Published on 27 November 2023
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 12881/21
Rustam Daudovich LYANOV against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 2 November 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 applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention.
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
Other complaints under well‑established case-law
12881/21*
01/03/2021
Rustam Daudovich LYANOV
1984
Vanessa Kogan
Moscow
About midnight on 11/11/2018 the applicant was abducted from home by a group of six unidentified men in balaclavas and black police uniforms to make him give a public apology for the critic by his uncle, who resided in Europe, of the authorities of the Ingushetia Republic. The abductors, who told the applicant that they were taking him to the Malgobek police station, blindfolded the applicant, took him by car to a building where under the threats of physical violence they made him read a text with the apology for his uncle’s actions. The apology was recorded on video and subsequently disseminated on the internet. At about 2 a.m. on 12/11/2018 the applicant was taken outside, driven to a gas station and released.
No medical documents were submitted.
On 12/11/2018 the applicant complained to the Malgobek investigative committee/On 12/12/2018 the investigators refused to open a criminal case as the abductors had released the applicant in a few hours after the capture/Between 2018 and 2020 five more refusals were issued, all were subsequently overruled by the investigators’ superiors for the inquiry’s deficiencies and the investigators’ failure to take basic steps.
Between 05/02/2019 and 11/03/2020 the applicant appealed against at least two refusals to the Malgobek Town Court, which refused to examine his complaints as the impugned decisions had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors/ On 07/07/2020 the court yet again refused to examine the complaint for the same reasons/ On 01/09/2020 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia upheld this last decision on appeal.
Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - The applicant complains that he was subjected to unlawful detention by the police officers who had abducted him from home, taken him to a police station where under the threat of physical violence they had forced him to make the public apology.
17543/22*
16/03/2022
Roman Vasillyevich BACHURIN
1991
Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kiryanov
Taganrog
On 01/06/2021 the applicant was arrested by FSB officers from the Border Control Service in the Rostov Region, who handcuffed him and hit him several times.
Forensic examination report of 10/06/2021 by the Forensics Bureau no. 111 in Rostov-on-Don: abrasion in the frontal area as a result of an impact by a blunt hard object, possibly caused on 01/06/2021 by blows with booted feet.
On 02/06/2021 the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigative unit no. 314 of the Military Investigative Committee / on 11/06/2021 the investigators refused to open a criminal case as the use of the physical force was justified.
On 30/11/2021 the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Court dismissed the appeal against the refusal as unsubstantiated / This decision was upheld on 11/02/2022 by the Southern Military Circuit Court.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the complaints of ill-treatment
30462/23
27/07/2023
Roman Alekseyevich BALYASIN
1981
At 1 a.m. on 30/07/2022 the applicant was detained in the forest near Zheleznogorsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region by two police officers and two officers of the Federal Security Service. The officers subjected him to beatings in the head and torso for damaging official political sign in support of war in Ukraine. Then he was taken to the Zheleznogorsk town investigative department, where his photo with traces of beatings was taken. A criminal case was opened against him.
Forensic examination report no. 379 of 01/08/2022 by Zheleznogorsk clinical hospital no. 51: abrasion on the left supraorbital arch, haemorrhage on the forehead, left cheekbone, right eyelid, upper lip with chipped teeth on the upper and lower jaws, bruising on the right thigh and right hand. These injuries were sustained on 30/07/2022.
On 18/08/2022 the applicant complained of ill-treatment to the law-enforcement authorities:
On 06/10/2022 refusal to open a criminal case against the two police officers was issued as the use of force against the applicant was justified. The investigators did not question the implicated officers and based their conclusion on their statements given in the criminal case opened against the applicant.
On 05/10/2022 refusal by military investigators to open a criminal case against the two FSB officers was issued as the use of force against the applicant was justified and necessitated by his resistance. The investigators did not question the implicated officers and based their conclusion on their statements given in the criminal case opened against the applicant.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of 06/10/2022 to the Zheleznogorsk Town Court/On 18/11/2022 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/On 22/12/2022 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld that decision.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of 05/10/2022 to the Krasnoyarsk Military Garrison Court/On 23/01/2023 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/On 06/04/2023 the Second Eastern Military Circuit Court upheld that decision.
32436/23
04/08/2023
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna KOTLYAR
1997
Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev
Kazan
On 13/03/2022 in Vladivostok the applicant participated in a demonstration against the war in Ukraine during which she was subjected to punches by the police. Then she was taken to police station no. 4 and subjected to further beatings. From there on the same day she was hospitalised by an ambulance to clinical hospital no.2.
Extract no.4112 of 17/03/2022 from the applicant’s medical record by the Vladivostok clinical hospital no.2: brain concussion, contusion of soft tissue of the head.
On 16/03/2022 ill-treatment complaint lodged with the investigative committee of the Primorye Region. No reply followed/
On 23/07/2022 the applicant received the refusal to open a criminal case of 22/04/2022 for the lack of corpus delicti: no ill-treatment of the applicant had taken place. The medical documents and the register of detainees at the police station had not been requested by the investigators/
On 07/12/2022 a new refusal to open a criminal case was issued on the same grounds/On 13/04/2023 a new refusal to open a criminal case was issued on the same grounds.
On 17/05/2022 the applicant contested the authorities’ inaction before the Frunzenskiy District Court in Vladivostok (the District Court)/On 26/05/2022 the court refused to examine the complaint for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision amenable to appeal had been issued/
On 10/09/2022 the applicant appealed against the refusal of 22/04/2022 to the District Court/On 29/11/2022 the court partially granted the appeal as the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations had been incomplete/
On 29/01/2023 the applicant received the refusal of 07/12/2022 and appealed against it to the District Court/On 20/03/2023 the court again partially granted the appeal as the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations had been incomplete and a new inquiry was ordered.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the complaints of ill-treatment
32897/23*
24/04/2023
Andrey Aleksandrovich KALIKH
1972
Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev
Kazan
On 27/02/2022 in St Petersburg the applicant participated in a demonstration against the war in Ukraine during which police officers punched and kicked him in the buttocks and legs. Then they pushed him on the ground and dragged him by his left hand to the police bus. The incident was filmed on video. Then the applicant was taken to police station no.10, from where on the same date he was hospitalised by an ambulance to the Dzhanelidze Medical Emergency Institute for an emergency surgery.
Extract no. 1059593/12626 of 27/02/2022 from the applicant’s medical record by the Dzhanelidze Medical Emergency Institute: dislocation of the left humerus. Surgery on 27/02/2022- closed repositioning of the dislocation of the humerus with immobilisation.
On 07/03/2022 ill-treatment complaint lodged with the investigative committee of the Tsentralniy District in St Petersburg/On 07/04/2022 he was informed that the complaint had been forwarded to the internal security service of the St Petersburg police/On 16/02/2023, in reply to the applicant’s request for information, he was informed that no decision in respect of his complaint has been taken.
On 11/04/2022 the applicant contested the authorities’ inaction before the Smolninskiy District Court in St Petersburg, which forwarded it to the Dzerzhinsky District Court (the District Court)/On 29/04/2022 the latter refused to examine the complaint for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision amenable to appeal had been issued/The applicant appealed to the St Petersburg City Court (the City Court), which on 23/06/2022 overruled that decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination/On 29/09/2022 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint for the applicant’s failure to specify the identities of the police officers involved in the incident/The applicant received that decision on 13/10/2022 and on 18/10/2022 he appealed against it to the City Court/On 17/01/2023 the court upheld the decision of 29/09/2022.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy