Communicated on 6 July 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 11213/17
Vladimir Antifonovich KHURSHUDOV
against Russia
lodged on 24 January 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police on 10 November 2015 in the course of his arrest, escort to the police custody and then in police custody with a view of extracting confession and the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into his complaints.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicant after the time spent by him in State custody, has the applicant been subjected to torture, or 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)?
2. Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see Selmouni, cited above, § 87, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)? In particular,
- does the Russian legislation and/or regulatory framework provide for an obligation to take an apprehended person without delay before a medical professional, notably with a view of recording the injuries sustained by an apprehended person prior or during the arrest?
- if so, was this obligation complied with in the present case, especially taking into account the police officers’ knowledge that several days before the arrest the applicant had been injured in a fight with third persons (Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 65, 11 January 2007)?
The Government are invited to produce documentary evidence, including the reports drawn up by police officers about the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest (including a report by the police officer Mr L. of 10 November 2015), certificates on medical examinations of the applicant on arrival at police custody, IVS, SIZO, records of medical facilities (including the applicant’s examination on 12 November 2015 by the ambulance), the investigator’s decision to order the applicant’s forensic medical examination, applicant’s and police officers’ explanations of the origin of the injuries which formed the basis of the experts’ assessments, forensic medical examination reports (including a forensic medical examination report no. 7006 of 19 November 2015), and so forth.
3. Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in the course of his arrest and in police custody as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000‑IV, and Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)? In particular, taking into account that the applicant’s arrest was carried out by masked officers, did they display visibly some anonymous signs allowing their identification and questioning in the event of challenges to the manner in which the operation was conducted (see Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, § 92, 11 October 2011, and Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, § 73, 30 September 2014)?
The Government are invited to submit a decision which overruled the first refusal to open a criminal case into the allegations of ill-treatment of 12 February 2016.
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy