Communicated on 3 November 2020
Published on 23 November 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 77068/14
Mykola Andronovych KARPYUK
against Russia
lodged on 12 December 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant, Mr Mykola Andronovych Karpyuk, also known as Nikolay Andronovich Karpyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Kyiv. He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Volkova and Mr M. Tarakhkalo, lawyers with the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (an NGO based in Kyiv), Ms J. Evans, Mr Ph. Leach, Ms K. Levine and Ms J. Gavron, lawyers with the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC, an NGO based in London) and Mr D. Itslayev, a lawyer practising in Grozny, the Chechen Republic.
The application concerns the detention of the applicant (the leader of the Rovenskiy regional branch of the organisation “The Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self‑Defence” or UNA UNSO) in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation, his alleged torture and ill-treatment in detention between 21 and 25 March 2014, the alleged lack of an effective investigation into his complaints, and the fairness of his trial which ended with a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic of 26 May 2016, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 26 October 2016.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of the applicant’s allegations of torture and ill‑treatment with the purpose of obtaining his confession statements incriminating himself and others during the period from 21 to 25 March 2014, and with regard to the injuries found on him after the time he spent in detention, has the applicant been subjected to torture and/or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 109-21, 24 July 2014)?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Lyapin, cited above, §§ 125-40; and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 51-53, 20 November 2018) and taking into account the fact that the Main Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the North Caucasus Federal Circuit (the authority which was also responsible for the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant) refused on 11 January 2016 to institute criminal proceedings and carry out a preliminary investigation into the applicant’s complaints of torture and ill‑treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the applicant’s complaints that (i) there was no “reasonable suspicion” of his having committed an offence for his deprivation of liberty in the criminal proceedings, and that (ii) there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention on remand, and no alternative measures of restraint were considered in extending his detention:
- Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?
- Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
- Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
4. Having regard to the applications lodged on 8 December 2014 and 26 April 2017, the applicant’s access to a lawyer of his own choosing from an unspecified date in September 2015 onwards and his conviction in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 26 May 2016, has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning his pre-trial detention?
5. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
6. Having regard to the use at the applicant’s trial of his self‑incriminating statements at the preliminary investigation, which were allegedly given as a result of his torture and ill-treatment, in the absence of (effective assistance by) State‑appointed lawyers (in the absence, inter alia, of lawyer L.M. during his questioning on 28 and 29 March 2014) and in the absence of access to a lawyer of his own choosing from March 2014 to September 2015 during his alleged detention incommunicado with no contacts with the family and the Ukrainian authorities, did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?
7. Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, as regards the other grounds relied on by him alleging, inter alia, the failure of the trial court to examine and admit witness evidence for the defence while convicting him on fictitious charges based on insufficient or fabricated evidence?
8. Was the applicant released as part of an exchange of prisoners between Russia and Ukraine on 7 September 2019?
9. The Government are requested to provide copies of the following documents:
(a) the report of the forensic medical expert of 1 April 2014;
(b) the trial court’s decision ordering the applicant’s forensic medical examination on 6 November 2015;
(c) an extract from the court records concerning the examination of forensic medical experts I.T. and M.Ch. by the trial court on 4 April 2016;
(d) the trial court’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 13 April 2016 for an additional forensic medical examination;
(e) the trial court’s decision in relation to the applicant’s motion of 12 October 2015 that his complaints about his alleged ill-treatment and a violation of his right to defence and privilege against self‑incrimination be registered in the court record, and the relevant extract be forwarded to the investigating authorities in order to carry out a pre-investigation inquiry and open a criminal case;
(f) the records of the applicant’s examination as a suspect of 21, 28 and 29 March 2014 and the records of his examination as an accused of 20 April 2014, 30 July 2014, 19 March 2015 and 6 August 2015;
(g) the detention facility records of lawyer L.M.’s visits to the applicant and meetings with him on 28 and 29 March 2014;
(h) the record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect of 21 March 2014;
(i) the court decisions rejecting the applicant’s motions of 28 October 2015, 24 February 2016, 4 and 20 April 2016 (in respect of declaring his self-incriminating statements as a suspect and accused inadmissible evidence, declaring the refusal of 11 January 2016 to institute criminal proceedings into his alleged ill-treatment unlawful and unfounded and carrying out additional inquiries into his complaints).
The applicant is requested to submit copies of the following documents:
(a) his statement of appeal against the judgment of 26 May 2016;
(b) the missing pages 4 and 6 of his motion of 4 April 2016.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy