Communicated on 23 January 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 48724/15
Ilgiz Yagafarovich KHALIKOV
against Russia
lodged on 16 November 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ilgiz Yagafarovich Khalikov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and is serving his sentence in Nizhniy Tagil.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 November 2013 a group of nine detainees, including the applicant, was scheduled for transport from a police station to the remand prison. The Gazel van is designed for transporting only six prisoners, but police major V. took the decision to take all of them in one car to save fuel.
The prison van was manned with the driver G. and the major V. who were riding in the front, and two convoy officers K. and D. riding in the rear part of the vehicle next to prisoner cells.
Five prisoners were placed in a large cell, three prisoners in individual cells. As the applicant was a former police officer, it was desirable to keep him separate from the others. Lacking an individual cell for him, he was allowed to ride in the rear on the seat of convoy officers.
Approximately half-way to the destination, prisoners Sa., Ma. and Mu. kicked out the door of the large cell and attacked the convoy officers. Prisoner Mu. overpowered officer D. and seized his gun sheath containing a handgun. A struggle for the gun ensued and Mu. fired a shot at the floor. Prisoner Sa. grabbed officer D. from behind, while Mu. fired a second shot. The bullet ricocheted and wounded the applicant in his left thigh.
Meanwhile, officer K. pushed prisoner Ma. aside, drew his gun and told everyone to freeze or he would shoot. Prisoner Sa. and Mu. were still struggling with officer D. for the gun. Officer K. shot at Sa. and hit him.
Major V. came to the back of the van and opened the door. Prisoner Mu. shot in the direction of the opening door. Officers K. and D. ran out of the van, while Major V. fired four shots inside the van. Prisoner Mu. released the gun and threw it out of the van.
The applicant was taken to a local military hospital where his wounded leg was put in a cast. On the following day he was discharged and transferred to a prison hospital.
In December 2013 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office that he had been injured as a consequence of grossly negligent actions of police officers.
On 9 January 2014 an investigator with the Bashkortostan regional division of the Investigations Committee refused to open a criminal case. He found no indications of gross negligence because the decisions to transport two prisoners in excess of the van’s design capacity and not to put the applicant in the cell had been dictated by “considerations of budgetary austerity and saving money allocated for the purchase of fuel”.
On 4 December 2014 a deputy prosecutor of the Kirovskiy district in Ufa rejected the applicant’s complaint against the investigator’s decision.
On 30 April 2015 the Kirovskiy District Court in Ufa upheld the investigator’s decision as lawful, noting that it had been issued within his competence and had no formal defects. On 20 July 2015 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic rejected an appeal against the District Court’s judgment.
On 14 September 2015 the acting head of the regional division of the Investigations Committee ordered an additional “pre‑investigation inquiry” into whether an offence of negligent causing grievous bodily injury had been committed. Ten days later the investigator refused institution of criminal proceedings, finding as follows:
“... it does not appear possible to establish with certainty that the bullet which hit [the applicant] was shot from the handgun of the officer V., rather than from [the handgun of] the officer D. while it was in the possession of the prisoner M. Besides, pursuant to Article [41] of the Criminal Code, causing damage to the interests protected by criminal law is not a criminal offence if it was based on a reasonable risk assessment and sought to achieve a socially useful objective, such as aborting an attempted escape in the instant case.”
On 8 February 2016 the deputy head of the regional division upheld the investigator’s decision refusing institution of criminal proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been seriously wounded during transport and that he had been compelled to take part in investigative actions just twenty days later, while still on crutches. He also complains that a criminal case was not instituted.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention as regards the infliction of grievous bodily injuries on the applicant?
2. Did the Russian authorities discharge their obligation to conduct an effective investigation satisfying the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see Manzhos v. Russia, no. 64752/09, §§ 33-39, 24 May 2016, and Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy