Communicated on 24 September 2020
Published on 12 October 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 55708/10
Vadim Gennadyevich DAVYDOV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. All of the applicants submitted that their attempts to initiate criminal investigation in connection with the incidents or otherwise bring the events to the attention of the authorities proved futile.
The relevant details regarding the applicants’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices. The information regarding the alleged breach of the substantive aspect of Article 3 is contained in Appendix no. 1. The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants’ complaints is reflected in Appendix no. 2.
The table of cases:
No.
Application number
Introduction date
Name of the applicants / date of birth
/ place of residence
1.
55708/10
31/08/2010
Vadim Gennadyevich DAVYDOV
8/08/1970
Chelyabinsk, the Chelyabinsk Region
2.
13448/11
12/01/2011
Andrey Vladimirovich CHUMACHENKO
30/10/1964
Grozny, the Chechen Republic
3.
16254/11
17/02/2011
Sergey Anatolyevich KUZNETSOV
4/12/1977
Astrakhan, the Astrakhan Region
4.
23435/12
11/04/2012
Stanislav Yevgenyevich DERKACHEV
10/01/1970
Moscow
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody or being in contact with State officials, have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015; Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, 8 October 2015; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, 11 October 2016)?
Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants’ injuries were caused (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999‑V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?
2. Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014), having regard to:
(a) the investigating authorities’ refusals to open criminal cases and investigate the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the State officials, and the overruling of those refusals as unlawful and unsubstantiated by higher investigative authorities or courts, and
(b) the investigating authorities’ inability to implement full investigative measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, before and/or after amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by Federal Law no. 23-FZ of 4 March 2013, for example, confrontations, identification parades, searches, and so forth?
3. As regards case no. 23435/12, having regard to the findings of the domestic courts, can it be said that the authorities have discharged their procedural obligation to assess the need and proportionality of the use of force by the bailiffs in respect of the applicant?
No
Application No. and Title
APPENDIX No. 1
Article 3 - Substantive aspect
ARREST
ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT
EVIDENCE
Date
Time
Facts
Region Town
Street
Entity
Date
Time
Location
Alleged Facts
Perpetrator(s)
Date
Doc Type
Authority
Description
of Injuries
1.
55708/10
Davydov v. Russia
24/11/2009
Chelyabinsk Region
n/a
27/08/2010
At 9.20 a.m.
IZ-74/1,
Chelyabinsk
During a morning check-up in a remand prison, the applicant and the officers had a verbal fight which resulted in the officers beating the applicant on his head and right shoulder
Prison guards M. and F.
06/09/2010
Report of prison paramedic
IZ-74/1,
Chelyabinsk
A hematoma on the applicant’s right shoulder
2.
13448/11
Chumachenko v. Russia
4/6/2009
Noginsk, Moscow Region
Department of the Interior of Noginsk
4/06/2009, around 19.00
Department of the Interior of Noginsk
Heavy beatings
Police officers
4/06/2009
11/06/2009
16/06/2009
Medical report
Report
Expert examination
Noginsk Central Hospital
Head of Emergency Department of IZ-50/1 of Noginsk
Noginsk Forensic Bureau
Multiple bruises of higher limbs and chest, lower limbs, face, neck and damage to kidneys
At a waist area on the left side a choppy bruise of indefinite shape, sized 9 to 4 cm, blue to green colour ... on the right side a bruise ... sized 4 to 10,5 cm ... a horizontal scratch sized 3 to 0,3 cm, with dark brown crust, in the area of the right forearm ... a bruise sized 3 to 2 cm, on the right shoulder a bruise sized 14 to 11 cm, a bruise 7 to 5,5 cm, on the right elbow a bruise of 12,5 to 8 cm, on the belly, a bruise sized 2 to 1,5 cm, on the left elbow a bruise sized 2 to 1,5 cm, on the knee surface a series of bruises sized 8 to 4 cm, scratches on both shins sized 3 to 1 cm and 7 to 3 cm, on the right shoulder a bruise sized 6 to 2 cm.
3.
16254/11
Kuznetsov v. Russia
14/01/2006
Astrakhan Region
Irrelevant
19/08/2008
At 11.30 a.m.
Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan
After a hearing the applicant and a convoy officer had a verbal fight. The officer twisted the applicant’s arms, kicked and punched him on his body
Convoy officer A.
19/08/2008
Medical card
IZ-30/1, Astrakhan
An abrasion on the right side of the applicant’s body
4.
23435/12
Derkachev v. Russia
n/a
n/a
n/a
4/08/2011
A house of the applicant’s son BD at the town of Dmitrov, the Moscow Region
The bailiffs arrived at the house of the applicant’s son with a view to enforcing a court judgment. Apparently a fight broke out as a result of which the applicant sustained multiple light injuries
Bailiffs S, G and D
8/08/2011
Report of forensic examination
Dmitrov Bureau of Forensic Examination
Bruises on the back, the right forearm, scratches of the right lower third part of the right forearm and the outside surface of the left elbow
Circular scratch ... on the right forearm could be formed as a result of the use of handcuffs
No
Application No. and Title
APPENDIX No. 2
Article 3 - Procedural aspect
DOMESTIC COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT REACTION
Date of
Complaint
Authority
Type of
Reaction
Date(s)
Procedural Outcome
1.
55708/10
Davydov v. Russia
31/08/2010
Investigation Committee
Refusal
08/10/2010
According to the refusal, the applicant disobeyed orders of prison guards and was placed in cell for two hours. He was not beaten or ill-treated. He refused to undergo medical examination on the day of the alleged ill-treatment. A hematoma was inflicted “in circumstances not related to the incident of 27/08/2010”.
On 17/11/2010 the Kalininskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal. On 01/02/2011 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court endorsed the court decision.
2.
13448/11
Chumachenko v. Russia
17/06/2009
Prosecutor’s Office of Noginsk of the Moscow Region
Refusal
17/06/2009, 27/06/2009
The domestic courts refused the applicant’s complaints about ill-treatment at first instance on 13/04/2010, on appeal on 01/06/2010
3.
16254/11
Kuznetsov v. Russia
20/08/2008
Prosecution office
Refusal
26/09/2008
06/11/2008
21/05/2009
02/07/2009
On 02/07/2009 a latest refusal to open a criminal case was issued. The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded. The applicant’s appeals to the domestic courts were unsuccessful. On 17/09/2010 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed his complaint. On 20/01/2011 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the decision.
4.
23435/12
Derkachev v. Russia
8/8/2011
Dmitrov Town Court
Refusal
8/09/2011 Dmitrov Town Court
10/11/2011 Moscow Regional Court
The domestic courts did not analyse the need to use physical force or whether the use of force was proportionate.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy