Communicated on 18 November 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no 10325/16
Ildar Ildusovich DADIN
against Russia
lodged on 2 November 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
FACTS
The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in the Moscow Region. He is currently serving his imprisonment sentence in IK-7 in Karelia. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practicing in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant’s representative, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 December 2015 the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for a repeated breach of the rules on organising public events. On 31 March 2016 the sentence was diminished on appeal to two and a half years’ imprisonment.
In September 2016 the applicant was sent to serve his sentence to penal facility IK-7 in Karelia. He arrived there on 10 September 2016.
The applicant’s representative submits that upon arrival to IK-7 the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by the officers of the penal facility.
On 2 November 2016 the applicant’s representative requested the Court that interim measures be applied in respect of the applicant.
On 3 November 2016 the Court indicated interim measures to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
On 17 November 2016 the Government submitted to the Court copies of the medical documents in respect of the applicant requested by the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment and that there has been no effective investigation into it.
Questions to the parties:
1. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its substantive limb in respect of the applicant? In particular, was the applicant subjected to any form of ill-treatment at any time between 1 September and 18 November 2016? What was the exact origin of the applicant’s injuries recorded on 2 November 2016? The Government are requested to provide a legible copy of the full medical record of the applicant’s state of health for the period as of 1 September 2016 to date.
2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural limb in respect of the applicant?
3. Having regard to the interim measures granted by the Court on 3 November 2016, considering that by 17 November 2016 the applicant’s representative had not had access to the applicant and that the medical examinations of the applicant reported by the Government mostly involved medical professionals employed by the Russian Federal Penal Authority, has there been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in the present case?
4. Given that the interim measures indicated to the respondent Government on 3 November 2016 have not been lifted, the Government are invited to inform the Court once the applicant’s representative before he has had effective and unhindered access to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy