SAMESOV v. RUSSIA

Communicated on 30 August 2016

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos 57269/14 and 29330/15
Aleksandr Valeryevich SAMESOV against Russia
and Mardoris Arutovich DEMERCHYAN against Russia
lodged on 10 December 2014 and 3 June 2015 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

1. The applicant in the first case, Mr Aleksandr Valeryevich Samesov, is a Belarusian national, who was born in 1987 and lives in St Petersburg. He is represented before the Court by Mr A.P. Konakov, a lawyer practicing in St Petersburg.

2. The applicant in the second case, Mr Mardoris Arutovich Demerchyan, is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Sochi. The second applicant is represented before the Court by Ms D.S. Pigoleva and Ms O.S. Shepeleva, lawyers with the Public Verdict Foundation, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.

3. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

A. The circumstances of the cases

1. Mr Samesov

(a) The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

4. At around 4.30 p.m. on 4 July 2013 the applicant was arrested near his car in the street in St Petersburg by police officers of the St Petersburg and Leningrad Region special rapid reaction unit (СОБР ГУ МВД России по Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области) and the criminal investigation department on suspicion of fraud. The applicant was dressed in a T-shirt and shorts. He was lying on the asphalt for about forty minutes until the investigator’s arrival at the scene. The police officers of the criminal investigation department insulted him and threatened to use physical force if he did not confess. The applicant believes Ch., K. and P. were the officers in question.

5. After his arrest and the search of his car, the applicant was driven to police station no. 59 in St Petersburg, where he was placed in a separate room and physically assaulted by Officers Ch. and K. of the criminal investigation department, who punched and kicked him in his abdomen and head in order to force him to confess. According to the applicant, he was not provided with a lawyer and was not allowed to contact his family.

6. At 8.50 p.m. on 4 July 2013 the record of the applicant’s arrest was drawn up. This record indicates that the applicant was arrested at 7 p.m. on 4 July 2013 on suspicion of fraud. This record is signed by the applicant, two attesting witnesses and the investigator.

7. Then the applicant was driven to his apartment, which he was renting from S., where police officers carried out a search. His family was not present during this search. The search was carried out in the absence of a lawyer. According to the applicant, Officers Ch., K. and P. continued threatening and physically assaulting him, striking him with a book in his head, ears and the back of his head, and making him kneel on small airgun spread out on the floor. They drank alcohol. Then S., the owner of the apartment, came in with her husband. She did not see any visible injuries on the applicant at that time. The applicant did not tell her about his physical assault by the police officers because they had threatened to kill him if he “opened his mouth”.

8. At around midnight, the applicant was driven his wife’s garage for a search. Officers Ch. and K. continued physically assaulting him, kicking and dragging him on the ground. According to the applicant, he obtained his injuries – abrasions on his hands and legs during this episode of ill‑treatment. K. spat on the applicant’s face.

9. At around 2 a.m. on 5 July 2013 the applicant was driven to the main Investigation Department in St Petersburg, where investigator D. and three police officers (Ch., K. and P.) were present; they drank alcohol. From 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. the police officers physically assaulted the applicant, punching him in his head, abdomen and chest. Then a black plastic bag was placed over his head. The applicant started to suffocate and lost consciousness. He regained consciousness after several blows to the torso. Then one of the police officers kicked him in his left kidney. Ch. also threatened the applicant with a gun. D. asked the applicant to confess to being a member of an organised criminal group. He refused to contact the applicant’s family and lawyer. According to the applicant, he was provided with an assigned lawyer for the first time at around 6 a.m. on 5 July 2013, and police officers then stopped physically assaulting him.

10. According to the applicant, he asked his appointed lawyer to inform the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of his ill-treatment. However, the appointed lawyer did not do so.

11. On 5 July 2013 the applicant was taken to Aleksandrovskaya Hospital, St Petersburg, where his injuries were recorded for the first time. Afterwards, the applicant was taken to court. After the court ordered the applicant’s detention, the applicant was brought to a different police station (no. 57) in St Petersburg, where his injuries were also recorded.

12. At around 9 a.m. on 6 July 2013 the applicant was taken to hospital for the second time and hospitalised until 9 July 2013.

13. On 9 July 2013 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention facility no. 4 in St Petersburg. For fourteen days he was held in isolation and was not able to complain of his alleged ill-treatment to the authorities.

(b) The applicant’s injuries

14. According to the applicant’s medical records from the hospital of 5 and 8 July 2013, the applicant complained, in particular, of pain on the left side of his lumbar region, in his abdomen and knee joints. He was diagnosed with a kidney contusion. He also had a superficial abrasion on his upper abdomen; abrasions on both his knee joints, measuring from 0.5 x 1 cm to 1 x 1.5 cm; bruising on his abdomen, chest and arms. During the applicant’s initial medical examination in the hospital on 5 July 2013, the applicant denied having been physically assaulted. According to the applicant, he denied the assault because he had been threatened with violence if he had “open[ed] his mouth”.

15. According to the applicant’s records from police station no. 57 in St Petersburg of 5 July 2013, where the applicant was examined by an on‑duty officer, the applicant had: (i) a bruise on his forehead; (ii) abrasions on his right elbow; (iii) bruising on his chest and abdomen; and (iv) abrasions on both his knee. The applicant explained that those injuries had been caused from 4 to 5 July 2013 as a result of his questioning at the Investigation Committee.

16. On 9 July 2013 the applicant was examined by a doctor at pre-trial detention facility IZ 47/4. He complained of pain on the left side of his lumbar region. The doctor recorded abrasions on the knee joint and bruising on the abdomen and noted that these injuries were received approximately on 5 July 2013.

17. According to forensic medical expert report no. 3575 P, carried out in the absence of the applicant from 13 to 18 September 2013 on the basis of the investigator’s order of 2 September 2013, which comprised analysis of the applicant’s medical records (mentioned in paragraphs 13-15 above), the applicant had the following injuries: (i) bruising on his forehead; (ii) bruising on the chest and abdomen; (iii) an abrasion on his abdomen; (iv) abrasions on his right elbow joint and both knee joints, recorded on 5 July 2013; and (v) bruising on his arms, recorded on 8 July 2013. The expert concluded that the applicant’s injuries, as recorded on 5 and 8 July 2013, had been caused no more than fourteen to fifteen days ago. The expert did not exclude that the applicant’s injuries had been caused on 4 July 2013. The expert concluded that those injuries had originated from impacts with a hard, blunt object or objects as a result of a blow or pressure (bruising), friction or a blow with friction (abrasions), and had not caused any “health damage” to the applicant. The expert did not exclude that the applicant’s injuries on his abdomen could have been caused by him having been kicked there. The expert further defined no less than seven areas on the applicant’s body where there was evidence that force had been applied. The expert considered that a contusion of the applicant’s left kidney was not confirmed by the objective medical data.

18. On 15 November 2013 additional forensic medical expert report no. 4414 P was issued by the same expert. It was carried out in the absence of the applicant on the basis of the investigator’s order of 15 October 2013 and comprised analysis of the applicant’s medical documents (mentioned in paragraphs 13-15 above) and, in addition, of photos in which the applicant is lying on the asphalt facedown after his arrest in the presence of several police officers of the special rapid reaction unit. In general, the expert came to similar conclusions, as in the previous report, adding that the applicant’s bruising on his forehead and abdomen, and abrasions on his abdomen, elbow and knee could have been possibly caused as a result of a fall (“при падении”) on the hard asphalt surface.

(c) Refusals to open a criminal case against police officers

19. On 7 August 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint against the police officers with the main Investigation Department in St Petersburg.

20. On the dates specified below, and in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), investigators at main Investigation Department in St Petersburg issued several refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers, owing, in particular, to the absence of the constituent elements of crimes under Articles 286 (abuse of powers) and 302 (forced extraction of confession) of the Criminal Code in the conduct of the police officers. Those refusals were systematically overruled by a higher authority within the Investigation Committee as being unsubstantiated and/or unlawful, and the investigating authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries:

Refusal no.

issued on:

overruled on:

(i)

10 September 2013

16 September 2013

(ii)

15 October 2013

8 November 2013

(iii)

9 December 2013

7 October 2014

(iv)

18 December 2014

[no information]

(v)

5 September 2015

[no information]

(i) Explanations received by investigators during preliminary inquiries

21. A. and B.S., police officers of the special rapid reaction unit, assisted Ch., K. and P. during the applicant’s arrest. They stated that the applicant had attempted to abscond; they had surrounded him near his car and applied combat techniques: they held him in a hammerlock (“загиб руки за спину”) and “struck him with their feet” (“подсечка”). Afterwards, they laid (“уложили”) the applicant on the asphalt facedown and handcuffed him. They did not state that the applicant had fallen down on the asphalt.

22. The police officers of the criminal investigation department, Ch., K. and P., who had participated in the applicant’s arrest, stated that they had not seen the moment of the applicant’s arrest, that is to say when the applicant had been apprehended and laid facedown on the asphalt by A. and B.S. According to Ch. and D. (investigators who arrived after the applicant’s arrest), the applicant had fresh abrasions on his elbows and knees, which had been probably caused as a result of a fall on the asphalt. K. and P. did not notice any visible injuries on the applicant after his arrest. They stated that the applicant had “possibly” had abrasions on his arms and forehead. The applicant did not have other injuries. No threats or physical force was applied to the applicant after his arrest in the street, during the search of his car, at police station no. 59 in St Petersburg or during searches of his home and his wife’s garage, nor at the Main Investigation Department in St Petersburg, as alleged by the applicant. The police officers denied having subjected the applicant to any form of threats or ill-treatment to extract a confession to fraud, and denied having drunk alcohol.

23. The neighbours from the building nearby (whose names are not indicated in the investigators’ decisions) observed the applicant’s arrest. According to them, the applicant attempted to run away from the police officers in the direction of his car; however, he was then apprehended by the police officers of the special rapid reaction unit.

24. B.A. participated in the search of the applicant’s car after his arrest as an attesting witness together with M. According to B.A., the applicant behaved calmly and did not complain. The police officers did not insult nor threaten the applicant. B.A. did not notice any injuries on the applicant.

25. O. participated in the search of the applicant’s apartment and the garage as an attesting witness together with Sch. According to O., the applicant behaved quietly and did not complain. The police officers neither threatened nor physically assaulted the applicant. O. did not see any visible injuries on the applicant.

26. S., the owner of the apartment rented by the applicant, stated that she had seen the applicant during the search of the apartment. She had not noticed any visible injuries on him. According to S., the applicant had been calm and had not complained of having been assaulted by the police. S. further stated that the police officers had behaved politely and she had not noticed any smell of alcohol from them. After the search of the apartment, the applicant had gone downstairs without protest. He had been in handcuffs.

27. The applicant’s case file contains an undated internal memorandum by Ch. to D. in which Ch. informs him of the applicant’s arrest at 4.30 p.m. on 4 July 2013 on suspicion of fraud. This report indicates that “during the arrest Samesov A.V. failed to obey and attempted to abscond. Sambo wrestling techniques and special devices – handcuffs – were therefore applied to him” (“При задержании Самесов А.В. оказал неповиновение, пытался скрыться, в результате чего в отношении него были применены приемы самбо и спец. средства – наручники”).

(ii) Refusal to open a criminal case of 5 September 2015

28. In its most recent refusal (5 September 2015) to open a criminal case against the police officers, the investigator considered that the applicant’s allegations of police ill-treatment contained unresolved contradictions, evidencing the applicant’s attempts to avoid criminal liability and provide false information to the investigating authorities. In particular, the applicant indicated that he had been physically assaulted many times on his head, abdomen and extremities. However, according to the applicant’s medical records, he had not had any head injuries, and the alleged left kidney contusion had not been confirmed. As to the applicant’s abrasions on his limbs, head and abdomen, the investigator concluded that they had been most probably caused during the applicant’s arrest as a result of the application of combat techniques to the applicant by the officers of the special rapid reaction unit and the applicant having been (“нахождение”) on the asphalt. The investigator further indicated seven possible areas of force application to the applicant: forehead, chest, abdomen, arms and knees. The investigator noted that the applicant’s injuries, as recorded on 5 and 8 July 2013, had been caused no more than 14-15 days ago. Accordingly, they could have been caused on a day other than 4 July 2013.

(d) Judicial review of the refusals to open a criminal case

29. On unspecified dates the applicant challenged the refusals (of 9 December 2013 and 18 December 2014) to open a criminal case against the police officers under Article 125 of the CCrP.

30. On 25 June 2014 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to open a criminal case of 9 December 2013. On 7 October 2014 the St Petersburg City Court quashed this decision on appeal and found that the refusal of 9 December 2013 to open a criminal case against the police officers had been unlawful and unsubstantiated; it ordered the investigating authorities to rectify the deficiencies. In particular, the appeal court noted that the investigator had taken the decision to refuse to open a criminal case under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP without identifying all the officials responsible, in breach of the criminal procedural law requirements. Moreover, the appeal court found that the pre-investigation inquiry had been incomplete, as not all of the applicant’s arguments had been addressed.

31. On 26 June 2015 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg found that the refusal of 18 December 2014 to open a criminal case against the police officers had been unlawful and unsubstantiated, and the investigating authorities were ordered to rectify the deficiencies. In particular, the court found that the investigator had not addressed the applicant’s arguments concerning the alleged threats and incidents of physical assault by the police during the search of the garage, and had not substantiated its refusal to open a criminal case under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP.

2. Mr Demerchyan

(a) The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

32. On 12 June 2013 the applicant, who worked as an electrician on the construction of Olympic sites in Sochi, and his brother K. were invited by their employer to receive their delayed salary. When they arrived for the meeting at around 11 a.m., five or six police officers were present alongside their employer. One of the police officers asked the applicant whether he had stolen electrical cable at the construction site. The applicant denied the theft. Another police officer handcuffed him and his brother. The police officers drove them to the Blinovo police station, Sochi. At the police station the applicant was placed in a room, hands handcuffed behind his back and seated on a chair, where about five police officers physically assaulted him, punching him while wearing boxing-gloves on different parts of his body. The applicant lost consciousness several times. According to the applicant, one of the police officers took off his briefs and started to insert an iron bar into his anus, while the other officers restrained him. The applicant shouted in pain and the police officer took out the iron bar. Then the applicant was taken to another room, where he signed some papers. Subsequently, the applicant found out that these papers contained his confession about the theft of electrical cable at the construction site.

33. At around 3 p.m. on 12 June 2013 the applicant called his wife and informed her of his whereabouts. At around 4 p.m. the applicant’s wife (Ms D.L.) arrived at the police station. The applicant told her that he had been physically assaulted by police officers and complained of feeling unwell. D.L. noticed that one of the applicant’s front teeth had been knocked out. At D.L’s request a police officer called the ambulance at some point during the night of 12 to 13 June 2013. The doctors examined the applicant and gave him painkillers. On 13 June 2013 the ambulance was called again as the applicant complained of headache. The applicant was driven to the neurosurgery department of Sochi Town Hospital no. 4. The applicant’s relatives (P., T. and D.M.), who had seen the applicant at the police station shortly after his alleged ill-treatment, provided similar statements.

(b) The applicant’s injuries

34. According to medical record no. 3400, from 13 to 17 June 2013 the applicant was at the neurosurgery department of Sochi Town Hospital no. 4, where he was diagnosed with concussion and head and chest contusions, and had treatment. The applicant explained to the neurosurgeon that a day before he had been physically assaulted by police officers, had lost consciousness, had had nausea and bouts of vomiting, dizziness, headache and pains in his body.

35. On 15 June 2013 the applicant was examined by a proctologist, who diagnosed him with, inter alia, “healing micro-tears of the anus”.

36. According to report no. 243, between 17 June and 1 July 2013 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, which had been ordered by the Adlerskiy district investigation unit, Sochi, on 14 June 2013. On the basis of the medical examination of 17 June 2013 and on the applicant’s medical records, the expert concluded that the applicant had had: (i) a bruise on his lower left eyelid and (ii) fractures of three to four left teeth of the upper jaw, which had been caused by at least two mechanical impacts with hard, blunt objects five to ten days before the applicant’s examination, and had caused him “no health damage” and “insignificant health damage”, respectively.

37. The expert further concluded that the applicant’s concussion and head and chest contusions, diagnosed at the neurosurgery department of Sochi Town Hospital no. 4, could not be confirmed by clinical evidence. As to the diagnosis of “healing micro-tears of the anus”, the expert considered that due to the absence of any details (localisation, type, form, measurements, colour, etc.), it was impossible to conclude anything about their origin.

38. According to report no. 293-M/243, between 1 and 3 July 2013 an additional forensic medical examination, ordered by the Adlerskiy district investigation unit, Sochi on 29 June 2013, was carried out on the basis of report no. 243 of 17 June 2013, in the absence of the applicant. In general, the expert came to similar conclusions as in the previous report, adding, in particular, that the applicant’s injuries (a bruise and chipped teeth) had been within the reach of the applicant’s own hand. The expert also did not exclude the possibility of the applicant’s injuries having been caused by hard blunt objects, or as a result of blows against these types of objects, for instance as a result of a fall.

(c) Refusals to open a criminal case against police officers

39. On 13 June 2013 D.L. lodged a complaint with the Investigation Committee regarding the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.

40. On 13 July 2013 an investigator at the Adlerskiy district investigation unit, Sochi issued a first refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers, finding, in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, that none of the elements of the crimes provided for in Articles 285 and 286 (abuse of powers) of the Criminal Code were present in respect of the actions of Officers S., Ye., R. and L. On the same day a criminal case was opened against the applicant under Article 306 (false information) of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 49-51 below). The investigator further refused to open a criminal case against D.L. under Article 306 of the Criminal Code, having found that D.L. had provided information which she had received from the applicant.

41. On 15 July 2013 the first refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers was overruled by the higher authority within the Investigation Committee for being unsubstantiated, and an additional inquiry was ordered.

42. On 3 October 2013 the investigator issued another refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers under Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP. By the same decision the investigator refused to open a criminal case against D.L. under Article 306 (false information) of the Criminal Code.

43. The police officers denied subjecting the applicant to any ill‑treatment. They stated that they had been carrying out investigative measures in connection with the theft of electrical cable on one of the Olympic construction sites. On 12 June 2013 the applicant and his brother K. had been asked to produce their identity documents, which they had refused to do. At around 4.50 p.m. they had been driven to the police station, where their identities had been checked and administrative proceedings under Article 19.3 (disobeying lawful instructions of the police) of the Code of Administrative Offences had been opened. During the verification of the applicant’s involvement in the theft of electrical cable, the applicant had given his “statement of surrender and confession” without any threats or physical pressure having been exerted on him. According to the police officers, the applicant had provided false information about his alleged ill-treatment.

44. In its most recent refusal (3 October 2015) to open a criminal case against police officers, the investigator concluded that the applicant’s, D’s and K’s allegations concerning the applicant’s ill-treatment had not been confirmed.

(d) Judicial review of the refusal to open a criminal case

45. The applicant’s lawyer challenged the second refusal under Article 125 of the CCrP, arguing that there had been no effective investigation into the applicant’s complaint of police ill-treatment.

46. On 15 October 2013 the Adlerskiy District Court, Sochi terminated proceedings concerning this appeal on the grounds that a criminal case had been pending before the same court against the applicant under Article 306 (on false information) of the Criminal Code and that the applicant’s arguments should be subject to examination in those proceedings.

47. On 3 December 2014 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld this decision on appeal.

(e) Criminal proceedings against the applicant

(i) Perjury

48. On 17 December 2014 the Adlerskiy District Court, Sochi convicted the applicant under Article 306 (perjury) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 300 hours of mandatory work. The court mainly relied on the statements provided by the police officers, and the expert’s findings that the applicant’s concussion and head and chest contusions, diagnosed at the neurosurgery department of Sochi Town Hospital no. 4, could not be confirmed by clinical evidence, and that it was impossible to draw conclusions about the origin of the applicant’s anal micro-tears. The court also noted the refusal of 3 October 2013 to open a criminal case against the police officers, and dismissed the testimonies of D.L. and the applicant’s relatives (P., T. and D.M.), who had seen the applicant injured and feeling unwell at the police station shortly after his alleged ill-treatment, finding that they had been given to help the applicant to avoid criminal liability.

49. On 2 April 2015 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed this judgment on appeal and returned the case to the prosecutor of the Adlerskiy district in Sochi. The appeal court found, inter alia, that the investigator had failed to provide the forensic medical experts with the all the relevant medical records (including the applicant’s medical records and X-ray results of 25 June 2013), which could have affected the experts’ conclusions concerning the applicant’s injuries. It further found that the applicant’s criminal case file contained conflicting evidence (including the applicant’s relatives’ testimonies in his favour, testimonies by doctors about the applicant’s injuries, and – on the other hand – testimonies by the police officers, who had denied application of force in relation to the applicant), which precluded the court from rendering a judgment concerning the crime.

50. According to the applicant, the criminal proceedings concerning this case are pending.

(ii) Theft

51. According to the applicant, in June 2013, after his alleged ill‑treatment and coerced confession, a criminal case was opened against him under Article 158 (theft) of the Criminal Code.

B. Relevant domestic law

52. For a general summary of the relevant domestic law see Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-101, 24 July 2014).

53. Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Federal Law no. 23-FZ of 4 March 2013, reads in the relevant part as follows:

Article 144. Procedure for examining a report of a crime

“1. [A pre-investigation] inquiry officer, [an] agency [responsible for such an inquiry], [an] investigator, or [a] head of an investigation unit shall accept and examine every report of a crime ... and shall take a decision on that report ... no later than three days after [receiving] the report ... [They have] the right to receive explanations, samples for comparative examination, request documents and objects, seize them ..., order forensic examinations, participate in the carrying out [of such examinations] and receive an expert’s report within a reasonable time, carry out an inspection of a crime scene, documents, objects, [and/or] dead bodies, physical examination, request documentary inspections, revisions, examination of documents, objects, dead bodies, engage specialists in carrying out these actions, give an inquiry agency mandatory written instructions on carrying out operative and investigative measures ...

3. A head of an investigation unit or head of an [pre-investigation] inquiry agency ... may extend the time period specified in paragraph (1) of this Article to [a maximum of] ten days. Where the documentary inspections, revisions, forensic examinations, examination of documents, objects or dead bodies, as well as operative and investigative measures are to be performed, a head of an investigation unit ... or a prosecutor ... may extend this period [to a maximum of] thirty days ...”

54. Section VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulates preliminary investigation, provides, inter alia, (after amendments by Federal Law no. 23-FZ of 4 March 2013) that such investigative measures as an inspection of a crime scene, documents and/or objects, a forensic examination and receipt of samples for a comparative examination may be ordered and/or carried out, as applicable, before a criminal case is opened (Articles 176 § 2, 195 § 4 and 202 § 1 of the Code).

COMPLAINTS

55. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by police officers and that the State failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents.

56. The second applicant also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, about the absence of an effective domestic remedy.

QUESTIONS

1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in police custody on suspicion of having committed criminal offences, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999‑V; and, among recent authorities, Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, 6 October 2015; Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, 6 October 2015; and Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, 8 October 2015)?

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)?

3. Having regard to:

(a) the investigating authorities’ refusals to open criminal cases and investigate the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the police, 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, as amended by Federal Law no. 23-FZ of 4 March 2013, for example, confrontations, identification parades, searches, and so forth;

did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?

4. Did Mr Demerchyan have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5. The Government are invited to submit a detailed hour-by-hour report on what happened to the applicants during the time they spent in police custody, from the moment of their actual arrest (фактическое задержание) until the moment of their placement in a detention facility following a court order for their remand in custody (содержание под стражей), or – if no such measure was ordered by a court – until the moment of their release, including information on all operative, administrative and investigative acts carried out during this period of time, as supported by relevant documents to be enclosed with the report. In particular, documents containing the following information are to be submitted:

(a) where applicable, the time of their arrival and the length of time the applicants spent in police stations (police station logbooks, and so forth), cells for administrative offenders at police stations, temporary detention facilities (IVS), pre-trial detention (SIZO-type) facilities, medical facilities (ambulances, accident and emergency departments, hospitals, forensic‑medical clinics);

(b) the applicants’ injuries and/or their state of health, as recorded in the places listed in sub-paragraph (a) above (certificates on medical examinations on arrival at IVS, SIZO, records of medical facilities, and so forth);

(c) the forensic medical experts’ conclusions about the applicants’ injuries, the investigators’ decisions to order forensic medical examinations of the applicants, and explanations by the applicants and the police officers in question as to the origin of the injuries which formed the basis of the experts’ assessments;

(d) records of operative, administrative and investigative acts carried out with the applicants’ participation during the above periods of time (records of arrest, questioning, searches, and so forth);

(e) where applicable, a court decision ordering an applicant’s detention on remand, records of the relevant court hearing, a court ruling on an applicant’s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment in police custody, and any higher courts’ relevant decisions.

6. As regards the pre-investigation inquiry into the applicants’ alleged ill‑treatment, the Government are invited to submit:

(a) a numbered list (in chronological order) of all the decisions by the investigating authorities, including the name of the relevant authority, the date of the decision, the grounds for the refusal to open a criminal case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, in relation to each decision, the corresponding decision which overruled it or set it aside (with the name of the authority, date, and reason for the overruling or setting aside of the initial decision);

(b) a numbered list (in chronological order) of all court decisions of both instances on the applicants’ challenges of the investigators’ decisions, including the name of the court which made the decision and the date and outcome of the decision;

(c) copies of the above decisions by the investigating authorities and the courts, in chronological order.

7. The Government are invited to submit:

(a) in respect of Mr Samesov, court judgments relating to the criminal case against him;

(b) in respect of Mr Demerchyan, all materials concerning the administrative proceedings against the applicant; court judgments relating to the criminal case against him on theft; and all documents concerning the outcome of the proceedings concerning the perjury case against him.

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy