FIRST SECTION
Application no. 47544/10
Mukhamed Khatuyevich URUSOV
against Russia
lodged on 16 August 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mukhamed Khatuyevich Urusov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1980 and who is currently detained in remand prison IZ-7/1 in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya. He is represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A. Background information
On 13 October 2005 a large group of rebel fighters organised a raid in Nalchik, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya, targeting a number of buildings associated with the Russian security forces. More than 100 people were reported to have been killed and many others were wounded.
Following the raid, dozens of suspects were detained. Many of the detainees were reportedly tortured. Upon investigation, some of the detainees have been charged with terrorism, murder, armed rebellion, and endangering the lives of police officers. There were a number of documented cases of torture of detainees, and the investigation was roundly criticised by Russian and international human rights groups.
B. The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment
On 26 October 2005 the applicant confessed to his involvement in the Nalchik attack.
On the same day he was taken to the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya (УБОП МВД КБР) and from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. beaten up by three officers (one officer of 33-35 years old wearing “Quick reaction team” (“СОБР”) black uniform and two 25-30 years’ old plain-clothes officers). He was subsequently handcuffed to another suspect and left until the following morning.
On 27 October 2005 at 6 a.m. one of the officers who participated in the beatings the day before took the applicant to an office on the second floor and starting beating him with a rubber truncheon. At approximately 7 a.m. he was joined by other officers who threatened to beat the applicant up to death. At approximately 9 a.m. arrived their superior and ordered to take the applicant downstairs for “serious work”. The applicant was taken to the same office on the first floor where he sustained the beatings in the evening. He was tortured with electric current, beaten on his head with a rubber truncheon and threatened to have his forefinger cut off with a special device until he signed the statement required by the police. In the evening the applicant was taken to an investigator, where he met his lawyer.
On 27 October 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert (medical report no. 1550-A) and the following injuries were recorded: a purplish-cyanotic bruise on the entire surface of the back [measuring] 47×42 cm, analogous bruises on the lower border of the costal margin on the right [measuring] 4×6 cm, on the front surface of the right shin in the middle [measuring] 6×6 cm, a bleeding abrasion in the centre [of right shin front surface measuring] 2×0.5 cm, swelling of the right ankle, abrasion in the left parotid region [measuring] 2×2 cm, swelling of the right wrist, swelling of the soft tissues in the parietal region on the left [measuring] 4×4 cm. It was established that the above injuries could have been caused by the impact of hard blunt objects with a limited surface area and had not amounted to any health damage.
The applicant alleged that he was threatened and beaten up by police officers throughout the whole period of pre-trial investigation. He supported his submissions by written statements of other suspects in the Nalchik attack: Malyshev Albiyan Anatolyevich (dated 2 November 2009), Berov Aslan Borisovich (dated 2 August 2010), Pshibiyev Batyr Khazrataliyevich (dated 2 August 2010) and Beshtoyev Aslanbek Aslanovich (dated 2 August 2010).
C. The criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment
On 1 November 2005 the applicant’s lawyer participated in an investigative action on the applicant’s criminal case. In the courtyard of the Organised Crime Department building she witnessed the applicant being threatened by a police officer. The latter warned the applicant that “if [the applicant] would not confess to another murder he would personally come to the remand prison and talk to him in a different way”. The applicant’s lawyer later found out that the officer in question had been Major Radzhapov Mustafa Alikhanovich, who had arrived from Moscow in connection with the events of 13 October 2005.
On 3 November 2005 the applicant’s lawyer complained about ill‑treatment of her client to the Prosecutor’s Office.
On 10 November 2005 a senior investigator with the General Prosecutor’s Office instructed the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya to hold an inquiry into the above complaint. The applicant was questioned and refused having sustained any injuries at the hands of the police.
On 30 December 2005 an investigator with the General Prosecutor’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant did not appeal.
After the pre-trial investigation of the case had been completed and the case file submitted to the court, on 22 April 2008 the applicant brought a complaint of ill-treatment to the Prosecutor’s Office.
On an unspecified date an investigator arrived at the remand prison where the applicant was detained in order to question him about the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment. The applicant refused to make any statements in the absence of his lawyer. He was never afforded an opportunity to make his submissions with participation of the lawyer.
On 10 May 2008 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime. For almost a year the applicant remained unaware of the above decision.
On 5 March 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor of Nalchik also refused to institute criminal proceedings.
On 18 November 2009 the Nalchik City Court found the above decisions lawful and justified.
On 16 February 2010 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kabardino‑Balkariya upheld the decision of 18 November 2009 on appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by State agents during the criminal proceedings against him and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation. He further complains under Article 13 that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of his allegations under Article 3.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on 26-27 October 2005 and subsequently throughout the pre-trial investigation? The reference is being made to the applicant’s account of events, the witness statements and the medical certificate confirming the existence of injuries on the applicant’s body.
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present instance by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy