Communicated on 19 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 24043/09
Iliya Aleksandrovich KAMYSHNIKOV against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
1. The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are listed in the Appendix.
2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. Mr Kamyshnikov
3. The facts of the applicant’s ill‑treatment were established in the criminal proceedings against L. and T. in the judgment of the Korolev Town Court of the Moscow Region of 22 August 2008, as upheld on 23 October 2008 by the Moscow Regional Court, and are as follows.
4. At around 10 p.m. on 24 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on the street by a policeman of the Korolev Patrol and Inspection Service (ППС УВД г. Королева), L., and a trainee, T.
5. At Yubileyniy police station in the Moscow Region (ОВД г.о. Юбилейный Московской области) L. and T. physically assaulted the applicant. They punched and kicked him in the head and on his body, handcuffed him, bound his legs to his hands with a belt, and continued to assault him by punching, kicking and lifting him. They also grabbed his hair and hit his head against the floor no fewer than five times.
6. The applicant sustained the following injuries: (i) a blunt, closed head injury with concussion; (ii) bruises on his nasal arch; (iii) bruises on his right eyelid and in his forehead region; (iv) abrasions on his right temporal region and right eyelid, which caused him “insignificant health damage”. He further sustained: (i) a bruise on the right side of his lumbar region and (ii) abrasions on both of his wrist joints, which did not cause him any “health damage”.
7. Officer L. was convicted under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for four years, and a three-year ban on exercising official power. T. was convicted under Article 115 § 1 of the Criminal Code (physical assault causing “insignificant health damage”) and given a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
8. In the criminal proceedings against the police officers, the applicant claimed compensation: (i) pecuniary damages of RUB 17,624.31; (ii) non‑pecuniary damages of RUB 1,000,000 from each police officer; and (iii) legal fees of RUB 300,000.
9. In its judgment of 22 August 2008 the Korolev Town Court allowed the applicant’s civil claim in part and awarded him: (i) pecuniary damages of RUB 17,624.31; (ii) non-pecuniary damages of RUB 100,000 from each police officer; and (iii) legal fees of RUB 300,000.
10. In particular, the first-instance court considered that the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages was excessive, as he had sustained “insignificant health damage” which had not had grave consequences for him.
11. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Moscow Regional Court, alleging that the amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded to him was not commensurate with the physical and mental suffering which he had sustained.
12. On 23 October 2008 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
B. Mr Voroshilov
1. The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and criminal proceedings against police officers
13. At around 7 p.m. on 30 August 2009 the applicant was arrested at a bus stop by police officers of the criminal investigation office and taken to the police department of Orenburg (УВД по г. Оренбургу).
14. At the police station, officers K. and M., in the presence of other police officers, physically assaulted the applicant in order to obtain self‑incriminating statements from him about a crime. They pushed the applicant to the floor, and punched and kicked him many times in the head, face, torso, arms and legs. K. placed a plastic bag over the applicant’s head, closing off his access to air, while M. held down the applicant.
15. At 8 p.m. on 31 August 2009 the applicant was formally arrested as a suspect in relation to drug possession and placed in a temporary detention facility.
16. On 2 September 2009 the applicant was released after giving an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. On the same day he sought medical help at a traumatology centre (TP no. 2). According to his medical records, he had abrasions on his forearms, a bruise on his right lower eyelid, a bruise on his left lumbar region and abrasions on his legs.
17. On 3 September 2009 the applicant made a complaint to the Orenburg regional investigative committee regarding his ill‑treatment.
18. On 4 September 2009 he underwent a forensic medical examination ordered by the investigation authority. According to report no. 6368, he had the following injuries: (i) haematoma of the soft tissues in his parietal region, measuring 4 cm by 3 cm; (ii) four bruises of indefinite form on his right infraorbital region, his neck, the left side of his chest and in the area of his right iliac bone, measuring up to 4 cm by 3 cm each; and (iii) seventeen abrasions, some linear and some of indefinite form, on both forearms, his right hip and left lower leg, measuring from 0.8 cm by 0.5 cm to 2.5 cm by 1 cm each. The expert concluded that the applicant’s injuries had originated from repeated impact with a hard, blunt object of limited surface area on the day of the alleged incident, and had not caused any “health damage”. Subsequent forensic medical expert reports of 4 December 2009 and 21 October 2010 came to similar conclusions.
19. On 24 September 2009, for absence of an administrative offence, the Justice of the Peace of the 14th Court Circuit of the Promyshlenniy District of Orenburg terminated the administrative proceedings relating to drug possession brought against the applicant by the police on 31 August 2009.
20. On 13 November 2009 the investigative committee opened a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, after two initial refusals to open a criminal case on 11 September and 9 November 2009 under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime.
21. On 31 November 2009 criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 228 § 2 of the Criminal Code (drug possession in large quantities) were terminated for absence of a crime, pursuant to Article 24 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
22. On 15 December 2011 the Promyshlenniy District Court of Orenburg convicted officers K. and M. under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers), and gave them a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment and a ban on exercising official power. On 14 February 2012 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
2. Civil claim and compensation
23. In 2012 the applicant brought a civil claim against the Russian Ministry of Finance for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of RUB 2,655,936, in connection with his unlawful detention and ill‑treatment in police custody by K. and M.
24. On 28 June 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him RUB 20,000 in non‑pecuniary damages. In determining the amount of compensation, the court found that the applicant had sustained injuries as a result of the police officers’ actions and had experienced physical and mental suffering, and that this had not caused him any “health damage”.
25. The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Orenburg Regional Court, which on 19 September 2012 increased the amount of compensation to RUB 80,000.
C. Mr Veselkov
1. The applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody
26. On the night of 21-22 February 2010 the applicant had a quarrel with a waitress in a restaurant. The police were called and the applicant was taken to the Tsentralniy district police department of Barnaul (Центральное ОВД г. Барнаула). At the police station three police officers – K.I., B. and K.Yu. – handcuffed the applicant and physically assaulted him. In particular, they twisted his leg and broke it. He was hospitalised on the afternoon of 22 February 2010.
27. The applicant underwent inpatient treatment in hospital over the course of eighteen days, and had surgery on his leg. He then received outpatient treatment until 20 May 2010 when he was considered able to return to work.
28. According to forensic medical expert report no. 2269, produced between 13 April and 17 June 2010 on the basis of an investigator’s order of 22 February 2010, the applicant had the following injuries: (i) closed breakages of the external and inner ankle bones of his right foot, with dislocation of his right foot and a bruise in the area surrounding the breakage, which had caused “grave health damage”; and (ii) abrasions on the right of his forehead and temporal region, bruises in the area of his left shoulder joint and lower part of his left shoulder, which had not caused any “health damage”. All of the injuries had originated from impact with hard, blunt objects shortly before the applicant’s arrival at Barnaul Town Hospital no. 11 at 4.15 p.m. on 22 February 2010, and could have been caused on that day.
29. According to the applicant, his health is not fully restored and he will need another operation on his leg. He limps and is no longer able to work as a taxi driver, which was his only profession. He lost his job and his attempts to work again were not successful; because of the pain in his damaged leg he was not able to react promptly while driving, and got into a traffic accident.
2. Refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers
30. On 23 February 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint regarding his ill‑treatment by the police officers with the prosecutor of the Tsentralniy District of Barnaul.
31. On 9 March 2010 an investigator of the Tsentralniy district investigation unit of Barnaul refused to institute criminal proceedings against officers K.I., B. and K.Yu. under Article 24 § 1(2) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime under Article 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers).
3. Civil claim and compensation
32. In 2012 the applicant brought a civil claim against the Russian Ministry of Finance for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and court expenses. In particular, he claimed RUB 500,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damages.
33. On 21 June 2012 the Industrialniy District Court of Barnaul allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him RUB 9,730 in respect of lost salary, RUB 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages and RUB 6,600 in respect of court expenses.
34. The court found it established that the applicant’s injuries had been inflicted by the police officers at the police station. The court noted that the applicant had sustained “grave health damage”, experienced physical and mental suffering, and had been temporarily disabled between 22 February and 19 May 2010.
35. On 2 October 2012 the Altay Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. On 28 May 2013 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment of 2 October 2012 by way of a cassation appeal, and remitted the case to the appeal court for fresh consideration.
36. On 9 July 2013 the appeal court modified the judgment of the Industrialniy District Court in part, by increasing the amount of compensation and awarding the applicant RUB 20,800 in lost salary and RUB 50,000 in non-pecuniary damages, on account of the lack of proportionality regarding the force applied to him by the police officers.
