Communicated on 19 October 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 17550/11
Rustem Rafaelevich VALIULLIN and Elza Ravilevna VALIULLINA
against Russia
lodged on 9 March 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
At 9.30 p.m. on 2 August 2010 the first applicant was subjected to an arrest procedure “in order to put an end to an offence”. On 3 August 2010 he was sentenced to a fine of 500 Russian roubles (RUB) for disobeying an order from a police officer (Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)). Allegedly, he was then beaten up. After he tried to escape from the police station, he was formally arrested and accused of disobeying a police officer again. He was acquitted and released at 1 p.m. on 4 August 2010. However, later on he was sentenced to a fine of RUB 1,000. He lodged a complaint that he had been unlawfully deprived of liberty and ill‑treated. A refusal to prosecute was issued on 25 September 2010. It was quashed on 28 November 2011. A new refusal dated 27 December 2011 was also quashed in early 2012. A new refusal was issued on 6 May 2012 as regards Articles 286 and 310 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power and unlawful deprivation of liberty). The first applicant died on 24 June 2012 after an unrelated accident. His wife (the second applicant) sought judicial review of the recent refusal. On 21 May 2013 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic took the final decision upholding it. On 28 October 2013 the second applicant expressed a wish to pursue her late husband’s complaints he had raised before the Court in March 2011, and also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty on 2-4 August 2010 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
- Did the first arrest concern an “exceptional case” as required by Article 27.3 § 1 of the CAO and pursue a statutory goal listed in that provision?
- As regards both arrests, did the omissions to notify a next of kin and to inform the arrestee of his procedural rights run counter to the requirements of Article 27.3 §§ 3 and 5 of the CAO and thus entail a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2.1. Did the second applicant have standing to first raise before the Court in 2013 the complaints concerning the alleged beatings of the first applicant on 3 August 2010 and the ineffective investigation in August 2010-May 2012 (compare Stepanian v. Romania, no. 60103/11, §§ 32-45, 14 June 2016, with further references)?
2.2. Were there violations of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural or substantive aspects on this account?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy