CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 novembre 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB06EEFA8 { width:203.97pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 4261/06 Rasul KUDAYEV and Others against Russia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3   November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nina Vajić, President,   Anatoly Kovler,   Peer Lorenzen,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 January 2006, Having regard to the decision of 4 May 2011 to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are 1)     Mr Rasul Kudayev, born in 1978, 2)     Ms Fatimat Tekayeva, born in 1952, and 3)     Mr Arsen Mokayev, born in 1972. The applicants are Russian nationals and come from the village of Khasanya, in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“the KBR”). They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Abubakarov, a lawyer practising in Grozny, and Mr D. de Savornin Lohman and Mr R. Lemaitre of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. The second applicant is the mother and the third applicant is a brother of the first applicant. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     The background to the case 1.     Events related to the first applicant’s arrest in Afghanistan and detention in Guantanamo Bay On an unspecified date in 2001 the first applicant left Russia to travel to Saudi Arabia to study Islam. Subsequently, he travelled to Iran and intended to go through Afghanistan to Pakistan to continue his studies. In Afghanistan the Taliban arrested him, suspecting that he was a Russian spy, and held him in detention for several months. After the entry of the Allies into Afghanistan in 2001, the first applicant was arrested by the forces of the Northern Alliance led by General Dostum. On an unspecified date in November 2001 the first applicant, together with a number of Taliban fighters, were taken to Qalai Janghi fortress. On 25 November 2001 an uprising broke out in the fortress. In the ensuing fighting a number of persons were killed and the first applicant sustained a gunshot wound to the right hip. Subsequently, the first applicant was taken to a US-run detention centre in Kandahar and, on an unspecified date in 2002, to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. In the applicants’ submission, both in Kandahar and in Guantanamo Bay the first applicant was subjected to various forms of torture, including beatings, sleep deprivation, withholding of medical assistance and undernourishment. 2.     The first applicant’s transfer to Russia On 28 February 2004 the US authorities handed the first applicant and six other Russian nationals, prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, over to the Russian authorities. Upon his arrival in Russia the first applicant was brought to a remand centre in Pyatigorsk where he was held in detention. He was charged with having committed a number of criminal offences, including illegal crossing of a state border, mercenary activities and participation in a criminal gang. On 24 June 2004 a court ordered the first applicant’s release. It seems that he was released shortly thereafter. It appears that at some point in 2004 the prosecution dropped the charges against the first applicant. 3.     The first applicant’s state of health after his return to Russia (a)     The applicants’ account According to the applicants, after his return to Russia the first applicant was diagnosed with a number of serious illnesses, including hepatitis A, B and C, pyelonephritis, gastric ulcer, arrhythmia and chronic bronchitis. In the applicants’ submission, after his return the first applicant suffered from persistent headaches and pains in the heart region and in the sacrum. The headaches were accompanied by jaundice. Periods of acute pain all over his body, lasting from two to three days, came and went with a certain regularity, making the first applicant unable to move around without assistance on those occasions. Moreover, the wound to the first applicant’s hip and the bullet lodged between the first and second vertebrae of the sacrum badly impeded his ability to walk. He was unable to walk or stand on his feet for lengthy periods of time; his right leg would go numb. When the pain in the sacrum was at its worst, he had to stay in bed for at least eighteen hours a day. On each occasion when the first applicant’s condition deteriorated, his relatives had to call an ambulance for him. In the applicants’ submission, because of his condition, the first applicant is in constant need of taking numerous medicines, failing which his state of health rapidly deteriorates. In particular, he has to take painkillers, vasodilators and medicines to treat his heart and liver condition, gastric ulcer, blood pressure and kidney problems. As a result of his condition, the first applicant also needs regular in-patient treatment. In the applicants’ description, during such treatment, which would last for about one month, the first applicant would be put on a drip and administered with a large number of medicines and injections. The effects of such treatment would last for about two to three months. Because of the damage done to his liver during his stay in Guantanamo, the first applicant has to stick to a strict diet. In the applicants’ submission, the first applicant’s condition was exacerbated by the fact that after his arrival in Russia the domestic authorities refused to issue him with a passport, thereby denying him access to State medical care. The applicants had to arrange for his medical treatment unofficially and the local hospitals often refused to treat him when they found out he had no passport. This situation lasted until 1 October 2005, when the first applicant finally obtained an identity card. The above description of the first applicant’s state of health is based on the information contained in the application form, a written statement of 8   March 2006 by A.Z., a volunteer with “Reprieve” (a British project aimed, among other things, at enforcing rights of former Guantanamo prisoners), who visited the first applicant in Russia in September/October 2005, and the written statement of the second applicant dated 28 December 2005. (b)     Relevant medical documents An extract from the first applicant’s medical file no. 10429, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “... 21.04.04 . Examination by a general practitioner. Conclusion: chronic hepatocholecystitis. Prescribed: ranitidine... 29.04.04 . Examination by general practitioner. Diagnosis: acute respiratory disease, chronic hepatocholecystitis... Prescribed: paracetamol..., amoxillin..., dekamevit..., allokhol... 28.05.04 . Examination by general practitioner. Diagnosis: acute chronic bronchitis, chronic hepatocholecystitis in remission phase. Prescribed: bromhexin..., carsil..., allakhol..., dekamevit... 4.06.04. Examination by general practitioner. Diagnosis: After-effects of a gunshot wound to the right buttock “2002”, pain syndrome. Prescribed: analgin... ... 10.06.04 . Examination by general practitioner. Diagnosis: exacerbated chronic gastritis. Prescribed: ranitidine..., dekamevit... ... 06/[illegible]/04. Complaints about dull pain in subcostal area on the right side, ..., weakness, excessive sweating, headaches. More than two years ago had malaria and ... hepatitis while in Afghanistan. Objectively: [the patient is]... asthenic. Erethitic...abdomen boggy [on palpation], painful... ...subcostal area on the right side [is] boggy, painful. .. Diagnosis: persistent hepatitis in the phase of subcompensation (after hepatitis B and malaria). Vegetative-vascular dystonia. ...[it appears that during the examination the first applicant was prescribed a diet, a number of further examinations and tests and also instructed to take various medicines, but the related part of the medical file is hardly legible] 08/09/05. [illegible] ... Diagnosis: chronic hepatitis virus [illegible] ...[it appears that during the examination the first applicant was prescribed a diet, a number of further examinations and tests and also instructed to take various medicines, but the related part of the medical file is hardly legible]. 30/09/05. Complaints about pain in the subcostal area on the right side, nausea, ... ... Diagnosis: persistent hepatitis (after-effects of malaria and hepatitis C), [illegible].” On 12 August 2005 the first applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon. The relevant certificate of the same date, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “Diagnosis: after-effects of a gunshot wound to the sacrum (dating from 2001), accompanied by nerve damage to the sacral plexus [and] resulting in the dysfunction of the pelvic organs. From the neurological point of view there is severe pain syndrome in the right hip joint, numbness in the anogenital area, periodic difficulties in urination and defecation, erectile dysfunction. Computer tomography of the sacrum recommended to decide whether the bullet needs to be removed.” Following the first applicant’s x-ray examination, carried out on an unspecified date in 2004, and a tomography of the small pelvis, carried out on 17   August 2005, he was diagnosed with penetrating gunshot wound to the lower region of the sacroiliac joint on the right side. The examination established, in particular, that a foreign body – a bullet – was lodged in the soft tissues of the first applicant’s small pelvis on the right side. On an unspecified date the first applicant underwent an ecography of the liver. The related certificate, undated, concludes: “...Conclusion: ... diffuse changes to the structure of the liver characteristic of chronic hepatitis, stones in the right lobe of the liver. Chronic cholecystitis, pancreatitis. Deformation of the gallbladder. Indication of bile congestion.” 4.     The events of 13 October 2005 (a)     The Nalchik raid On 13 October 2005 a group of gunmen launched attacks on several government institutions in Nalchik, including the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”), the “OMON” special police squad, three police stations and also the Nalchik airport. The Russian authorities deployed regular troops and special forces to regain control of the city. In the ensuing hostilities between government forces and the gunmen, which lasted until the next day, more than 100 people, including about 14   civilians, 90 gunmen and dozens of law enforcement officers, were reported to have been killed and over 200 wounded. (b)     The applicants’ submissions concerning the first applicant’s whereabouts during the Nalchik raid In the applicants’ submission, on 13 October 2005 the first applicant was at home at 192 A, Attoyeva Street, in Khasanya. In the morning of 13 October 2005 the third applicant took the second applicant to work and returned home to look after the first applicant. At work the second applicant’s colleagues told her about the gunmen’s raid and she immediately returned home, where she spent the rest of the day with the first and third applicants. On 14 and 15 October 2005 the first applicant stayed in bed at his parents’ home in Khasanya. According to an ambulance call card (“ карта вызова скорой медицинской помощи ”) dated 15 October 2005, at 7.15 p.m. on that date an ambulance was called for the first applicant. He was diagnosed with vegetative-vascular dystonia and given several injections and medicines. 5.     Opening of the criminal investigation into the Nalchik events On an unspecified date in October 2005 the Russian authorities opened a criminal investigation into the events of 13 October 2005. The investigation was entrusted to a special investigating group of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation. By 9 December 2005 the law-enforcement authorities had arrested some fifty-nine people on suspicion of participation in the Nalchik raid. B.     The first applicant’s arrest and placement in custody On 23 October 2005 officers from Police Department no.   6 for the Fight against Organised Crime (“ Управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью номер 6 ”, hereinafter “the UBOP”) arrived at the applicants’ house to conduct a search. In the applicants’ submission, a group of twenty to twenty-five men in camouflage uniforms and masks, armed to the teeth, burst into the applicants’ house at 192A, Attoyeva Street. The group included two snipers, two machine gunners and a number of plain-clothes police officers, some of whom were drunk. They secured the perimeter of the house, swearing and ordering the applicants not to move. The second applicant called out to the neighbours for help. Hearing her shouting, the first applicant went outside the house. Officer K. of the UBOP immediately rushed up to him, grabbed his hand and ordered that he be handcuffed. The second applicant asked the officers to show her an arrest warrant but they could not produce one. The officers led the first applicant away, kicking him and pushing him with their gun butts. The first applicant had difficulty walking on his own, but the officers pushed and hurried him along. At that moment a number of neighbours gathered outside. The second applicant shouted to them that the first applicant would be beaten and called on them to be witnesses to his arrest. In reply officer K. allegedly told her: “We won’t beat him right now, we’ll leave it till we get to the UBOP”. Shortly thereafter several police officers took the first applicant to the UBOP. In the meantime, the remaining officers searched the house. According to a search order dated 23 October 2005 (“ Постановление о производстве обыска ”), the authorities had been notified of the first applicant’s presumed participation in the Nalchik raid by a phone call received on a telephone hotline opened by them after the events of 13 October 2005. The search order also stated that there might be weapons and explosives stored at the applicants’ home. According to the search record of 23 October 2005, the search was conducted between 2.30 and 3.05 p.m.; no weapons or explosives were found, but two computer discs were seized. It appears that the record of the first applicant’s arrest was drawn up in the evening of 23 October 2005 and stated that he had been arrested at 11.10   p.m. on that day. There is no indication that the first applicant challenged his arrest before the domestic courts. On 25 October 2005 the Nalchik Town Court (“the town court”) authorised the first applicant’s placement in custody. In the applicants’ submission, the investigators intentionally omitted to notify the first applicant’s lawyer I.K. of the hearing, so that the judge had to appoint another representative for him. According to the detention order of 25   October 2005, at the hearing the first applicant was represented by lawyer Kh.K. The decision also stated that it was open to appeal before the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“the Supreme Court”) within three days. There is no indication that the first applicant appealed against the detention order of 25 October 2005. C.     The first applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in 2005 and the related investigation 1.     Episodes of the first applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in 2005 (a)     First applicant’s alleged ill-treatment on 23 October 2005 at the UBOP Upon the first applicant’s arrival at the UBOP on 23 October 2005, UBOP officers took him to an office on the second floor and started kicking and hitting him, to make him confess to his participation in the Nalchik raid. After a while the first applicant was transferred to another office, where the beatings continued, the police officers kicking and hitting him and applying electric current to his fingers. They also prodded him with an object under his right eye and hit him on the heels and ears. The first applicant fainted several times because of the pain inflicted on him. The beatings continued until about 11 p.m., with the UBOP officers pressuring him to confess to his participation in the Nalchik raid. At 11.20 p.m. on 23 October 2005 an ambulance was called for the first applicant. In so far as relevant, the ambulance call card, dated 23 October 2005, reads as follows: “Complaints, anamnesis: headache, nausea, dizziness, back pain. Origin of the traumas not known. Objectively: Patient has somewhat delayed reactions. Enters into contact. Response to stimuli retained. ... On the right [side] – a bruise to the eyelids, haemorrhage of the eyeball. Moderate rigidity of the cervical muscles. ... On the back and waist – injuries and bruises to the soft tissues... Diagnosis: closed craneocerebral injury, brain concussion? Bruises and injuries to soft tissues of the face, upper limbs, back. ... Hospitalisation refused (in need of convoy)...” According to a certificate of 1 November 2005, at 11.20 p.m. on 23   October 2005 an ambulance was called to the UBOP for the first applicant; he was diagnosed with psychomotor agitation, arterial hypertension and major bruising. On 24 October 2005 the Kabardino-Balkariya Bar Association entrusted the first applicant’s defence to lawyer I.K. On the same day I.K. went to visit the first applicant at the UBOP. In her complaint to the authorities dated 3 November 2005 (see below) she described her meeting with the first applicant as follows: “Upon arrival at the 6 th department [the UBOP] I saw [the first applicant] sitting on a stool in a contorted position, holding his stomach; he had a large bruise and numerous abrasions on the right side of his face near the eye. Apart from the investigator, there were many people (three to five persons) in the room. Investigator A.A., who was working with [the first applicant] on that day, handed me the record of [the first applicant’s] questioning. After reading the record, I asked [the first applicant] whether he had really given that testimony, and he replied that he wished to talk to me in private... During our conversation [the first applicant] told me that he had been tortured and beaten up on his arrival at the UBOP. He had not given the testimony recorded in the [interrogation] record; it had been invented and was not true. I advised [the first applicant] to rely on Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “No one shall be obliged to give evidence against himself” and Article   46 § 4 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the right of a suspect not to testify... When [the first applicant] told the investigator that he would not sign the confession... what a commotion!!! The people in the room, who did not introduce themselves, surrounded [the first applicant] and all started threatening him. Finally, he gave up and agreed to sign the document because he was afraid that after my departure they would beat him again. As for me, I was told by one of the persons present: “You are free to leave; we don’t need your services anymore”. I considered the [first applicant’s] fear of being beaten up again to be real and for that reason I felt obliged to sign the record, without any comments, so as not to make matters worse.” By a decision of 24 October 2005, investigator Z.Sh. ordered the first applicant’s forensic medical examination. On the same date an expert of the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“the forensic bureau”) examined the first applicant. The expert’s report (no.   1470a), in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “... According to [the first applicant]: On 23 October 2005 he sustained bodily injuries on being arrested. Complaints: pain in the right subcostal area and the lumbar region, headaches. Medical examination results A purplish-cyanotic bruise [measuring] 6×4 cm in the right orbital region. Analogous [bruises]: 2×2 cm on the right cheek, 6×8 cm on the front of the right shoulder, 6×2 cm on the back of the same shoulder, 10×2   cm on the back of the left shoulder, 7×3 cm in the area of the left collarbone, a stripe-like [bruise] 14×3 cm in the interscapular area, a 5×1 cm [bruise] on the back of the right radiocarpal joint, a 6×1 cm [bruise] on the back of the left radiocarpal joint, a 14×17cm [bruise] on the right buttock, a 14×6cm [bruise] on the left buttock, a 10×4 cm [bruise] on the back of the left lower leg, a 9×3cm [bruise] on the back of the right lower leg. In the right cheek-bone area an abrasion ... [measuring] 2×0.5cm. Analogous 2×2 cm abrasion on the wing of the haunch bone on the right. A swelling of the soft tissues [measuring] 7×8 cm in the parietal region on the right side, painful on palpation. Similar [swelling area] of 4×4 cm in the left parietal region. Swelling of the right wrist. Conclusions On the basis of the information obtained after examination of [the first applicant]..., taking into account the circumstances of the case and the questions put to the expert, I conclude: [The first applicant] has: Abrasions on the face and in the iliac region on the right; bruises on the face, limbs, thorax region, buttocks; injuries to the soft tissues of the head. The injuries described above were sustained as a result of blows from hard blunt objects with a limited impact surface; they may have been sustained at the time and in the circumstances indicated in the order for the expert examination; they are not likely to cause impairment of the health or permanent disablement...” (b)     Alleged ill-treatment on 25 October 2005 at SIZO no.   1 in Nalchik On 25 October 2005 the first applicant was transferred to SIZO no. 1 in Nalchik (“the remand prison”). In the applicants’ submission, after his arrival in SIZO no. 1 the first applicant was beaten up again. On 26 October 2005 I.K. signed an agreement with the first applicant’s family members to represent him. On the same date she went to visit the first applicant in SIZO no.   1. In a complaint to investigator A.A., dated 27   October 2005 (see below), she declared: “...On 26 October 2005 ... I visited [the first applicant] in SIZO ... [The first applicant] was in fact brought to me because he could not move without assistance. During our conversation he told me that he had been ill-treated, i.e. that he had been beaten up on 23 October 2005 when he had been taken to the UBOP and that he had been also beaten up on 25 October 2005 upon his transfer to the SIZO. [On the latter occasion] he had been hit in the waist and on his heels. ... It appeared that [the first applicant] could not stand upright because of the pain, he was dragging one of his feet, on which he could not put any weight; there were abrasions on his face.” (c)     Alleged ill-treatment on 28 October 2005 at the FSB On 28 October 2008 the first applicant was taken from his cell and escorted to the Kabardino-Balkariya Department of the FSB, where he was severely ill-treated again. On an unspecified date between 28 October and 9 November 2005 the first applicant complained to investigator E.K. about the alleged ill ‑ treatment, explaining, in particular, that as a result of the ill-treatment on 28   October 2005 he had sustained injuries to his arms and hands. On 9 November 2005 E.K. ordered the first applicant’s medical examination, referring to the latter’s complaint that he had been beaten up on 28 October 2005. On 9 November 2005 an expert from the forensic bureau examined the first applicant. His report no. 1621-A, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “...[The first applicant] complained that on 28 October 2005, while interviewing him as a suspect, law enforcement officers had beaten him up and that, as a result of the beatings, he had sustained scars to his hands and arms, which had also become swollen. According [to the first applicant]: On 23 October 2005 several persons beat him up on the premises of the UBOP, hitting him with truncheons and gun butts and administering electric shocks to his fingers. [The first applicant] fainted several times and was sick. An ambulance was called; [the ambulance crew] administered [him] injections. Three or four days later three or four individuals hit [the first applicant] with a wooden stick on the legs, feet and body. [On that occasion the first applicant] did not faint or ask for a doctor. On 28 October 2005 four persons hit him on the body, suspended him by his handcuffed wrists and hit him with a stick. He did not faint or call for a doctor. Complaints: bouts of stabbing pain in the heart region, pains in both wrists, in the kidney region, painful urination, pain in the liver region. Medical examination results There are 2 spindle-shaped stretch wounds in the region of the wrist, on the right elbow extensor surface and the flexor radial surface, measuring 1.5×0.4cm and 1×0.3cm [respectively]... [There are] 4 similar wounds – [located] in a circle round the left radiocarpal joint, measuring from 0.6×0.1cm to 0.9×0.2 cm. In the same area on the right and on the left [there are] 4 linear bow-shaped and linear crosscut abrasions ... which are up to 3.5 cm long. A 1.2 cm-long crosscut linear bow-shaped abrasion in the right infraorbital region. An abrasion ... [measuring] 0.8×0.5 cm in the right deltoid region. Two stripe-like ... bruises, 9.5 cm and 6.5 cm long [respectively] and 0.3 cm wide, ... on the external surface of the left buttock. Linear abrasions, 0.5 ‑ 0.9 cm long, on the internal ... and external surface of the right thigh. A ... scar [measuring] about 2.2 cm ... on the right buttock ... Examination by a generalist and a neurologist recommended. Conclusions ... 1. [The first applicant] has the following bodily injuries: 1.1. superficial wounds and abrasions and bruises on the head, body, both upper limbs and right lower limb; 1.2. a scar on the right buttock. The injuries mentioned in 1.1 were caused by blows from hard blunt objects with a limited impact surface, possibly at the time and in the circumstances indicated by the patient; [they] are not likely to cause impairment of the health or permanent disablement. 2. Superficial wounds and abrasions on the wrists could have been sustained as a result of ... rubbing of handcuffs.” (d)     Photos of the first applicant after his arrest, published by the media On 15 December 2005 internet newspaper “gazeta.ru” published an article entitled “General Ermolov joined the investigation” (“ Генерал Ермолов подключился к следствию ”). The article described the investigation into the Nalchik events, suggesting that local law-enforcement authorities were instilling terror in the town by conducting a cruel crackdown on its residents, torturing them, extorting confessions from them and even killing them. The article referred, in particular, to the case of the first applicant and the affirmations of his lawyer I.K. that the investigating authorities had not only tortured her client but had unlawfully and maliciously removed her from his defence with a view to preventing her from complaining about his torture. The article contained photos of people arrested on suspicion of participation in the Nalchik events, including the first applicant, taken, according to the newspaper, by the UBOP about three weeks after the arrest. In the photo the first applicant has a seriously swollen face; a scratch on the right cheek, scratches above and below the right eye and a bruise under the same eye. 2.     Investigation into the above-mentioned episodes of alleged ill ‑ treatment On 24 October 2005 the second applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (“the KBR Prosecutor’s Office”) that the first applicant had been ill-treated and unlawfully arrested. By letter of 26 October 2005 the KBR Prosecutor’s Office informed the second applicant that they had received her complaint on 24 October 2005 and that her submissions would be examined in the framework of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant. On 27 October 2005 the first applicant’s lawyer, I.K., complained to investigator A.A. that her client had been ill-treated on 23 October 2005 after his arrest and transfer to UBOP, and on 25 October 2005 after his transfer to SIZO no. 1. She averred that on the latter occasion he had been hit on the waist and feet in particular. She further stated that, on seeing him on 26 October 2005, she had been shocked by the fact that he was not able to stand up straight, that he was dragging his foot and that he had numerous abrasions on his face. I.K. requested that a forensic medical examination of the first applicant be carried out with a view to establishing the origin and the gravity of her client’s injuries, as well as examining whether he was in need of medical assistance. Lastly, she requested that the authorities secure her presence at the examination and notify her of its date and place. By letter of 28 October 2005 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation informed the first applicant that his lawyer’s request for his medical examination had been granted and that the examination was under way. The accompanying order for the medical examination bears a stamp which appears to indicate 8   November 2005 as the date of its dispatch. On 3 November 2005 I.K. complained to the KBR Prosecutor’s Office and a number of other authorities about the first applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment. She described in detail her meetings with the first applicant on 24   and 26 October 2005 and averred that he had been severely ill-treated, on the former date, at the UBOP, to extract a confession that he had participated in the Nalchik raid, and also on the latter date, after he was transferred to SIZO no.   1. She stressed that he could barely move and that she had seen numerous abrasions on his face. Lastly, she submitted that she had not been informed of any decision concerning her request for the first applicant’s medical examination, lodged on 27   October 2005. On 9 November 2005 one of the investigators in charge of the proceedings concerning the Nalchik raid interviewed the first applicant in the presence of I.K. Before the interview the first applicant told her again about his ill-treatment on 28 October 2005 and showed her the bruises and scars that still remained on his hands. When she advised him to make specific note of his ill-treatment on the interrogation record, the investigator became furious and left the room. After a while he returned and took the first applicant and I.K. to a forensic expert, in an office in the same building but on a different floor. At that moment the first applicant learnt that the investigator had issued in the meantime a decision ordering his forensic medical examination. The first applicant was examined by the forensic expert that same day (for details of the expert’s findings (report no. 1621-A), see above). By a letter of 10 November 2005 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation informed the first applicant’s lawyer that her complaint of 3 November 2005 about her client’s alleged ill-treatment had been examined and that an internal inquiry into the matter would be conducted by the Ministry of the Interior of the KBR. On 10 November 2005 an investigator removed I.K. from the first applicant’s defence in the criminal proceedings against him (see below). On an unspecified date in 2005 the first applicant appointed a new lawyer to represent him. On 5 December 2005 the second applicant complained about her son’s ill-treatment to the prosecutor of the KBR. She submitted that the first applicant had been taken from his home without any injuries and that he had been subsequently severely tortured by UBOP officers, remand prison officers and other law-enforcement officials of the Ministry of the Interior of the KBR. She also gave the names of the persons who had participated in her son’s arrest, such as officer K., and enclosed photos of the first applicant showing his injuries. On 9 December 2005 the Nalchik town prosecutor’s office (“the town prosecutor’s office”) refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the first applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The decision, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “On 12 November 2005 the KBR Prosecutor’s Office received the [first applicant’s] complaint of 9 November 2005 where he states that on 28 October 2005 he was taken from SIZO [no.   1] to the premises of a law-enforcement authority unknown to him and that he was subjected to physical violence there. He indicates that traces of ill ‑ treatment, [including] scars and swollen tissues, are still visible. During a preliminary inquiry into the matter [the first applicant] explained that on 23   October 2005 he had been ... arrested on suspicion of participation in the Nalchik raid and had subsequently been taken to [SIZO no.   1]. On 28 October 2005 several persons in civilian clothes and military uniforms, whom [the first applicant] would not be able to identify, put a black plastic bag over his head and took him from [SIZO no.   1] to an unknown destination. Upon arrival in a building previously unknown to him, [the first applicant] was taken to an office on the first floor where three persons unknown to him tried to get him to confess to his participation in the Nalchik raid and provide information about gun caches and followers of radical Islam. When he refused, they started hitting and kicking him all over his body. Thereafter he was taken to a sports room on the third floor where, on an order from one of the persons present, he was hung by his handcuffs from a horizontal bar and beaten with sticks all over the body. ... [The first applicant] fainted because of the beatings and was lying on the floor until he regained consciousness, after which he was taken back to an office on the second floor and then, after a while, to SIZO no.   1. There he sought medical assistance from the prison doctors. ... Remand prison officer ... V.M. stated that at about 2 p.m. on 28 October 2005, following a written request to transfer ... [the first applicant] to the Kabardino-Balkariya Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation for investigative measures, he had ... handed him over to an FSB official. The requisite documents had been filled in, ... [the first applicant] had been taken out of the remand prison. [V.M.] had not applied physical violence to [the first applicant], no one had applied such violence to him in [V.M.’s] presence; no plastic bags had been put over the first applicant’s head. S.Ch., deputy head of the operational and search bureau of the Kabardino-Balkariya Department of the Federal Security Service ... submitted that on 28 October 2005, following an authorisation by A.S., head of the investigating group of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, ... S.Ch., together with his subordinates, had had ... [the first applicant] taken to the Kabardino-Balkariya Department of the Federal Security Service from [SIZO no.   1] by officers of the Kabardino-Balkariya Department of the Federal Security Service. While on the premises of the Kabardino ‑ Balkariya Department of the Federal Security Service, [the first applicant] had been interviewed; the interrogation was recorded by a hidden camera. When the investigative measures had been completed, [the first applicant] had been transferred to [SIZO no.   1]; the detainee had not been subjected to any violent methods. A similar account was given by A.T., operational officer with the Kabardino ‑ Balkariya Department of the Federal Security Service. R.K., senior operational officer at the UBOP ... stated that on 23 October 2005 a group had arrived at 192 A Attoyeva Street in Khasanya... with a view to searching [the first applicant’s] home. ... Before the beginning of the search [the first applicant] had refused to let anyone inside his house, preventing [the officers] from entering. ... R.K. had instructed the OMON officers ... to take [the first applicant] outside and put him in a car during the search. Later, after transmitting the information that he had apprehended [the first applicant], [R.K.] had been instructed to have him transferred to the UBOP... According to the conclusions of forensic medical examination no.   1621-A of 9   November 2005, at the time of the examination [the first applicant] had the following injuries: superficial wounds, abrasions and bruises to the head, body, both upper limbs and right lower limb and a scar on the right buttock, which had been caused by hard blunt objects with a limited impact surface – possibly in the circumstances and at the time indicated by the person under examination... The preliminary inquiry identified the persons who had been [with the first applicant] on 28 October 2005; [they were] interviewed; their submissions are confirmed by other objective materials from the inquiry. [The first applicant’s] submissions are contradictory and are refuted by the information obtained in the inquiry. In particular, [the first applicant] himself explained during his examination that “on 28 October 2005 four persons hit [him] on the body, suspended [him] by handcuffs from the wrists and hit him with a stick. He did not faint or seek medical assistance.”, whilst in his earlier explanation he stated that after continuous beatings on 28   October 2005 he had fainted and had then applied for medical assistance. [The first applicant’s] bodily injuries could have been sustained during his arrest....” On 26 January 2006 the second applicant wrote to the prosecutor of the KBR, submitting that the authorities had failed to follow up on the complaint of 3   November 2005 about the first applicant’s ill-treatment. She requested to be informed of the outcome of the inquiry and to be sent copies of any decisions taken. On 27 June 2006 the first applicant complained to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation about his ill-treatment on 23, 25 and 28 October 2005. He described in detail the beatings to which he had been subjected and submitted that his previous complaints had been disregarded and that the prosecutors had refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his ill-treatment. He also alleged that he had been forced to incriminate himself under torture. On 28 June 2006 the first applicant complained to the town court about the refusal, issued on 9 December 2005, to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his alleged ill-treatment. Relying on the requirements laid down in the Court’s case-law concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, he submitted that the investigators had based their conclusions exclusively on the statements of the law enforcement officials. The fact that the first applicant had numerous injuries to the entire body did not tally with the hypothesis of lawful use of force to subdue his alleged resistance. In any event, the inquiry had failed to establish whether the use of force had been proportionate. On 6 July 2006 the town court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint. It held that examination of the materials of the inquiry into the alleged ill ‑ treatment showed that it had been conducted in a comprehensive manner and that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was lawful and well ‑ founded. On 14 July 2006 the first applicant appealed against the decision of 6   July 2006. On 25 August 2006 the Supreme Court set aside the decision of 6 July 2006 and remitted the case for fresh examination by a different bench. The court found, in particular, that although the town court had based its conclusions on the materials of the preliminary inquiry, it had never actually studied them. On 22 September 2006 the town court found the decision of 9 December 2005 unlawful. In its decision it stated that, despite numerous documents attesting to the first applicant’s injuries, his lawyer’s complaints and other evidence, the investigators had failed to properly verify the circumstances in which those injuries had been sustained. The police officers who had called an ambulance for the first applicant and the ambulance doctors who had examined him had not been identified and interviewed. Statements of the UBOP officers contained obvious contradictions as to the use of force against the first applicant which remained unexplained. In particular, whilst some officers stated that he had offered resistance, others submitted that he had intentionally thrown himself onto the floor of the car while being transferred to the UBOP. The investigators had failed to explain why they gave more credence to the statements made by law enforcement officials than to those made by the first applicant. Moreover, the forensic reports indicated that the first applicant had different groups of injuries sustained on different occasions. By a decision of 7 December 2006 the town prosecutor’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the first applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment. The decision stated, in particular, that the first applicant’s submissions concerning his alleged ill-treatment were contradictory, that he had sustained bodily injuries because he had resisted his arrest and had intentionally thrown himself on the floor in the car during his transfer to the UBOP, and that the use of force against him had been lawful. On 25 December 2006 the deputy prosecutor of the KBR set aside the decision of 7 December 2006, finding that the town prosecutor’s office had failed to rectify the shortcomings in the investigation indicated by the town court. He instructed the town prosecutor’s office to carry out an additional inquiry and to take the following investigative steps: to obtain the first applicant’s detailed submissions concerning his alleged ill-treatment on 23   and 28 October 2005; to carry out an additional forensic medical examination with a view to elucidating unspecified contradictions in reports nos.   1621-A and 1470a concerning the number and the origin of the first applicant’s injuries; to obtain the lists of the first applicant’s fellow inmates in SIZO no. 1 in the period from 23 to 28 October 2005 and to interview them; to identify and interview all law enforcement officials who had taken the first applicant outside his cell on 28 October 2008 and to establish in which vehicle he had been transferred on that day; to interview the remand prison doctors who had examined the first applicant after his transfer to SIZO no. 1 on 25 October 2005; to interview officers O.M. and R.R., who had transferred the first applicant from SIZO no. 1 to the KBR FSB Department; to identify the remand prison officer who had taken the first applicant back to his cell at 7.30 p.m. on 28 October 2005; to interview the ambulance doctors who had examined the first applicant at 11.30 p.m. on 23   October 2005 and to append to the file the related ambulance call card; to identify and interview the official who had called the ambulance for the first applicant, and to identify all persons who had seen the first applicant on the premises of the KBR FSB Department. On 29 December 2006 the town prosecutor’s office ordered the first applicant’s additional forensic medical examination. The expert was requested to answer the following questions: “What bodily injuries did [the first applicant] have on 23 and 28 October 2005? What were the time of their infliction, their origin and location and the gravity of the damage done to his health?” On an unspecified date in December 2006 the forensic bureau carried out the additional medical examination, as requested in the decision of 29   December 2006. The forensic expert compared the findings of the two previous examinations, as described in reports nos. 1621-A and 1470a. The new forensic report, no. 1667-A, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “... Conclusions ... At the time of the [first applicant’s] examination on 24 October 2005 he had bodily injuries: - a bruise in the right orbital region; - a bruise on the right cheek; - a bruise on the front of the right shoulder; - a bruise on the back of the right shoulder; - a bruise on the back of the left shoulder; - a bruise in the area of the left collarbone; - a bruise in the interscapular region; - a bruise on the left wrist; - a bruise on the right wrist; - a bruise on the left buttock ; - a bruise on the right buttock; - a bruise on the back of the right lower leg; - a bruise on the back of the left lower leg; - an injury of the soft tissue of the head and the right wrist. The injuries described were caused by hard blunt objects with a limited impact surface, were inflicted within twenty-four hours before the examination, and did not entail health impairment or disablement. 2.     At the time of the examination on 9 November 2005 [the first applicant] had bodily injuries: - contused superficial wound on the inside of the right wrist; - contused superficial wound on the outside of the right elbow; - contused superficial wounds (4) around the left wrist; - abrasions on both wrists; - abrasion in the right suborbital area; - abrasion on the back of the right thigh; - abrasion on the right thigh; - bruises on the left buttock ; - a scar on the right buttock. The injuries described were caused by hard blunt objects with a limited impact surface, the injuries to the wrists could have been caused by handcuffs. According to their morphological characteristics, the injuries discovered at the examination on 9 November 2005 [in particular]... the contused wounds and abrasions on both wrists and the right elbow, and the abrasions in the right suborbital area and on the right thigh were sustained 10 to 14 days [prior to the examination]; the bruises on the left buttock region [were sustained] 16 to 18 days [priori to the examination]. It is impossible to establish the time of infliction of the scar on the right buttock because the healing (cicatrisation) process has been completed.” By a decision of 31 December 2006 the town prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the first applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment. On 22 January 2007 the Nalchik deputy prosecutor set aside the decision of 31 December 2006 and instructed the town prosecutor’s office to take unspecified additional investigative steps. On 25 January 2007 the town prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the first applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The decision stated that the first applicant’s submissions concerning the alleged ill-treatment were contradictory, and that it was impossible to identify and interview his fellow inmates in SIZO no. 1 and the officers of the special purpose squad who had participated in his arrest owing to the time that had lapsed since the events in question. The police officers interviewed during the inquiry denied having beaten him. Accordingly, he must have sustained his bodily injuries during his transportation from his home to the UBOP on 23 October 2005, when he had intentionally thrown himself on the floor and also when the police officers accompanying him had lawfully applied force to subdue his resistance during his transportation. On 23 February 2007 the first applicant complained to the town court about the decision of 25 January 2007, reiterating the arguments raised in his previous complaints to courts. He stressed that the investigators had disrega