Communicated on 23 February 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 74820/14
Aleksey Viktorovich PASTUKHOV
against Russia
lodged on 18 November 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is legally incapacitated, unable to understand the nature of his acts and to control his actions. His mother acts on his behalf as the guardian, brining complaints before the Court and alleging authorities’ failure to protect her son’s health and physical integrity. In particular, the applicant, who was allegedly heavily drunk, was taken to a police station, where he was beaten up and could have also fallen down from a bunk on a cement floor. Several hours later he was taken, in a coma, to a hospital. He was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and multiple bruises on his face and body. The authorities allegedly failed to carry out an effective investigation into the events, including the applicant’s unrecorded detention for several hours in the police station and the beatings. No compensation was awarded to the applicant for the unrecorded detention when the courts dismissed the applicant’s tort action as unfounded.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
1.1. The Government are asked to provide information on the applicant’s medical examination upon his admission to the police station.
2. Has the applicant’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
2.1. In particular, given the gravity of the applicant’s injuries and a state of coma in which he was taken from the police station to the hospital, did the State comply with its positive obligation under Article 2 to protect the applicant’s health, physical integrity and well-being (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 52-55, ECHR 2004‑XI; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001‑III; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2000‑VII)?
3. Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation into the facts of the present case, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII)?
3.1. In particular, what is the current state of criminal case no. 433, after the Perm Regional Deputy Prosecutor resumed the investigation on 4 October 2012?
4. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4.1. In particular, did the applicant’s deprivation of liberty between 8.10 a.m. (when, according to the police station’s register, the applicant was released) and 4.06 p.m. on 6 February 2011 (when, according to the ambulance report, the applicant was taken to a hospital from the police station) fall within any paragraph of this provision? Was the applicant’ detention during that period recorded, as required by Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Taking into account the judgment of Motovilikhinskiy District Court of Perm Region issued on 14 March 2014, as upheld on appeal by the Perm Regional Court on 4 June 2014, by which the applicant’s action against the Ministry of Finance was dismissed in the part concerning unlawful detention, did the applicant have an enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy