Communicated on 11 January 2018
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 11402/17 and 82420/17
Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN against Russia
and Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV against Russia
lodged on 29 September 2013 and 15 October 2013 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants are Russian nationals. Their dates of birth, the dates on which their applications were introduced, application numbers, the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix.
2. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicants were convicted of grave crimes and sentences to life imprisonment.
4. They allege that during their detention in SIZO-1 in Syktyvkar, Komi Republic they were handcuffed several times daily, specifically, each time the doors of their cells were opened. The staff of the detention facility would handcuff the applicants’ hands behind their back when they were taken to shower, to walk, to meet defence lawyers, investigators, prosecutors, to be transferred for court hearings, as well as during searches of the cells and personal belongings. The applicants state that the doors of the cells were opened only after handcuffing.
5. The applicants’ complained about systematic handcuffing to the domestic civil courts. Their civil actions were dismissed with reference to necessary security measures in connection with them being officially classified as “prone to fleeing”. The applicants state that despite their motions to be present during the first instance and appeal hearings they were not transferred from the detention facility to the hearings.
COMPLAINTS
6. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about systematic handcuffing, which, in their opinion, amounted to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. They further complain under Article 6 of the Convention about their absence during the first-instance and appeal hearings in civil proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants’ systematic handcuffing in the detention facility amount to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the fact that the applicants were not transferred from the detention facility to the first-instance and appeal hearings in civil proceedings, do the circumstances of the cases disclose an infringement of their right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant afforded an opportunity to attend the above mentioned hearings?
3. Having regard to the fact that the applicants’ adversaries were present at the above mentioned hearings and made submissions to the courts, has there been an infringement of the applicants’ right to equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Civil proceedings concerning systematic handcuffing
1.
11402/17
29/09/2013
Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN
12/08/1986
Lyayel,
Komi Republic
Syktyvkar Town Court of Komi Republic, 7 May 2013
Supreme Court of Komi Republic, 8 July 2013
2.
82420/17
15/10/2013
Anton Alekseyevich KOROSTELEV
09/04/1987
Kharp,
Yamalo-Nenetskiy region
Ruslan Pshimafovich KOBLEV
Syktyvkar Town Court of Komi Republic, 6 May 2013
Supreme Court of Komi Republic, 29 July 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy