Published on 26 June 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 31186/22
Valeriya Vladimirovna KOMPANEYETS against Russia
and 1 other application
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 1 June 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia.
In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website.
SUBJECT MATTER
The applications concern complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention relating to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014 and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018).
APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Factual information
Medical evidence of
ill-treatment
Date of first complaint
Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment
Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP
Appeal decision
Information relating to conviction
31186/22
15/06/2022
Valeriya Vladimirovna KOMPANEYETS
1994
Elza Albertovna Valiyeva
Nizhniy Novgorod
At about 7.45 p.m. on 21/04/2021, when the applicant and her husband were passing by a manifestation in support of A. Navalnyy in St Petersburg, she was beaten up and electrocuted by a stun gun by unidentified police officers
Medical report dated 22/04/2021 from the St Petersburg municipal hospital No. 120: left thigh injury. Forensic medical examination act No. 4СЛ of 28/04/2021: injuries on the anterior-internal surface of the left thigh against the background of a bruise, rounded shape with smooth edges with a diameter of 0.3 cm and distance between the lesions is 2.5 cm, - could be the result of the use of a stun gun; bruising on the back of the right forearm
On 30/04/2021 complaint to the St Peterburg investigative committee / on 21/05/2021 refusal to open a criminal case as the applicant had failed to duly lodge a complaint
On 05/10/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St Petersburg refused to examine the applicant’s complaint on account of absence of the subject matter as the applicant had failed to duly lodge a criminal complaint and there was no procedural decision to appeal against/ On 15/12/2021 St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision
No conviction, no administrative proceedings have been instituted against the applicant, no administrative offence or arrest record
9628/23
22/02/2022
Vyacheslav Maksimovich PETROSYAN
1979
Mariya Aleksandrovna Zadorozhnaya
Nizhniy Novgorod
On 12/02/2020 the applicant was taken out of a courtroom of the Apsheronskiy District Court for his alleged misbehaviour involving self-harm during his trial to the IVS of the Apsheronsk district police department, and later that day to remand prison, SIZO-1 in the Krasnodar Region. While in custody of the escorting officers, the applicant (handcuffed) was allegedly punched in the head, kicked and subjected to electric shocks. His allegations are supported by medical evidence, statements of his two co-defendants (who saw no injuries on him before the incident and heard him screaming while being beaten near the entrance to the IVS) and statements of a member of the Public Monitoring Commission (who saw the applicant’s injuries during a visit to SIZO-1 several days after the incident)
According to statements of 20/05/2020 by a doctor at the IVS, on 12/02/2020, after the hearing at the Apsheronsk District Court, she examined the applicant twice; it was during the second examination (after a period of time he spent in the custody of the police escorting officers) that she recorded an injury in the area of the "left eyebrow".
After the alleged ill-treatment, at 8.34 p.m. on 12/02/2020 the applicant was examined at hospital no. 3 in Krasnodar at the request of the administration of SIZO-1: bruising in the area of the left eye, contusion to the left knee.
On 13/02/2020, hospital no. 1 of the Krasnodar Region: contusions to the soft tissues of the head.
On 19/03/2020 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert (report of 28/08/2020): haematoma of the left eye tissues, haemorrhage and contusion of the left eye and contusion of the soft tissues of the left knee could have been received as a result of an impact with a hard blunt object on 12/02/2020.
Forensic medical expert’s report of 15/06/2022: the eye contusion could have resulted from the ill-treatment as alleged by the applicant, or as a result of him hitting the metal cage in the courtroom when resisting the police. Scars on the extremities and buttocks could have resulted from electric shocks by a taser.
According to a report of 30/09/2022 by an expert from the European Bureau of Forensic Examinations (in Moscow): the origin of the eye contusion as a result of the applicant hitting the cage in the courtroom was excluded
On 17/02/2020 complaint of the applicant’s wife and on 20/02/2020 of a member of the Public Monitoring Commission to the Krasnodar Regional Investigative Committee. On 22/03/2020 - the first refusal to open a criminal case was issued by the Belorechenskiy Investigative Committee; it was overruled on 24/03/2020 by the investigators’ superiors. Six more refusals were issued and overruled. On 02/11/2020, more than eight months after the alleged ill-treatment, criminal proceedings were opened. They were suspended or terminated (at least nine times), most recently on 18/09/2022 by the Goryacheklyuchevskiy Investigative Committee for the lack of evidence of the unlawful use of force by the police officers. The decision was largely based on the officers’ statements about the applicant’s alleged threat of self-harm, without assessing whether the use of force was indispensable and not excessive. On 21/10/2022 the proceedings were reopened again; their outcome is unknown
According to the applicant, a court appeal would have only led to the same result, that is the annulment of the decision to terminate the proceedings