D. Mr Kryutchenko
1. The applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody
37. On the evening of 28 May 2005 the applicant, who was walking home after drinking beer, was stopped on a street by police officers from the patrol and inspection service and driven to the district police department of Orsk (Советское РОВД г. Орска). The applicant attempted to run away. He was stopped and assaulted by the police officers, who kicked him in the stomach. He felt unwell and lost consciousness. The police officers placed him in a cell and did not react to his demands that they call an ambulance.
38. The applicant was released the next morning. On the evening of 29 May 2005 he was hospitalised with internal bleeding. He spent six weeks in hospital.
39. According to forensic medical expert report no. 3634 of 25 July 2005, the applicant had a blunt abdominal trauma with a rupture of his twisted intestine, which had provoked the development of serofibrinous peritonitis. This injury had been caused by impact with a hard, blunt object, possibly one to two days before the applicant’s hospitalisation, and had caused him “grave health damage”. The applicant also had abrasions on his back and forearms, and circular abrasions on his wrist joints, which had originated from impact with hard, blunt objects during the same time period, and had not caused him any “health damage”.
40. Forensic medical expert report no. 5684 of 14 December 2011 contained similar information concerning the applicant’s injuries. The expert considered that the injuries had been caused in the time span going from several hours to several days before the applicant’s hospitalisation. The expert excluded the possibility that the injuries had been caused as a result of the applicant’s falling down from his own height.
2. Criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment
41. On 29 May 2005 the Orsk police department received information about the applicant’s hospitalisation in Town Hospital no. 2 with blunt abdominal trauma and abrasions on his body.
42. On 14 June 2005 an investigator from the Orsk Sovetskiy district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal case under Article 111 § 3 of the Criminal Code (physical assault causing “grave health damage”).
43. On 11 July 2005 the applicant was granted victim status and questioned.
44. On 14 October 2005 the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended under Article 208 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, owing to the non-identification of the people to be charged.
45. On 31 January and 25 April 2012 the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was renewed, in view of the need to take additional investigative measures.
46. On 1 March and 18 July 2012 the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended again, on the same grounds as before.
3. Civil claim and compensation
47. In 2012 the applicant brought a civil claim against various state authorities, including the Russian Ministry of Finance, for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of RUB 6,000,000 in connection with his ill‑treatment at the police station and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint.
48. On 24 July 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him RUB 150,000 in non-pecuniary damages. It established that the applicant had been taken into police custody in good health and that his injuries had been caused at the police station, since the state authorities had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries or any evidence showing that he could have sustained them outside the police station.
49. On 9 October 2012 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
50. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment in police custody; that there was no effective investigation into their complaints; and that the amounts of compensation awarded to them by the domestic courts were inadequate.
51. Mr Voroshilov and Mr Kryutchenko further complain under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3, that they had no effective domestic remedy.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. If so, having regard to (i) the criminal-law system applied in the applicants’ cases, in particular the suspended sentences and fine imposed on the police officers in the cases of Mr Kamyshnikov and Mr Voroshilov; the failure to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Veselkov; and the suspension of the criminal proceedings for failure to identify the police officers responsible for the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Kryutchenko (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 123, and Atalay v. Turkey, no. 1249/03, §§ 40-47, 18 September 2008); and also having regard to (ii) the amounts of the compensation awarded to the applicants in the civil proceedings (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 143-49, 29 July 2010), did the applicants subsequently lose their status of victims of a violation of Article 3, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. The Government are invited to submit copies of documents concerning the criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged ill‑treatment of Mr Kryutchenko.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
24043/09
19/04/2009
Iliya Aleksandrovich KAMYSHNIKOV
28/09/1975
Moscow
Marina Vyacheslavovna BARABANOVA
59465/12
14/08/2012
Aleksandr Sergeyevich VOROSHILOV
26/06/1991
Orenburg
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
6229/13
20/12/2012
Vadim Nikolayevich VESELKOV
04/03/1975
Barnaul
-
17459/13
26/01/2013
Nikolay Ivanovich KRYUTCHENKO
25/08/1960
Orsk
Sergey Ivanovich KIRYUKHIN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy