Communicated on 3 June 2019
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 8187/08 and 8600/09
Murat Ismailovich SHAVAYEV against Russia
and Safar Dayfurovich LAYPANOV against Russia
lodged on 24 December 2007 and 6 February 2009 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant in the first case, Mr Murat Ismailovich Shavayev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and is detained in Kharp. He is represented before the Court by the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO, based in the Netherlands.
The applicant in the second case, Mr Safar Dayfurovich Laypanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Karachayevsk. He is not legally represented before the Court.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A. The circumstances of the case
The circumstances of the applicants’ respective arrests by different law‑enforcement agencies, their allegations of the ill-treatment as well as other developments in their cases are summarised in the Appendix.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant provisions of domestic law, see Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014), and Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48-52, 14 November 2013).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the law-enforcement officers and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect.
Referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the criminal proceedings against them were unfair as the conviction was based on their confession statements obtained under duress.
Mr Lyapanov complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention between 17 and 18 March 2005.
Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
COmmon QUESTIONS
1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants in police custody, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Articles 3 and 13 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 Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 et seq., ECHR 2015)?
3. Was the recourse to physical force made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, § 49, 17 April 2012)? In particular,
- did the State agents plan the arrest operations in advance?
- did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000‑XII; Grigoryev v. Russia, no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013; and Minikayev v. Russia, no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?
4. 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)?
5. Have the applicants had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
6. In the determination of criminal charges against the applicants, did they have a fair trial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the applicants’ confession statements allegedly obtained under duress served as the ground for their conviction?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION
Application no. 8600/09
Was the applicant deprived of his liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If such detention took place, was it compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1 – 5 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy