Communicated on 2 September 2015
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 21382/09
Yevgeniy Georgiyevich KARTAVTSEV
against Russia
lodged on 2 March 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Georgiyevich Kartavtsev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and who lives in Novoaleksandrovsk, a town in the Stavropol region. He is represented before the Court by Ms O.V. Sadchikova, a lawyer practising in Stavropol.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant
On 24 April 2003 a police officer was shot and killed by a burglar he was trying to arrest. A criminal investigation into this incident was launched on the same day.
At around 12 midday on 2 May 2003, five police officers came to the applicant’s flat and arrested him and his wife. The applicant alleges that they subjected him to a beating during the arrest.
Police officers took the applicant and his wife to the police station and put them in different rooms. The officers asked the applicant to confess to acting in concert with Mr Ismailov (applicant in application no. 36534/05) in murdering their colleague on 24 April 2003. The applicant denied any involvement in that murder. Several officers then started to hit him on different parts of his body and on his head. They also hit him with a device which gave electric shocks. They said that they would rape his wife and institute criminal proceedings against her. The police officers continued to hit the applicant until late that evening. Later on, he recognised one of these officers, officer P.
In the evening the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the presence of legal counsel. He now alleges that at this point in time he could no longer stand the violence to which he had been subjected, and therefore incriminated Mr Ismailov in the murder of the police officer.
It appears that on the evening of 2 May 2003 the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility at the police station of the Promyshlennyy District of Stavropol. He was examined by medical staff who did not record there being any bruises on his body. The applicant did not provide any medical evidence in support of his allegations.
On the same day the police arrested Mr Ismailov on suspicion of the murder of the police officer on 24 April 2003.
On 3 May 2003 the applicant’s wife was released after giving a written undertaking not to leave her place of residence.
On 12 May 2003 the applicant was charged with theft and questioned. He confessed, and also confirmed his testimony in respect of Mr Ismailov.
On 13 May 2003 the criminal proceedings against the applicant’s wife were discontinued.
On an unspecified date the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr Ismailov, was charged with the murder of the police officer, unlawful possession of firearms, theft and robbery.
On 15 May 2003 the applicant was placed in a remand prison (Remand Prison No.1). His medical examination there revealed no evidence of a beating. The applicant alleges that all traces of his injuries had disappeared by the time of his medical examination.
B. Investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment
On 21 October 2003 the applicant made a complaint to the prosecutor’s office about his alleged ill-treatment by police officers on 2 May 2003.
On 23 October 2003 the investigator at the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings, on the grounds that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.
On 5 May 2004 the deputy prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment by police officers.
On 28 April 2006 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the applicant’s complaints.
On 6 July 2006 the investigator at the prosecutor’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings.
On 31 March 2007 the deputy prosecutor overruled that decision and remitted the matter for further investigation.
On 21 May 2007 the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings.
On 24 July 2007 the prosecutor overruled that decision on the grounds that it was unsubstantiated, and remitted the matter for further investigation.
C. The applicant’s conviction
On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant and his co‑defendant Mr Ismailov was referred to the Stavropolskiy Regional Court for trial.
During the trial, the applicant submitted that he had made a confession as a result of physical and psychological pressure exerted by the police officers.
On 13 May 2004 the court found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.
On 14 July 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld his conviction.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on 2 May 2003 he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaints about such treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention? Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the applicant subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment on 2 May 2003, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to provide a copy of the record of the applicant’s arrest, a copy of the record of his questioning on 2 May 2003 and a copy of the inquiry carried out into the applicant’s complaints about his alleged ill-treatment by police officers on 2 May 2003.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy