CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 8 novembre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCD71EA34 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s53D63747 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8A7788FC { width:42.94pt; display:inline-block } .sE896C043 { width:180.96pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right }     FIRST SECTION     CASE OF MEDOV v. RUSSIA     (Application no. 1573/02)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG     8 November 2007       FINAL     08/02/2008     This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article   44 §   2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Medov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   L. Loucaides , President ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   A. Kovler ,   Mr   K. Hajiyev ,   Mr   D. Spielmann ,   Mr   S.E. Jebens, judges , and Mr S. Nielsen , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 1573/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Suleyman Akberdovich Medov (“the applicant”), on 20 December 2001. 2.     The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr   M. Ferschtman, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr   P.   Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by their Representative, Mrs V.   Milinchuk. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that between January and May 2000, while in detention on criminal charges, he had been subjected to ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also claimed an absence of effective domestic remedies and referred to Article 13 of the Convention. 4.     By a decision of 7 September 2006 the Court declared the application partly admissible. 5.     The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other's observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1958. Formerly a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, he is currently living in Ingushetia. 7.     The facts of the case are partially in dispute between the parties. Their submissions are summarised below in Part A. A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is set out in Part B and a summary of other relevant documents in Part C below. A.     Submissions of the parties 1.     The applicant's arrest 8.     The applicant is married and has three children. He and his family lived in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, in a settlement referred to by the local residents as Karpinka. The applicant submitted the following account of the events. 9.     On 23 January 2000 the applicant and his extended family were in the basement of a neighbours' house at Krasnovodskaya Street, because their house at 21   Volodarskaya Street had been burnt down. At approximately 2   p.m. a group of servicemen of the troops of the Ministry of the Interior came to the basement to carry out an identity check. The applicant and seven other men from the same basement and from a nearby building were rounded up by the soldiers and taken to the garages in the neighbourhood. The applicant's wife and sisters went there and unsuccessfully sought his release. 10.     Later that day the applicant and other detainees were taken to the encampment of a tank division near a place called Solyonaya Balka, situated 2-3 kilometres from Karpinka. The applicant and other detainees were made to sit on the ground near the tanks. The soldiers threatened to kill them in retribution for the death of General Mikhail Malofeyev, who had been killed in Grozny several days earlier. The applicant and others were briefly spoken to by General Troshev, the military commander of the Russian forces in Chechnya, who was at the encampment to collect the General's body. He told them that after the identity check, and on condition that their documents were in order, they would be released. 11.     However, later that day the applicant and other detainees were placed together in an anti-tank pit in the ground in the open field and left there overnight. The soldiers beat and kicked the applicant and other detainees, and while they were in the pit, threw rocks and poured cold water over them. The temperature that night was about minus 3 degrees Celcius. Around midnight the applicant and other detainees were allowed to sit near a campfire and were given some food. 12.     On 24 January 2000 the detainees were driven to the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the United Group Alignment (UGA) in Chechnya. They were ordered into a small lorry used for transporting prisoners (“ avtozak ”). The applicant was hit by a rifle butt by a soldier when boarding the lorry. Upon arrival at Khankala, they were moved into another lorry where the applicant spent approximately twenty-four hours. 13.     According to the Government, the applicant was apprehended on 23   January 2000 under suspicion of having participated in an attack on federal servicemen which had occurred on 4 October 1999 in the village of Chervlenaya, in the Shelkovskoy District of Chechnya. As a result of the attack, fifteen servicemen were killed and twenty-eight were wounded. The attack was investigated under criminal case file no.   14/03/0547-99/49064. 14.     The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment between 23 and 25 January 2000 could not be verified, because all records had been destroyed and because it was impossible to identify and question the military servicemen who had participated in the operations in question. 2.     The applicant's detention in Chernokozovo 15.     On 25 January 2000 the applicant was taken to the Chernokozovo detention centre, where he was kept in cells nos.   8 and 17. The applicant submitted that in cell no.   8, which was meant for five persons, he had been kept with about twenty other detainees. In cell no.   17 the applicant had been kept with about forty persons. 16.     The applicant stated that during his stay in Chernokozovo he had been subjected to regular and particularly severe ill-treatment by the guards. The applicant identified them as the special police forces (OMON) from the Rostov-on-Don region. The guards who ill-treated him were often drunk. 17.     In particular, the applicant submitted that upon arrival he and other detainees had been forced to run through a corridor of soldiers who beat them with great force using rubber truncheons, rifle butts and wooden hammers. While standing naked in the shower room the applicant was also severely beaten. Some time later while in Chernokozovo the applicant was hit with a rifle butt on the head so hard that it left a deep wound on the left side of his head. The scar was still clearly visible about three months later when the applicant was questioned by an interviewer from the NGO Human Rights Watch (hereafter “HRW”) in Ingushetia. As a result of the beatings the applicant sustained a broken nose and fractured ribs, as well as bruises. The guards also played humiliating “games”, such as riding on the applicant who had been forced onto his hands and knees . 18.     The applicant was formally interrogated four times. During the interrogations he was beaten. The interrogators tried to force him to sign a confession of participation in an illegal armed group, a crime under Article 208 of the Criminal Code. The applicant denied having committed any crimes and refused to sign the document. He was shown an electric chair and threatened with the application of electric shock. 19.     In addition, the applicant was on several occasions “informally” questioned by the guards, who beat him and tried to obtain a confession. 20.     The applicant later recounted the conditions of his detention and ill-treatment at Chernokozovo to an HRW interviewer, and his testimony under the name of “Aslanbek Digayev” was included in their report “Welcome to Hell: Arbitrary Detention, Torture and Extortion in Chechnya” of October 2000. 21.     The Government in their submissions confirmed that between 25   January and 18 February 2000 the applicant had been detained at pre-trial detention centre IZ 4/2 in Chernokozovo. His detention had been ordered on 28 January 2000 by an investigator of the General Prosecutor's Office Department for the Northern Caucasus and authorised by the acting Prosecutor for the Republic of Chechnya (the Chechnya Prosecutor). On the same day the applicant had been formally charged with committing a crime under Article 208 part 2 of the Criminal Code – participation in an illegal armed group. On 28 January 2000 the decree authorising his arrest had been read out to him and he had been advised of his procedural rights, including the right to appeal. On the same day the applicant was questioned about the charges and opted to remain silent, in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution. He refused to sign any procedural documents or to give testimony. The applicant filed no appeals or motions related to the charges brought against him or the arrest warrant. 22.     The Government submitted that upon admission to the pre-trial detention centre the applicant had undergone a medical examination, which revealed a bruise on his left shoulder. The Government submitted a copy of the register of new arrivals kept by the detention centre, which did not indicate any other injuries or health problems in respect of the applicant. The page contained eight entries, some of them with details of wounds, burns and diseases for other prisoners. While detained in detention centre IZ   4/2 the applicant had not applied for medical assistance and no separate medical record had been opened for him. 23.     The Government submitted documents issued in October 2004 by the pre-trial detention centre IZ 20/2, located in Chernokozovo, which stated that it had become operational in August 2000 (presumably replacing pre-trial detention centre IZ 4/2) and that it therefore had no information concerning the conditions of detention of the applicant or whether physical force had been used on him. 24.     Another letter issued by pre-trial detention centre IZ 20/2 stated that the applicant had been detained in IZ 4/2 between 25 January 2000 and 29   April 2000 (sic) and that no personal file had been opened for him. Instead, an “informal record card” ( карточка неустановленного образца ) had been kept, a copy of which was submitted by the Government (see Part B below). 3.     The applicant's subsequent detention in Mozdok, Pyatigorsk and Stavropol 25.     The applicant submitted that on 18 February 2000, along with twelve men and three women, he had been taken to Mozdok in North Ossetia. The detainees spent the night in a railway carriage. The applicant was taken to a shower room outside the carriage, made to undress and beaten and kicked by the guards. 26.     On 20 February 2000 the applicant was taken to the pre-trial detention centre “SIZO no.2” in Pyatigorsk in the Stavropol Region. He submitted that upon admission he had been superficially examined by a doctor who had asked whether he had any complaints. The applicant, who felt intimidated by the presence of the guards, did not make any complaints, even though he submitted that his bruises and an unhealed wound on his head should have been evident. 27.     The Government stated that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment during transportation from Chernokozovo to Pyatigorsk were impossible to verify in the absence of the relevant records. 28.     The applicant stated that while in SIZO no.   2 he had been severely beaten by the guards on his way to the shower room, when he and other detainees had been forced to run naked. He had also been beaten in the bathroom. 29.     On 22 February 2000 the applicant was taken to Stavropol to the pre-trial detention centre IZ 26/1 (“SIZO no.1”). Upon arrival the applicant was again briefly examined by a doctor in the presence of the guards. Subsequently, the applicant was subjected to the same treatment as in Chernokozovo and in Pyatigorsk – he was forced to run through a corridor of soldiers who beat him. He was then forced to get into an ice-cold bath. 30.     While in Stavropol, the applicant was interrogated only once by officials who did not introduce themselves. They wore uniforms with badges of the Ministry of Justice. The interrogators beat him and tried to force him to confess to having committed crimes under Article 208 of the Criminal Code. The applicant refused to sign a confession. 31.     The Government confirmed that between 22 February and 3 May 2000 the applicant had been detained at the pre-trial detention facility IZ   26/1 in Stavropol. Upon arrival he had undergone a medical examination which had revealed no injuries or particular health problems. He did not submit any complaints about his medical conditions either. He did not seek any medical assistance, did not submit any complaints about ill-treatment or conditions of detention and was not subjected to any disciplinary measures while in SIZO no. 1. 32.     In support of their position the Government submitted a number of documents, which showed that the applicant had been subjected to a medical examination upon arrival and that no injuries or diseases had been recorded. On the same day he underwent a fluorography of the chest and blood tests, which did not reveal any health problems. He submitted no complaints about his health or injuries while in detention. The Government submitted a copy of the detention centre's register of new arrivals and a copy of the applicant's medical record (see Part B below). 33.     During his stay in SIZO no.   1 the applicant stayed in cell no.   79. The Government submitted a detailed description of the cell and gave details of the applicant's conditions of detention in that facility, supported by relevant records and testimonies of the supervising officers, produced in 2001 during a prosecutor's investigation into the applicant's complaints. They stated that the cell was intended to hold ten persons, but had not held more than nine. The applicant and other detainees were supplied with bedding, food and items of personal hygiene in accordance with the relevant standards. They were taken to the shower room once a week. The detention facility stated that no disciplinary measures or physical force had been applied to the applicant during his stay there. He had received no visits from relatives, lawyers or investigators while in the SIZO. 4.     The applicant's release and domestic investigation 34.     On 3 May 2000 the applicant was released from custody in Stavropol. Upon release he was provided with a document issued by the Ministry of the Interior which stated that he had been detained from 23   January to 3   May 2000 and that the criminal proceedings against him had been dropped under State Duma Decree no. 4785-11 of 13 December 1999 “on amnesty for persons who had committed dangerous acts against public order during the anti-terrorist operation in the Northern Caucasus”. The measure of restraint was lifted. The applicant stated that his passport had not been returned to him. 35.     The following day the applicant joined his family in Ingushetia. According to affidavits produced by his wife, sister-in-law and an interviewer from HRW, upon release the applicant showed signs of severe physical abuse and mental trauma and it took him about six months to recover from the injuries he had sustained while in detention. 36.     The applicant's wife submitted that the applicant had lost weight significantly, that he had numerous bruises and scars on his body and head, that he had difficulty breathing, and for several months had difficulty in performing the simplest of exercises. She and the applicant's sister-in-law, who had some basic knowledge of first aid and who treated the applicant upon his release, submitted in addition that the applicant was nervous and depressed, had trouble sleeping, and could not stand noise. They both stated that the deterioration of the applicant's health was due to the ill-treatment received while in detention, and that before that the applicant had been healthy. 37.     On 7 December 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office. He stated the circumstances of his arrest and detention, and stated that he had been beaten and ill-treated while in detention in Grozny, Khankala, Chernokozovo, Mozdok, Pyatigorsk and Stavropol. As a result of the beatings he had suffered a broken nose, two broken ribs and a wound to his head. The applicant requested that the prosecutor carry out an investigation into his complaints and award him compensation for the damage sustained. 38.     On 21 December 2000 HRW wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General on the applicant's behalf. They briefly reiterated the circumstances of the applicant's arrest and detention and requested that criminal proceedings in respect of the credible allegations of severe ill-treatment and torture be instituted. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr Kalamanov, the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for rights and freedoms, who forwarded the letter to the Stavropol Regional Prosecutor's Office. 39.     On 21 February 2001 the Pyatigorsk Town Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant of its decision not to open criminal proceedings in relation to his complaint of ill-treatment and of the possibility to appeal against that decision to the Town Court. 40.     On 12 March 2001 the applicant underwent an informal medical examination in Ingushetia. The doctor, who remained anonymous, noted a scar of about 10 centimetres long on the left side of the applicant's head, signs of a healed fracture of three ribs on the left side, apathy and anxiety. He concluded that the applicant was suffering from the consequences of a head trauma, broken ribs, astheno-neurotic syndrome and phobias. The applicant later explained that he could not register with a doctor in Ingushetia, because he had no passport, and that he had eventually found a doctor from Chechnya who was staying in Ingushetia and who agreed to give a consultation on informal terms. 41.     On 26 March 2001 HRW again wrote to the Prosecutor General, reminding him of their earlier letter to which no reply had been received. 42.     On 20 April 2001 the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office replied to HRW that no criminal prosecution would be initiated upon the applicant's complaints since the investigation had showed that they lacked grounds. The letter stated that on 20 February 2000 the applicant had been examined by a doctor in SIZO no.   2 in Pyatigorsk and that no injuries had been reported. Similarly, no relevant records had been made on 22 February 2000 upon examination by a doctor in SIZO no.   1 in Stavropol. While in SIZO no.   1 the applicant had not sought medical assistance or been subjected to disciplinary measures or physical coercion. 43.     On 27 April 2001 the Stavropol Regional Prosecutor's Office replied to the letter forwarded to them by Mr Kalamanov. The letter referred to the absence of recorded complaints or injuries in the medical files made upon admission of the applicant to the detention centres and the absence of any medical complaints during his detention. It also cited the absence of records of disciplinary measures or physical coercion applied in respect of the applicant. It was no longer possible to interview his former cell-mates as cell population records were not kept. The applicant's passport was not in his personal file. The letter concluded that no violation of the applicant's rights had been committed by the staff of the detention centres in Pyatigorsk and Stavropol and thus it was decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. On 15 May 2001 this information was sent to the HRW office in Moscow. 44.     On 21 May 2001 the applicant was summoned as a witness by an investigator of the Zavodskoy District Temporary Department of the Interior (VOVD) in Grozny. No further information about the nature of the proceedings was contained in the summons. The summons mentioned that the applicant was obliged to present himself and to bring his passport. 45.     On 22 May 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor from Médecins Sans Frontières in Nazran, Ingushetia. The doctor noted, in French, a scar on the left side of his head and healed fractures of the ribs and nose. 46.     On 23 May 2001 HRW wrote to the Prosecutor General and challenged the outcome of the prosecutorial inquiries conducted upon their earlier requests. They stated that the decision of the Stavropol Prosecutor's Office not to initiate a criminal investigation was unfounded and failed to answer most of the well-founded allegations brought by the applicant, in particular, concerning torture and ill-treatment, the legal grounds of his detention and confiscation of his passport. 47.     On 25 May 2001 HRW wrote to the Deputy Minister of Justice in an attempt to clarify the situation of the cell population records. In particular, it asked what kind of records were kept and for how long. No reply to that letter has been received. 48.     On 14 June 2001 the Prosecutor General's Office forwarded HRW's letter of 23 May 2001 to the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office. 49.     On 2 July 2001 the applicant wrote letters to the Grozny Prosecutor's Office and the Zavodskoy District VOVD of Grozny in reply to their summons. He explained that he resided in Ingushetia and that his passport had been confiscated upon arrest in January 2000. He therefore asked to be questioned in Ingushetia and gave his temporary address there. Those letters were delivered in person by the applicant's sister-in-law. Neither the Grozny Prosecutor's Office nor the Zavodskoy VOVD replied to those letters or took any follow-up action of which the applicant would be aware. 50.     On 10 July 2001 HRW again contacted the Prosecutor General. They requested that the case-file from the Stavropol and Chechnya Prosecutor's offices be retrieved, the decision of the Stavropol Prosecutor's Office not to open criminal proceedings be reviewed and a proper investigation be conducted. No reply to that letter was received. 51.     On 16 July 2001 HRW wrote to the Minister of the Interior, asking him which unit of the Ministry had conducted the passport check in the settlement of Karpinka in Grozny on 23 January 2000. No reply to that letter has been received. 52.     On 20 May 2003 the Stavropol Regional Prosecutor's Office sent to lawyers at “Stichting Russia Justice Initiative”, a human rights NGO office in Moscow, copies of orders of 21 February 2001 by the Pyatigorsk Town Prosecutor's Office and of 20 March 2001 by the Stavropol Town Prosecutor's Office. 53.     In support of his submissions concerning ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation the applicant referred to a number of public reports in relation to the situation in Chechnya (see Part C below). 54.     The Government confirmed that on 3 May 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been dropped in application of the Amnesty Act of 13   December 1999 and that he had been released on the same day. 55.     The Government submitted that the medical report of March 2001 obtained by the applicant had not been drawn up in conformity with the rules applicable to these kind of documents and that the applicant had failed to apply to a medical institution upon his release to obtain a proper report. They also stressed the passage of a significant amount of time – almost ten months after his release – before the applicant had sought any medical help. 56.     Concerning the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment, the Government referred to the information received from the Prosecutor General's Office. According to them, following the complaints brought on the applicant's behalf by HRW, on 21 February 2001 the Pyatigorsk Town Prosecutor's Office and on 20 March 2001 the Stavropol Town Prosecutor's Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings upon the applicant's complaints for absence of a criminal offence. Those decisions had been taken following an inquiry conducted in accordance with Article 109 of the Criminal Procedural Code then in force. The applicant was advised of those decisions immediately, and again in May 2003, upon an application by the NGO “Stichting Russian Justice Initiative” brought on his behalf. The Government submitted a number of relevant documents (see Part B below). 57.     The Government also informed the Court that “in connection with the dissolution of the Grozny Prosecutor's Office in 2003, no data concerning the examination of this application has been kept. According to the information provided by the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic, no pre-investigative inquiries upon [the applicant's] application have been carried out by the territorial bodies of prosecutor's office from February 2000 up to the present time”. 58.     As to the applicant's passport, the Government stated that upon release he had been issued with a standard reference form concerning his detention and release. On the basis of that notice, on 31 July 2002 the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny issued him with a passport. The materials of the criminal case against the applicant contained no reference to the alleged seizure of his passport. B.     Documents submitted by the parties 59.     Upon the Court's requests, both parties submitted a number of documents related to the applicant's arrest and the investigation into his complaint of ill-treatment. 1.     Documents related to the criminal case against the applicant 60.     On 9 October 1999 military prosecutor of the Northern Caucasus Military Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation into the attack by unidentified persons on a military unit near the village of Chervlennaya in Chechnya, as a result of which fifteen servicemen had been killed and twenty-eight wounded. The investigation was opened with regard to Articles 208 part 2 of the Criminal Code (organisation of an illegal armed group) and 105 part 2 (murder in aggravating circumstances). 61.     On 23 January 2000 an officer of the rapid reaction police force (SOBR) reported to the head of the police mobile unit that on that day the applicant had been arrested in Grozny in Volodarskiy Street upon suspicion of being involved in illegal armed groups. 62.     On 28 January 2000 the acting Chechnya Prosecutor authorised the applicant's placement in detention upon suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups, a crime under Article 208 part 2 of the Criminal Code. 63.     On 28 January 2000 in Chernokozovo the applicant was charged with participation in an illegal armed group and, as noted on the copy of the document, refused to accept the charges or sign the document. On the same day he was questioned about the charges, but refused to testify or to sign the transcript. 64.     On 3 May 2000 the acting Chechnya Prosecutor authorised application of the Amnesty Act of 13 December 1999 to the applicant, as a member of the illegal armed group who had not committed grave crimes. On the same day the decision was announced to the applicant in Mozdok, North Ossetia, and he signed a copy of it. 2.     Documents related to the applicant's detention in Chernokozovo 65.     The Government submitted a copy of the “informal” registration entry dated 28 January 2000. It stated that the applicant had arrived at the detention facility on 25   January 2000, that he had been arrested on 25   January 2000 by the Naurskiy (District) Prosecutor (sic) and that on 19   February 2000 he had been sent to the (pre-trial detention centre) SI-2 in Pyatigorsk. The document further stated that the applicant had been released on 29 April 2000 under the Amnesty Act of 13 December 1999. 66.     They also submitted a copy of the medical register of new arrivals kept by the detention centre and covering the period between 8   November 1999 and 12 February 2000. The entry for the applicant referred to a bruise on the right shoulder and did not indicate any other injuries or health problems. The page contained eight entries, some of them with details of wounds, burns and diseases in respect of other prisoners. 67.     In addition, the Government produced several documents issued in October 2004 by the pre-trial detention centre IZ 20/2 in Chernokozovo which stated that it had become operational in August 2000 (presumably replacing pre-trial detention centre IZ 4/2) and that it therefore had no information concerning the conditions of detention of the applicant or whether physical force had been used on him. 68.     Another letter issued by pre-trial detention centre IZ 20/2 stated that the applicant had been detained in IZ 4/2 between 25 January 2000 and 29   April 2000 (sic) and that no personal file had been opened for him. Instead, an “informal record card” ( карточка неустановленного образца ) had been kept (see paragraph 65 above). While in detention in IZ 4/2 the applicant had not applied for medical assistance and no separate medical record had been kept for him. 3.     Documents related to the applicant's detention in Pyatigorsk 69.     On 20 February 2000 at 9.30 p.m. a medical worker and two officers of the IZ 21/2 detention centre in Pyatigorsk signed a medical form in respect of the applicant, drawn up on his arrival. They noted no injuries or traumas and found him fit for detention at the pre-trial detention centre. 70.     In February 2001 four officers of the detention centre and the medical worker produced written statements. They stated that on 20 February 2000 the arrival, reception and allocation to the cells of the detainees arriving from Vladikavkaz (eighty persons) had been carried out in accordance with the internal regulations and that no incidents had occurred. No injuries or health problems had been noted or recorded in respect of the applicant. The medical worker noted, in particular, that he was obliged by law to record any injuries for new arrivals. 71.     On 21 February 2001 the deputy Prosecutor of Pyatigorsk, in the Stavropol Region, issued a decision not to open criminal proceedings into the applicant's complaints concerning ill-treatment. The order referred to the letter from HRW which had alleged that in February 2000 the applicant had been placed in the IZ 21/2 detention centre in Pyatigorsk and had been beaten there. The order stated that the Town Prosecutor's Office had carried out an inquiry into that allegation and found no factual grounds to support it. It read: “Assistant to the officer in charge of the pre-trial detention facility M. explained that on 20 February 2000 a regular group of detainees had arrived from the town of Vladikavkaz [North Ossetia]. Among the detainees there was a group of persons from the pre-trial detention centre in Chernokozovo, Chechnya. Medov S.A. was in that group. After sanitary treatment all the detainees were placed in transit cells at the pre-trial detention centre. The new arrivals did not commit any offences, so no physical coercion or special measures were applied to them, as provided by the Federal Law on the Detention on Remand of Suspects and Persons Accused of Offences. The medical worker of the detention centre V., who had examined the detainees arriving from Vladikavkaz on 20 February 2000, explained that a medical report had been drawn up for each detainee. No physical coercion or special measures were used by the staff of IZ 21/2. A copy of the medical record of Medov S.A. dated 20 February 2000 was attached to the results of the examination. The medical examination took place on 20 February 2000 at 21 hours 30 minutes. No bodily injuries were noted. Medov S.A. remained in the Pyatigorsk pre-trial detention centre for two days. On 22 February 2000 he was sent on to the pre-trial detention centre in Stavropol. No complaints from Medov S.A. about the actions of the staff at the detention centre have been submitted so far to the Pyatigorsk prosecutor's office. Thus, no evidence has been obtained to support the allegations of beatings of Medov S.A. by the staff at the pre-trial detention centre in Pyatigorsk.” 72.     The information about the decision was sent to the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office. On 21 February 2001 the Pyatigorsk Town Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant about the decision and about the possibility to appeal against it to the Town Court. 4.     Documents related to the applicant's detention in Stavropol 73.     On 22 February 2000 the applicant was examined on arrival at SIZO no. 1. It was noted in the medical record that he did not have any injuries or complaints, that his blood pressure and body temperature were normal and that a psychiatric examination had found him healthy. A number of examinations, including blood tests, showed an absence of skin diseases, TB, AIDS and syphilis. In February 2001 the staff at SIZO no. 1 forwarded the applicant's medical record to the Town Prosecutor's Office. 74.     On 18 April 2001 the head of the medical unit of SIZO no.2 in Stavropol issued a document to confirm that during his stay there the applicant had not sought medical assistance. 75.     In February 2001 deputy head of SIZO no.1 informed the Stavropol Town Prosecutor's Office that that the applicant had been detained there between 22 February and 3 May 2000. At the initial check-up no complaints or injuries were noted and the applicant was found healthy. During his stay he did not seek medical assistance, did not submit any complaints about ill-treatment and was not subjected to punishment or to physical coercion. The letter further stated that it was impossible to identify the applicant's former cell-mates, because no such lists had been kept, in accordance with the relevant legislation. It further listed the officers of the SIZO who had at the relevant time supervised cell no.   79, where the applicant had been kept. 76.     In March 2001 three officers of the detention centre testified to the Town Prosecutor that they had received no complaints or questions from the applicant between February and May 2000, while he had been kept in cell no.   79, over which they had responsibility. 77.     On 20 March 2001 the Stavropol Town Prosecutor's Office issued a decision not to open criminal proceedings into the applicant's complaints concerning ill-treatment, in response to a letter from HRW. The decision stated: “Between 22 February and 3 May 2000 Medov S.A. was detained in SIZO no. 1 of the Department of the Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice of the Stavropol Region. On 3 May 2000 he was released pursuant to the decision of the Department of the Prosecutor General's Office in the Northern Caucasus on application of the Amnesty Act of 13 December 1999. On arrival at SIZO no.1 no passport was contained in Medov's personal file. During his stay in SIZO no. 1 he did not complain about being beaten by the staff at the SIZO, and was not subjected to any punishment, physical coercion or special measures. According to the notes in the medical record, upon admittance to the SIZO no bodily injuries or illnesses were noted. During his detention he did not submit any medical complaints or seek medical assistance. In SIZO no. 1 Medov was detained in cell number 79. According to the explanations of the staff who had supervised the cell, Medov had not broken any internal rules or submitted any complaints or requests. As no records of cell population are kept, it is deemed impossible to question his former cellmates. Thus, as a result of the investigation, no grounds were found to support the allegations of use of physical force on Medov by the staff at SIZO no. 1 and there is no evidence of any criminal act on the part of the staff” 78.     The information about the decision was forwarded to the “interested parties” and the Stavropol Regional Prosecutor's Office. C.     Relevant Council of Europe reports 79.     The Chernokozovo SIZO, where the applicant had been detained, has received extensive attention from various human rights institutions, including the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), on account of allegations of severe ill-treatment of detainees. On 4 March 2000 the Head of the CPT delegation Mr Hajek issued a statement to Russian officials at the end of the visit of the CPT to the North Caucasian region of the Russian Federation. The statement read, inter alia , in relation to the visit to Chernokozovo: “The delegation is satisfied that, at present, persons detained in this establishment are not being physically ill-treated. Further, although conditions of detention in the SIZO leave much to be desired, the delegation has noted that genuine efforts have been made in recent times - and continue to be made - to improve those conditions. However, the information gathered by the delegation strongly indicates that many persons detained at Chernokozovo were physically ill-treated in the establishment during the period December 1999 to early February 2000. In different locations, the delegation has interviewed individually and in private a considerable number of persons who were held at Chernokozovo during that period. A clear pattern of physical ill-treatment of prisoners by custodial staff emerged. The ill-treatment alleged consisted essentially of kicks, punches and truncheon blows to various parts of the body (excluding the face). The ill-treatment was said to have been inflicted principally in the central corridor of the detention facility, usually when prisoners were taken to an investigator's room for questioning or when they were returned to their cells after such questioning; apparently, prisoners were also on occasion physically ill-treated in the investigators' rooms. Investigators were said to have been fully aware of the ill treatment being inflicted, and some prisoners affirmed that it was inflicted at their instigation. In certain cases, the delegation has gathered medical evidence which is consistent with the allegations of ill-treatment made by the prisoners concerned. It is also noteworthy that practically all the prisoners interviewed who had been held at the establishment in Chernokozovo during the period January to February 2000 stressed that there had been a distinct change for the better in early February, at the same time as a changeover of staff began to occur. The beatings stopped; further, other improvements had been made, in particular as regards food. Moreover, no allegations of physical ill-treatment were made by prisoners interviewed who had arrived in the establishment after the first week of February 2000.” 80.     On 10   July 2001 the CPT issued a public statement concerning the Chechen Republic, under Article 10 § 2 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This step was prompted by the Russian authorities' failure to cooperate with the CPT in relation to two issues: i) the carrying out of a thorough and independent inquiry into the events in the detention facility at Chernokozovo during the period December 1999 to early February 2000; ii) action taken to uncover and prosecute cases of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the Chechen Republic in the course of the current conflict. The statement said, in particular: “... the information gathered by the CPT's delegation in the course of its February/March and April 2000 visits indicated that a considerable number of persons deprived of their liberty in the Chechen Republic since the outset of the conflict had been physically ill-treated by members of the Russian armed forces or law enforcement agencies. In the report on those two visits, the CPT recommended that the Russian authorities redouble their efforts to uncover and prosecute all cases of ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty in the Chechen Republic in the course of the conflict. The Committee made a number of remarks of a practical nature intended to clarify the precise form those efforts might take. More generally, the CPT stressed that it was essential for the Russian authorities to adopt a proactive approach in this area. The response of the Russian authorities to this key recommendation was very unsatisfactory... As was stressed in a letter sent to the Russian authorities on 10 May 2001, the CPT's concerns in this regard are all the greater given that in the course of the Committee's most recent visit to the Chechen Republic, in March 2001, numerous credible and consistent allegations were once again received of severe ill-treatment by Federal forces; in a number of cases, those allegations were supported by medical evidence. The CPT's delegation found a palpable climate of fear; many people who had been ill-treated and others who knew about such offences were reluctant to file complaints to the authorities. There was the fear of reprisals at local level and a general sentiment that, in any event, justice would not be done. It was emphasised to the Russian authorities that they must spare no effort to overcome this deeply disturbing state of affairs.” II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 81.     The Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of 1960, which was in force until July 2002, contained the following provisions relating to the opening of a criminal investigation. 82.     Article 108 provided that criminal proceedings could be instituted on the basis of letters and complaints from citizens, public or private bodies, articles in the press or the discovery by an investigating body, prosecutor or court of evidence that a crime had been committed. 83.     Article 109 provided that the investigating body had to take one of the following decisions within a maximum period of ten days after being notified of a crime: to open or refuse to open a criminal investigation, or transmit the information to an appropriate body. Those making the allegations were to be informed about any decision made. 84.     Under Article 113, if the investigating body refused to open a criminal investigation, a reasoned decision had to be given. The informant was to be notified of the decision and was entitled to appeal against it to a superior prosecutor or to a court. THE LAW I.