a search on 12 April 2000, they were told they had been arrested and were taken into detention, where they were held until 28 April in unheated, damp cells with no toilets. They were interrogated about activities of Chechen rebel fighters and kidnappings for ransom, but denied involvement in any crimes. They alleged that they were ill-treated through electric shocks; being forced to stand continually in a stretched position, with their feet and hands spread wide apart; being beaten with rubber truncheons and plastic bottles filled with water; being strangled with adhesive tape, with a cellophane bag and a gas mask; and having parts of their skin were torn away with pliers. On 28 April the applicants were transferred to another detention centre. They were interrogated and tortured to force them to make false confessions: they were beaten, threatened, strangled and subjected to electric shocks and their fingers and toes were squashed with mallets. Their lawyer was only once given access to them during the entire period of their detention, being allowed only to question how they were doing in Russian. On 19 September the applicants returned to the former detention centre and informed that they were charged with kidnapping and participation in an unlawful armed group. On 5 October they were released. On 6 October they were medically examined. Among other things, they were found to have numerous injuries to their heads and bodies and to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Doctors noted that the traumas and other medical conditions had apparently been sustained in the latter detention centre between April and October 2000. On 9 October the prosecutor's office informed them that criminal proceedings against them had been discontinued as their involvement in the imputed offences had not been proved. The applicants' relatives had applied repeatedly to various official bodies (but not a court) concerning the searches in their house and seizure of their property and made applications concerning the applicants' arrest and detention. The prosecutor's office refused to bring criminal proceedings in connection with the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment On 29 October 2003 a decision discontinuing the criminal proceedings against the applicants was quashed by the republican prosecutor's office and the case forwarded for additional investigation.

Law (extracts): Article 3 – The applicants maintained that they had been severely ill-treated while in detention, referring to the medical documents produced. The Government denied they had been subjected to any form of unlawful violence while in detention, insisting that they had been examined by a doctor upon admission to the second detention centre and that no injuries had been found except for a head trauma that had previously been sustained by the first applicant. The Government's arguments were not convincing to the Court since neither the authorities at domestic level, nor the Government in the proceedings before the Court, made any comments as regards the medical documents attesting to the applicant's injuries or advanced any plausible explanation as to the origin of those injuries.

The applicants were kept in a permanent state of physical pain and anxiety owing to their uncertainty about their fate and to the level of violence to which they were subjected throughout the period of their detention. Such treatment was intentionally inflicted on the applicants by agents of the State acting in the course of their duties, with the aim of extracting from them a confession or information about the offences of which they were suspected. Taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill-treatment at issue was particularly serious and cruel and capable of causing “severe” pain and suffering and amounted to torture.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Alleged inadequacy of the investigation: When questioned during the investigation opened in connection with the complaint on the applicants' behalf, the second applicant retracted his allegations of ill-treatment, following which the district prosecutor's office terminated the investigation. The applicants challenged the decision and pointed out that the second applicant had been compelled to withdraw his allegations concerning ill-treatment. The Court considered that the medical evidence and the applicants' complaints together raised a reasonable suspicion that their injuries could have been caused by representatives of the State. The latter were therefore under an obligation to conduct an effective investigation. This investigation was not conducted diligently. Though the applicants' complaints were dealt with by prosecutor's offices at two levels, the authorities never addressed the medical documents. No attempts were made to order and carry out a forensic medical examination of the applicants, to inspect the scene of the incident or to identify and question officials who worked in the detention centres. Neither the applicants nor their representatives were granted access to the materials of the investigation, or even provided with a copy of the decision. The authorities failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the applicants' arguable allegations of ill-treatment while in detention.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 5 – Given that the applicants were detained by the authorities on 12 April 2000 and the fact that the Government provided no explanation concerning their detention between 12 and 16 April 2000, or any documents by way of justification during that period the applicants were held in unacknowledged detention.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 5(4) – It was acknowledged by the respondent Government that the courts in the Chechen Republic had been inoperative until November 2000, while the applicants had remained in custody between 17 April and 4 October 2000. The applicants were unable to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention during the relevant period.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 5(5) – Given that the judicial system in Chechnya was not functioning at least until November 2000, and the fact that neither of the decisions ordering the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against the applicants was final, as well as the fact that the criminal proceedings were still pending, the Court found that applicants had been prevented from seeking compensation for their detention. Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 13 – The Court found that the applicants had been denied an effective domestic remedy in respect of the ill-treatment by the police, in violation of Article 13, but that no separate issue arose in respect of Article 13 in connection with Article 5.

Article 41 – EUR 35,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy