Communicated on 5 September 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 5264/10
Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN against Russia
and 5 others – see appended list
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. All of the applicants submitted that their attempts to initiate criminal investigation in connection with the incidents proved futile. The applicants in cases nos. 5264/10, 61406/11 and 47008/16 also relied on Article 13 in the latter respect.
The relevant details regarding the applicants’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices. The information regarding the alleged breach of the substantive aspect of Article 3 in contained in Appendix no. 1. The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants’ complaints is reflected in Appendix no. 2.
The table of cases:
No.
Application number
Introduction date
Name of the applicant(s); date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
1.
5264/10
23/12/2009
Aleksey Aleksandrovich PULYALIN
12/08/1986
Lyayel
2.
53082/10
23/08/2010
A.C.
22/12/1979
Tyumen
3.
61406/11
31/08/2011
Aleksey Aleksandrovich AVERKIYEV
03/10/1973
Buzuluk
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
4.
68946/12
26/09/2012
Sergey Vladimirovich TIKHONOVSKIY
21/02/1961
Voronezh
5.
72140/13
02/10/2013
Nikolay Petrovich KOLOMIYKO
06/02/1979
Samara
6.
47008/16
04/08/2016
Denis Yuryevich KRAMCHANINOV
11/06/1991
Shakhunya
Olga Aleksandrovna SADOVSKAYA
QUESTIONS
1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015; Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, 8 October 2015; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, 11 October 2016)?
2. Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants’ injuries were caused (see Selmouni, cited above, § 87, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?
3. Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014), having regard to:
(a) the investigating authorities’ refusals to open criminal cases and investigate the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the State officials, and the overruling of those refusals as unlawful and unsubstantiated by higher investigative authorities or courts, and
(b) the investigating authorities’ inability to implement full investigative measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, before and/or after amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by Federal Law no. 23-FZ of 4 March 2013, for example, confrontations, identification parades, searches, and so forth?
No
Application No. and Title
APPENDIX No. 1
Article 3 - Substantive aspect
ARREST
ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT
EVIDENCE
Date
Time
Facts
Region town
street
Entity
Date
Time
Location
Alleged Facts
Perpetrator(s)
Date
Doc Type
Authority
Description
of Injuries
1.
5264/10
Pulyalin v. Russia
During detention (every day from 10/01/2010 to 03/02/2010)
IK-56, Sverdlovsk region
Blows, threats of sexual violence, making the applicant run bended in a corridor
several colony officers, including B (1), B (2), B (3), S., K., M.
16/04/2010
Expert statement
Forensic Bureau of Sverdlovsk region
Bruises on both buttocks, covering 8*12 cm on each one, located in lower quadrants, near gluteofemoral fold", "Some clubbing of I interphalangeal joint of I pollex of the left wrist, with limitation of motion.
During detention on 28/05/2013
IZ-1 Komi
Blows on his head, right eye, body, handcuffing
Remand prison officers A., B. and others
01/07/2013, 01/08/2013
Decisions to refuse opening of criminal investigation
Investigative committee of Syuktyuvkar
Bruise near the right orbit.
2.
53082/10
A.C. v. Russia
17/05/2006
Tyumen
Arrested on suspicion of multiple murder
Every day after the arrest between 17/05/2006 and 25/05/2006
The building of IVS
Systemic beatings with a view to extracting confession, putting a bag on the head, electric shock,
operative officers L., I., U. and one P.
18/05/2006
Medical certificate
no. 4067
Medical forensic expert
Scratch on the left shoulder dating 0,5 to 1,5 days before.
19/05/2006
Medical certificate
no. 4115
Medical forensic expert
Scratch on both hands dating 1 to 3 days before; bruises on the body and right leg dating 1,5 to 5 days before.
24/05/2006
Medical certificate no. 4284
Medical forensic expert
Bruises on the chest, back, right ankle dating 6 to 14 days before.
3.
61406/11
Averkiyev v. Russia
26/12/2006
Orenburg Regional police department
Detained in facility
no. IZ-56/3 in Orenburg
19/05/2008
Organised Crime Unit of the Orenburg Regional Department of Interior (brought for questioning from detention facility
no. IZ-56/3
Several hits in the head and in the face
Organised Crime Unit officer S.
19/05/2008
Medical certificate
IZ-56/3 Medical Unit
Bruise on the lower third of a left shin measuring 15x15x10, hyperimia in the area of 6th-7th cervical vertebra, bruise on an upper eyelid of left eye.
20/05/2008
Medical certificate
IZ-56/3 Medical Unit
Brain concussion, bruises on a left shin, neck and on an upper eyelid of left eye.
4.
68946/12
Tikhonovskiy v. Russia
19/05/2009
Voronezh, Bakhme-tyeva street 10A
Operative division no. 6 of the Voronezh Regional police department
Administrative arrest for disorderly conduct; subsequent criminal proceedings which resulted in the applicant’s acquittal
19/05/2009
Operative division no. 6 of the Voronezh Regional police department
The applicant was arrested for having committed an administrative offence and ill-treated for the purpose of obtaining confession (suffocation with plastic bag, blows, torture by electroshocks)
Policemen Kru, Mesh, Kor and Sit.
02/03/2011
Forensic
examination report
Forensic Bureau of Voronezh
Bruises on the shoulders and arms, burns on the stomach and genitals (at least 16 injuries). Apparently, the injuries were inflicted on 19/05/2009, certainly not on 02/06/2009.
02/06/2009
Search department of Criminal police
The applicant was brought from the hospital to the criminal police and was subjected to the ill-treatment by electroshocks
Policemen Kru and Kor
02/06/2009
Extract from medical records (Выписка из медицинской карты)
Voronezh Regional Hospital
Bruises by electroshocks on the genitals,
21/05/2009
Forensic examination act
Forensic Bureau of Voronezh
Bruises on the shoulders and arms, burns on the stomach and genitals,
5.
72140/13
Kolomiyko v. Russia
11/02/2013
Ufa
OP 3 UMVD of the town of Ufa
Arrested on suspicion of murder
11/02/2013
OP 3 UMVD of the town of Ufa
Beatings on the body: punches and kicks; covered the body with a jacket and sat on top of it until the collar bone cracked
officers of OP 3 UMVD of the town of Ufa
04/03/2013
Expert examination no. 2531
Forensic medical expert
Closed splintered fracture of the mid tier part of the collar bone on the left side with the displacement of splinters; bruises of soft tissues of the loin area on the left.
13/02/2013
Medical certificate no. 341
Doctor of GBUZ RB GKB no. 21
Closed splintered fracture of the mid tier part of the collar bone on the left side with the displacement of splinters; bruises of soft tissues of the loin area on the left.
02/08/2010
Medical certificate (выписка из амбулаторной карты)
Shakhunskaya Central District Hospital
Brain concussion
15/07/2010
Witnesses’ testimonies
Investigator
Mother submitted: dirty T-shirt; friend A. submitted: red spots on the face, swollen little finger; bail officer: bruise and scratch on the face, bruises and redness on the hands,
No
Application No. and Title
APPENDIX No. 2
Article 3 - Procedural aspect
DOMESTIC COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT REACTION
Date of
Complaint
Authority
Type of
Reaction
Date(s)
Procedural Outcome
1.
5264/10
Pulyalin v. Russia
03/02/2010
Correctional colony administration, investigator of the Investigative Committee
Consistently refused
Refusal on 11/11/2010 (in relation to ill-treatment of the applicant and several other of his co-detainees).
No criminal case was opened. The refusal decision was contested, but the complaints of the applicant’s lawyer were rejected by the courts on 20/10/2011 (FI), 28/12/2011 (appeal). The refusal was preceded by an inquiry involving the questioning of multiple co-detainees and colony officials. The applicant alleges inefficiency of the investigation (not prompt, not thorough, delayed access to its findings). The trauma of the applicant’s finger on the left hand was apparently not investigated and not all of the colony officials he had indicated as perpetrators were questioned.
30/05/2013
Investigative committee of Syktyvkar
Consistently refused
Refusals on 01/07/2013, 01/08/2013.
Two refusals. The applicant applied to the first instance court to contest the first of them, yet just before the hearing, the refusal was cancelled, and within several days after that a new refusal was made.
2.
53082/10
A.C. v. Russia
23/06/2006
Prosecutor’s office of the town of Tyumen
Criminal investigation
03/07/2006
investigation refused
More than a few dozen of prosecutor decisions rejecting the applicant’s complaints from 2006 to 2011.
3.
61406/11
Averkiyev v. Russia
26/05/2008
Prosecutor’s Office of the Orenburg Region
Consistently refused
4 refusals to open a criminal case on 20/06/2008, 10/08/2008, 05/03/2009 and 05/05/2010, first three quashed by the investigator’s superiors
After 2 quashings, the first-instance court on 31/01/2011 (later upheld on appeal on 03/03/2011) dismissed the applicant’s complaint under Article 125 of the CCrP against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The investigator dismissed the allegations of ill-treatment and gave no alternative explanation as to the source of the applicant’s injuries.
4.
68946/12
Tikhonovskiy v. Russia
22/05/2009
Investigative Committee of the Leninskiy District of Voronezh
Refused, then granted
Refusals to bring criminal proceeding of 05/06/2009, 02/07/2009, 03/09/2009, 19/11/2009, investigation brought on 26/10/2009, suspended on 25/11/2009, 28/03/2011, 11/09/2011, 17/01/2012. Proceedings against the identified police officers closed in view of the lack of any criminal conduct (appeal decision of 31/05/2012 by the Voronezh Regional Court); Criminal proceedings pertaining to the very fact of the ill-treatment suspended (by the appeal decision of the Voronezh Regional Court of 17/01/2012) in view of the impossibility to establish the perpetrators of the alleged criminal offence.
Refusal of prosecution of the perpetrators on 11/09/2011, cassation on 31/05/2012. Civil proceedings (first instance of 30/07/2012, appeal of 01/11/2012), RUB 1,500,000 awarded in compensation for non-pecuniary damage because, as was established by the courts, "employees of the Voronezh Regional police department" were responsible for the extensive health damage sustained by the applicant between 19/05/2006 and 02/06/2006 and recorded by various medical evidence.
5.
72140/13
Kolomiyko v. Russia
unknown
Central InterDistrict Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of town of Ufa
Consistently refused
25/07/2013
The applicant’s complaint in respect of the investigator’s decision of 25/07/2013 was disallowed by the Kirovsk District Court of the town of Ufa on 21/06/2013 and 27/08/2013.
6.
47008/16
Kramchaninov v. Russia
16/07/2010
Shakhunsky MSO SU SK for the Nizhniy Novgorod Region
Consistently refused
04/03/2016
The indicated date is the latest quashing of a refusal to prosecute.
10 refusals to prosecute all of which quashed by the investigator’s superior. The applicant appealed to court twice but no court ever had a chance to examine the refusals on the merits as a couple of days before each hearing the refusal was quashed by the investigators. In the refusals no version as to the material facts.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy