Communicated on 18 November 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 46219/12
Natalya Viktorovna MAKSIMOVA
against Russia
lodged on 4 July 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Natalya Viktorovna Maksimova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Volgograd. She is represented before the Court by A.V. Polonskiy, a lawyer practising in Volgograd.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 January 2003 the police arrested the applicant’s brother, Mr A.V. Polonskiy, on suspicion of unlawful possession of arms and forgery of identity documents and brought him to the police department no. 2 in Volgograd.
On 30 January 2003 the applicant’s brother complained to the investigator in charge of the case that on 28 and 29 January 2003 he had been beaten up by police officers.
On 28 March 2003 the police arrested the applicant and brought her to the department of the Interior of the Volgograd region. Police officer T. was questioning the applicant throughout the night. The applicant alleges that during that questioning he beat her up to make her give testimony against her brother.
According to the certificate issued on 31 March 2003 by the emergency station of the Volgograd outpatient hospital, the staff of the unit examined the applicant at 11.52 am on that day and recorded bruises on her chest and lumbar region. The applicant was also diagnosed with cerebral commotion.
On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office of the ill-treatment by police officer T. However, the prosecutor’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against that policeman.
In August 2005 the applicant’s brother, A.V. Polonskiy, lodged an application with the Court in which he complained, among other things, of ill-treatment by police in January 2003 and the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment.
On 19 March 2009 the Court delivered a judgment in the case of Polonskiy v. Russia (no. 30033/05, § 121-125, 19 March 2009). The Court found that the State was responsible under Article 3 on account of torture of the applicant’s brother by the police and that there had been a violation of that provision and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
The applicant submits that after the delivery of that judgment, the authorities initiated criminal proceedings against police officer T. The applicant and her brother were granted victim status in those proceedings.
In the course of those criminal proceedings the applicant and her brother lodged civil claims for compensation of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of T.’s actions. Each of them claimed 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB).
On 20 October 2011 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) found T. guilty of abuse of position committed with use of violence and sentenced him to three years and two months’ imprisonment.
The District Court established, in particular, that on 28 March 2003 the applicant had been brought to the regional department of interior where she had been questioned by policeman T. At 1 am on 29 March 2003 T. had hit the applicant at least two times on her head and body and caused her physical sufferings. By his actions T. had violated the applicant’s rights and lawful interests provided for by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and provisions of the Federal Law “On Police” of 18 April 1991 prohibiting recourse to torture, violence and other forms of unhuman and degrading treatment. The District Court held that T.’s guilt was confirmed, in particular, by the applicant’s testimony and a medical certificate issued on 31 March 2003 by the emergency station of the Volgograd outpatient hospital.
On the same date the District Court held that in accordance with Articles 151 and 1064 of the Civil Code, the applicant’s civil claim should be granted in part. Having regard to the proportionality principle, the District Court awarded RUB 5,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage to be paid to the applicant by police officer T.
In her appeal against that judgment the applicant submitted, in particular, that the sentence imposed on T. as well as the award for non-pecuniary damage had been disproportionate to the actions committed by him in her respect.
On 6 February 2012 the Volgograd Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) examined the appeals lodged by the applicant and T. and conditionally released T. on three years’ probation. The Regional Court further held that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage had been determined in accordance with Articles 151 and 1101 of the Civil Code, had been proportionate to the victim’s physical and moral sufferings and had been equitable and reasonable.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that on 28 and 29 March 2003 police officer T. beaten her up, the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her complaints of ill-treatment, the domestic courts imposed a disproportionate sentence on police officer T. and awarded inadequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged ill-treatment.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the findings of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Volgograd in its judgment of 20 October 2011 in the criminal proceedings against police officer T., was the applicant subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment on 28 and 29 March 2003, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide a copy of the medical certificate issued on 31 March 2003 by the emergency unit of the Volgograd outpatient hospital.
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities effective, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 182-185, ECHR 2012)?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide a copy of the materials of the criminal case against policeman T. which ended on 12 February 2012.
4. Having regard to the District Court judgment of 20 October 2011 in the criminal proceedings against police officer T., may the applicant still claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of her complaints under Article 3 about the events of 28 and 29 March 2003? In particular, have the authorities acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and afforded appropriate redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy