CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 avril 2014

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF4F12EF6 { width:180.75pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION                 CASE OF PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 39583/05)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   24 April 2014     FINAL   13/10/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Perevedentsevy v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 April 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 39583/05) 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 two Russian nationals, Ms Vera Ivanovna Perevedentseva (“the first applicant) and Mr Sergey Ivanovich Perevedentsev (“the second applicant”), on 25   October 2005. 2.     The applicants were represented by lawyers of the NGO EHRAC/Memorial Human Rights Centre. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants complained about the death of their son during his mandatory military service and the absence of an effective and prompt investigation into his death. 4.     On 27 August 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicants were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in Snovo-Zdorovo, a village in the Ryazan Region. 6.     On 26 May 2003 the applicants’ son, Mr Mikhail Perevedentsev (“M.P.”), born on 12 January 1985, was drafted into the army to perform two years’ mandatory military service. He was assigned to military unit no.   52157 in the village of Mulino-1 in the Volodarskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. 7 .     The applicants regularly received letters from their son. In those letters he described various abuses that he and his fellow new recruits were suffering at the hands of more senior conscripts ( Dedy ) (under a system called dedovshchina or “rule of the grandfathers”): extortion, beatings, deprivation of sleep, and so on. 8.     In a letter dated 29 June 2003 M.P. wrote: “ Stodnevka [the last hundred days before a recruit is demobilised] is hard here, guys have paid 1000 roubles each in ten days. I can’t imagine where I’m going to get such money ...” 9.     In his next letter (undated) he wrote: “It’s been a nightmare here, the dembels are not being discharged. And we dukhi have our own problems. We are being punished, each of us has to find 1000 roubles [to be paid] to the cherpaks . It’s probably going to be like that every month ...” 10.     In the following letter M.P. wrote: “The Dedy were offended that I did not bring them vodka and money, and now I do work-outs at night for two hours, the sweat is pouring ... ” 11.     In a letter dated 17 November 2003 he wrote: “Our demobbees have left and tough times have begun. Flying in the day and working out at night. I counted that I slept eight hours [this] week. That is supposed to be a soldier’s sleep per day .... [No more easy life for us], we get bullied every day, so that it has become a routine, even though I think I’ve got a broken rib [as] I can hardly breathe, but they stop us from seeing the medics and they have dislocated my jaw, which creaks like a rusty cart. ... Mum, I’ll wait for you for one and a half weeks and then I’ll go on the run on my own, maybe with a friend. I don’t know, maybe you won’t understand, but this will be for the best as the dedy are getting wilder by the hour.” 12.     In a letter dated 30 December 2003 M.P. wrote: “Although I’ve left the battery I’m still assigned to it and continue to carry out my stodnevka . I now owe 2000 roubles. The Dedy say that I have to pay off 500 roubles a month and have given me a deadline of 15   January. If I don’t pay I’ll be in trouble. Mum, I understand that this is a lot of money, but believe me [when] I come back home [I will pay it back].” 13 .     In a letter dated 11 January 2004 he wrote: “The Dedy are waiting for my payment, I borrowed 500 roubles here and gave them some. I am lucky that I have at least given them some, as some guys here got in trouble, half of them are in the medical unit with injuries and the other half all have bruises, and our commander cannot do anything about it.” 14.     On 16 February 2004, at 11.30 a.m., M.P. was found dead with a noose around his neck. 15.     On the same date the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Mulino Garrison (“the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office”) instituted criminal proceedings into the death of M.P. under Article 110 of the Russian Criminal Code (Incitement to suicide). An on-site inspection and an inspection of M.P.’s body were carried out. 16 .     Also on the same date, sergeant Kolyadova O., M.P.’s immediate superior, was questioned. She stated that she was in charge of the guard dogs’ kennels to which M.P. had been assigned in November 2003. He had been responsible for helping Kolyadova O. to take care of the dogs and the premises. According to Kolyadova O., M.P. was only at the kennels during the day; from 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. he was at the watch house. M.P. was lazy and unreliable, neither too communicative nor too reserved. His behavior was normal; he never expressed suicidal thoughts or voiced any plans of running away from the military unit. Kolyadova O. had been told by M.P. that he had grown up in a happy, well-to-do family; he regularly received letters from home. He also regularly received money transfers and parcels from his parents. She knew that he had received over 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for his birthday and RUB   1,500 recently. Kolyadova O. criticised M.P. for asking his parents for money. She was unhappy with M.P.’s work, and often told him so. She also warned him that if he did not change his attitude she would ask the commander to send him back to the battery. Yet nothing changed. Kolyadova O. again reprimanded M.P. on 14   February [2004] and asked for his parents’ telephone number. She noticed that M.P. became frightened and asked her why she needed it. She replied that she wanted to inform M.P.’s parents of his attitude to his military service and request them not to send him so much money. M.P. reluctantly gave Kolyadova O. his mother’s mobile phone number. That evening Kolyadova O. telephoned M.P.’s mother, the first applicant, told her that M.P. was lazy and did not want to work, and asked her not to send him money too often. She also asked M.P.’s mother to come to the military unit to try and influence her son. Kolyadova O. arrived at work on the morning of 16   February 2004 to find that the kennels were once again uncleaned and the dogs unfed. She again reprimanded M.P. and told him about her conversation with his mother. M.P. took her words calmly. Kolyadova O. then left on business. On leaving it did not appear to her that M.P. was disturbed. She got back at around 10   a.m. The gate to the kennels was locked from the inside. It could be opened from the outside, but a new dog whom Kolyadova O. was still afraid of was running loose. She called to M.P., but he did not respond. Kolyadova O. thought that M.P. had gone out and started looking for him, but could not find him. She then asked the warrant officer to assign her a soldier to help her catch the dog. Afterwards Kolyadova O. entered the kennels and saw M.P. with a noose around his neck. 17 .     Again on 16 February 2004, the commander of the 22 nd guards army, general lieutenant Merkuryev A. submitted to the commander in chief of the Moscow Military Command, general lieutenant Yefremov I. the following report: “On 16 February 2004 at about 2 p.m., in the 99 th mobile artillery unit of the 3rd mobile artillery division private M.P, was found hanged .... Facts of the matter: At about 2.40 p.m. private M.P. was found hanging under the roof of a wooden shed ... by [sergeant] Kolyadova O. ... At about 3 p.m. the commander of 99 th mobile artillery unit, lieutenant colonel Mamakin I., reported the incident to the commander of the 3rd mobile artillery division and the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office. During the inspection of the body by representatives of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office and forensic medical experts, no abrasions or other injuries were discovered. Amongst [M.P.’s] personal items was found a letter from [M.P’s] friend [informing the latter] that his girlfriend had cheated on him. [M.P.] received positive references during his military service. However, the results of a psychological examination which was carried out in June and December 2003 showed that the soldier belonged to the third group in respect of psychological stability [out of four, the fourth group being for the least psychologically stable who were at the highest risk for nervous breakdown]; [he] was reserved, uncommunicative, had no friends among his fellow soldiers. ... The Garrison Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with [M.P.’s] death. On-the-spot inquiries are being carried out by the deputy commander of the educational unit, colonel Lazarev V. ... The causes of the incident: 1.     The possible reason for [M.P.’s] death could be suicide resulting from momentary nervous breakdown fuelled by a breakup with his girlfriend. 2.     Serious omissions in the work of the command of the unit in studying the individual features of the soldiers. 3.     Failure to take the necessary measures by the unit officials for the psychological monitoring of soldiers in need of increased psychological and pedagogical care. Measures taken: 1. (Institution of criminal proceedings in connection with [M.P.’s] death.) 2.     The circumstances and possible causes of the incident reported to [the command]. 3.     Additional measures by the deputy commanders of the military units and formations and military psychologists for the detection of soldiers with an increased risk of suicide to be carried out until 25 February 2004.” 18.     On 17 February 2004 a post-mortem examination of M.P.’s body was completed. It was established that M.P. had died as a result of strangling which could have been caused by the noose submitted for examination. M. P. could have applied the noose himself. He had no traces of any injuries typical of self-defence. M.P. had died twenty to twenty-four hours prior to the examination. No alcohol was detected in his body. 19.     On 18 February 2004 private Shuper V., a driver in the military unit, submitted that he had known M.P. since November 2003 when the latter had started working at the kennels. According to him, M.P. was calm, communicative and kindhearted. He had many friends and never complained about his military service. M.P. never told Shuper V. that he had been subjected to any bullying by other conscripts, but M.P. constantly clashed with sergeant Kolyadova O., who was in charge of the kennels. She always reprimanded M.P. for his work even though, in the opinion of Shuper V., M.P. carried out his work dutifully. In the opinion of Shuper V., M.P. had committed suicide because of his conflict with sergeant Kolyadova O., who shouted at him every day and had threatened to send him back to the battery and to telephone his mother. 20.     On the same date, major Ogorodov N., who had been carrying out military service in military unit no.   52157 on a contract basis since 27   January 2004, submitted that on 16 February 2004, at approximately 9.30 a.m., he had heard loud noise, a crash as if something had fallen, and a woman shouting “You vagabond, not doing what you’ve been told to ...”. The shouting was coming from the kennels. He saw the door open and a soldier come out, followed by a woman shouting; her right arm was holding a ladle lifted against the soldier. Ogorodov N. then saw the woman hit M.P. on the back of his head and throw the ladle at him. He later found out that the woman was the head of the kennels and the soldier was M.P., who later the same day committed suicide by hanging himself. 21.     On 19 February 2004 sergeant Kolyadova O. was questioned again. She submitted that on 14 February 2004 [Saturday] she had come at work at about 10   a.m. She had instructed M.P. to clean the kennels and gone to the commander to discuss the issue of a money transfer which had arrived for M.P. The commander told her that M.P. would not get any money until his mother telephoned to explain what the money was for. At about 1 p.m. Kolyadova O. returned to the kennels and saw the gate closed and a dog running loose. She then called M.P. and asked him to lock up the dog. Then, together with M.P., she entered the kennels and saw that nothing had been done. She asked M.P. what he had been doing, to which the latter replied that she would see his work on Monday. Then she told M.P. that if he continued doing nothing she would send him back to the battery, to which he responded that he would then run away. She knew that he was very afraid of going back to the battery. Kolyadova O. then ordered M.P. to chop some wood and to clean everything up until Monday, and went home. 22.     On the same date, the statements of the witness Ogorodov N. were verified at the scene. 23.     Also on the same date, the witness Ms Buzunova (M.P.’s aunt) submitted that she had seen and read M.P.’s letters to the applicants in which he had informed them about the beginning of stodnevka and asked them to send him money. She further submitted that the first applicant had sent M.P. RUB 1,050 in November 2003, RUB 1,000 in January 2004 and RUB 1,500 at the beginning of February 2004. 24.     Again on 19 February 2004, the witness Mr Buzunov (M.P.’s uncle) submitted that he had known M.P. since he was eight years old. According to him M.P. was very calm, polite, and communicative; he did not suffer from any serious illnesses, had had no head injuries and had never been called to account for any administrative or criminal offences. On 26 May 2003 M.P. had been drafted into the army. In September or October 2003 Mr Buzunov had learned from the first applicant that M.P. was being subjected to beatings and extortion in the army, but that it was bearable. Later he learned that M.P. had been transferred to the kennels, that he felt much better there and was not complaining. Some time went by and then M.P. started writing in his letters that money was being extorted from him; he did not specify by whom. Then there started telephone calls from a mobile phone; but M.P. did not have a mobile phone; M.P. asked the first applicant to put credit on the account of the phone he was calling from and also to send him some credit. Once a senior conscript from M.P.’s military unit called the first applicant’s mobile phone and asked her to put credit on that telephone account. The first applicant was receiving calls on her mobile phone at all times of the day and night. In the first applicant’s last telephone conversation with M.P. he asked her to send him RUB 1,500, which he needed in order to repay a debt and to give RUB 1,000 to senior conscripts. On 14   February 2004 a woman dog handler called the home number of M.P.’s grandmother and told her that M.P. had broken a radio and that M.P.’s family needed to contact a staff officer to settle the issue by reimbursement. On 15 February 2004 the first applicant tried to contact this woman, but, when she did, the woman did not give her any clear information. The first applicant became very worried. On 16   February 2004 she tried to contact the command staff, but without success, and became even more worried. On 17   February 2004 she managed to contact the staff office and was told that M.P. had hanged himself. Mr Buzunov could not believe it, because M.P. had been a normal, even-tempered person. 25.     On 20 February 2004 M.P.’s personal items were inspected. No money was found among them. 26.     On 10 March 2004 lance sergeant Yelkin Ye., performing his mandatody military service since June 2003 and in military unit no.   52157 since October 2003, submitted that there were three senior conscripts in the battery – sergeant Brovkin R., private Kosarev A. and private Prudnikov Ye., all three calm and communicative. He submitted that he had not known of any brutalisation by them of the new recruits. Yelkin   Ye. had not known private M.P., as the latter had always been at the kennels, and could not therefore give any impressions of him. He further submitted that he did not know when stodnevka had started for Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye., because it did not affect his military service. 27 .     On the same date private Stryukov A., performing his mandatody military service since June 2003 and in military unit no.   52157 since November 2003, submitted that he had known M.P. for about ten days, after which the latter had been transferred from the battery to the kennels. He characterised M.P. as reserved, uncommunicative and calm. He further submitted that he had not witnessed any brutalisation of M.P. by senior conscripts Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye., or by any other conscripts. He further submitted as follows: “On 17 December [2003] stodnevka began for Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye. Stodnevka began as usual. We made their beds, whichever of us was free. One of them would approach the recruits and tell them to bring them 200 roubles. They never approached me about money and never demanded money from me. Once when a parcel from home arrived for me, I decided to share it with Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye. so that they would not touch me. I took cheese, biscuits and sweets and we ate everything together; they did not threaten me with any violence.” Stryukov A. further submitted that M.P. would not have wanted to be transferred back to the battery, because he had been reserved and had liked it better at the kennels. 28.     On the same date (10   March 2004), private Pavlyukovskiy V., carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no.   52157 since November 2002, submitted that in November 2003 he had had ten days’ home leave. While at home he bought himself a mobile phone. Upon his return to the military unit he at first used his Moscow SIM card, then decided that it was too expensive and decided to buy a local (Nizhniy Novgorod) SIM card. He went to lieutenant Pestsov A., gave him some money and asked him to buy him the local SIM card; he had got the money from his parents. Lieutenant Pestsov A. bought the card at some time between 20 and 25 January 2004. Pavlyukovskiy V. used the mobile phone mostly himself and did not tell anyone that he had it for fear that the officers might take it away from him as the soldiers were not allowed to use mobile phones. Pavlyukovskiy V. had known M.P. since January 2004. According to him the latter had been reserved, uncommunicative, calm and slightly untidy. They had met at the beginning of January 2004 when M.P. had invited Pavlyukovskiy V. for tea at the kennels. The latter had told M.P. that he had a mobile phone and had decided to leave it with M.P. so that nobody would see it and steal it. He let M.P. make phone calls home. He also gave his mobile phone to privates Belov D. and Koshkin D. He never charged M.P., Belov D. or Koshkin D. for calls. At the end of January-beginning of February 2004 M.P. asked Pavlyukovskiy V. for the mobile phone to call his mother. He overheard M.P. asking his mother to send him RUB   1,500. When Pavlyukovskiy V. asked M.P. why he needed the money, the latter told that he wanted to buy himself a mobile phone. Knowing that stodnevka was beginning, Pavlyukovskiy V. asked M.P. whether he had been subjected to extortion or bullied by anyone, to which he received a negative reply. A day later Pavlyukovskiy V. received a text message informing him that his mobile phone account had been credited with RUB   100. Belov D. told him that it was his sister who had put the money on the account. M.P. also suggested calling his mother to ask her to credit Pavlyukovskiy’s mobile phone account, because he wanted to communicate with his family and friends by text messages. Pavlyukovskiy V. gave M.P. the details of his SIM card. When Pavlyukovskiy V. asked M.P. why he did not want to go back to the battery, the latter answered that he was better off at the kennels and that stodnevka had started in the battery and he did not want to be bullied by the senior conscripts. On 14   February 2004 Pavlyukovskiy V. took the mobile phone from M.P. On 16   February 2004 he was going to leave the phone with M.P. to charge the battery; however, he learned from another soldier that M.P. had committed suicide. On 18   February 2004 he received a phone call from an unknown number and a man’s voice asked: “Sanyek, is that you?”, and then “Sanya Pestsov, is that you?” Pavlyukovskiy replied to the man that he had the wrong number. The man started threatening him and he hung up. The same man called several more times on the same day. When Pavlyukovskiy answered the man introduced himself as Ismail Ibragimov. Pavlyukovskiy came to the conclusion that he had been calling about M.P. He became frightened and switched off the mobile phone. He subsequently destroyed the SIM card. 29.     Again on 10 March 2004, private Belov D., carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no.   52157 since 18 June 2002, gave statements identical to the statements of Pavlyukovskiy V. 30.     Again on the same date, private Shkola V., carrying out his mandatory military service since 29 June 2003 and in military unit no.   52157 since 20   November 2003, submitted that he had known M.P. as reserved, uncommunicative and quiet. Mr Shkola further characterised Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye. as calm and communicative and submitted that he did not know of any brutalisation by them of new recruits. He submitted that on 17   December 2003 stodnevka had started for Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye., but that he had not seen them approaching any new recruits and extorting money from them. He personally had never had money demanded from him. Neither he nor other conscripts in the battery had been subjected to any violence by Brovkin R., Kosarev A. or Prudnikov Ye. 31.     On the same date, private Kozarezov S., carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no. 52157 since May 2003, gave statements identical to those given by the witness Shkola V. 32 .     Also on the same date the applicants asked the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office to grant them victim status in the proceedings. 33.     On 11 March 2004 M.P.’s medical record was examined. Lieutenant Kolentsov S. and private Andriyantsev D., carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no. 52157 since August 2002 and May 2003 respectively, were questioned. They gave statements similar to those given by the witnesses Shkola V. and Kozarezov S. 34.     On 12 March 2004 sergeant Kolyadova O. was questioned again. She confirmed that she had phoned the first applicant on 14   February 2004 asking her to come and talk to M.P. because he had not been complying with his duties and risked being transferred back to the battery. The first applicant replied that she could not come because she had been feeling unwell. Then Kolyadova O. told the first applicant to call the commander and explain the reason for the money transfer made to M.P. and that otherwise M.P. would not get the money. She further stated that on 16   February 2004 she had come to work at about 9 a.m. She had seen that the dogs had been left unfed, and that the kennels had not been cleaned. She had started scolding M.P. and had told him that she had spoken to his mother, that he had squeezed the last money out of his mother and was unwilling to do anything himself. When M.P. had gone outside she had lightly and unintentionally thrown a ladle in his direction. M.P. had not paid any attention to this, and Ms Kolyadova had gone to the commander to discuss the issue of M.P.’s transfer back to the battery. 35.     On the same date the commander of military unit no.   52157, major Ivanov A., submitted as follows: in November 2003 private M.P. was transferred to the kennels. From January 2004 sergeant Kolyadova   O. began complaining that M.P. was not complying with his duties. The commander repeatedly spoke to M.P. so that the latter might change his attitude to his service duties. M.P. had been receiving money transfers from home in the amount of RUB 1,000 each time. The last money transfer had been in the amount of RUB 1,500. He had personally asked M.P. why he needed this money and asked him to get his mother to phone him, to which M.P. had replied that he wanted to buy a mobile phone and that his mother would certainly phone. On 14 February 2004 major Ivanov had called for M.P. to find out why his mother had still not contacted him. M.P. replied that she would do so. After that Ivanov had not spoken to M.P. and had received no telephone call from the first applicant. 36.     On 15 March and 17 March 2004 privates Pribylov V. and Nikitin   D., carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no.   52157 since November 2003, submitted that by the time they joined the battery M.P. had already left for the kennels. Their subsequent statements were identical to those given by the witnesses Shkola V., Kozarezov   S., Kolentsov S. and Andriyantsev D. 37.     On 17 March 2004 sergeant Brovkin R. and lance sergeant Prudnikov Ye., carrying out their mandatory military service since June 2002 and in military unit no.   52157 since November 2002, denied having subjected M.P. or any other conscripts to any violence or extortion. 38.     On 22 March 2004 M.P.’s fellow recruits Chemusov V. and Tsyganov A. made statements identical to those made by the witnesses Shkola V., Kozarezov S., Kolentsov S., Andriyantsev D., Pribylov V. and Nikitin   D. 39 .     In the meantine, on 23 March 2004 the investigator in charge refused to grant victim status to the first applicant since the investigation had failed to identify those responsible for her son’s death. No reply followed with regard to the second applicant’s request. 40.     On 24 March 2004 captain Volkhin S., who had been carrying out his military service in military unit no.   52157 on a contract basis since April 2000, submitted that he used to go to the kennels twice a week to check how M.P. was carrying out his military service. It was always dirty there and he made M.P. clean up. He knew from M.P.’s fellow recruits that M.P. was often reprimanded by the head of the kennels for failure to comply with his duties and forgetting to feed the dogs. He did not know if M.P. had had money extorted from him by Brovkin R., Kosarev A. and Prudnikov Ye. 41.     On 26 March 2004 the head of the medical unit, captain Gusev V., submitted that M.P. had never come to the medical unit with any fractures. 42.     On 29 March 2004 M.P.’s fellow recruits, Mironov K., Fedotov M., Tikhonov S. and Koryabin P., made statements identical to those made by the witnesses Shkola V., Kozarezov S., Kolentsov S., Andriyantsev D., Pribylov V., Nikitin D., Chemusov V. and Tsyganov A. 43.     On 30 March 2004 M.P.’s fellow recruits Podkopayev V., Kozhemyakin A., Kosarev A. and Tibayev A. made statements identical to those made by the witnesses Shkola V., Kozarezov S., Kolentsov S., Andriyantsev D., Pribylov V., Nikitin D., Chemusov V., Tsyganov A., Mironov K., Fedotov M., Tikhonov S. and Koryabin P. 44 .     On 2 April 2004 the first applicant was questioned. She submitted that from November 2003 M.P. had started to complain in his letters that senior conscripts were making him do push-ups at night, that he had slept only eight hours in a whole week, that it had become unbearable in the military unit, and that he was planning to run away. Later M.P. wrote a letter informing the applicants that he had been transferred from the battery to the kennels, and that he was okay. M.P. informed the applicants that on 17 December 2003 stodnevka had started for senior conscripts and that he had to pay them RUB 1,000 every month. For the first payment he had borrowed RUB 500 from another recruit. The first applicant had sent M.P. RUB   1,050. In January 2004 the first applicant sent M.P. RUB 1,000 and in February 2004 RUB 1,500. M.P. told her that out of this sum he was planning to pay RUB 1,000 to senior conscripts and with the rest of it he was planning to buy a mobile phone. On 14   February 2004 the first applicant spoke to the woman in charge of the kennels on the phone. The latter informed the first applicant that some soldiers had broken everything at the place where M.P. was staying, including a radio. The first applicant replied that she had sent M.P. RUB 1,500 and that RUB 300 could be taken for the broken radio and the remaining sum given to M.P. The first applicant was told that she should contact the commander to resolve the money issue. When she phoned on 16 February 2004 she was told that M.P. had committed suicide. She submitted that she had not complained about the beatings and extortion because M.P. had told her that if she did, the senior conscripts would kill him. 45.     On 6 April 2004 forensic medical expert L. submitted that aside from marks from the strangling there were no injuries of traumatic origin or signs of struggle on M.P.’s body 46.     On 5 April 2004 attesting witnesses Sannikov A. and Mavledshin Ay., who had taken part in the on-site inspection and the inspection of M.P.’s body, submitted that they had seen no injuries on M.P.’s body. 47 .     On 12 April 2004 a post-mortem psychological and psychiatric expert report was drawn up in respect of M.P. It established that M.P.’s decision to commit suicide could have been influenced by his individual psychological peculiarities, such as immature mental processes, difficulty adapting to new conditions, sensitivity, emotionalism and a tendency to overdramatise events. M.P. had been frightened of going back to the battery because of the more difficult conditions of service there and fears of possible oppression by fellow conscripts. M.P. had been in a depressed mood and because of the immaturity of his mental processes he had not been able to constructively resolve the possible problems and had therefore consciously committed an act of autoagression. The experts excluded that M.P. could have committed suicide owing to a breakup with a girlfriend or as a result of his conflict with sergeant Kolaydova O. 48 .     On 16 April 2004 investigator B. of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of any evidence that a crime had been committed. It was established that M.P. had committed suicide of his own accord on account of his individual psychological make ‑ up and for fear of being transferred back to the battery where the conditions of service were more difficult and where he feared oppression by his fellow recruits. The decision relied on the record of the on-site inspection, the record of the inspection of M.P.’s body, a forensic medical examination report, the statements of witnesses Kolyadova O., Shuper V., Pavlyukovskiy V. and other fellow recruits of M.P., and M.P.’s post-mortem psychological and psychiatric report. 49.     In September 2004 the applicants applied to the Military Court of the Mulino Garrison (“the Garrison Court”) seeking the setting aside of the decision of 23   March 2004. 50.     On 22 October 2004 the Garrison Military Court held that since those responsible for the applicants’ son’s death had not been identified during the pre-trial investigation, there was no evidence that a crime had been committed and hence no victims. 51.     On 21 December 2004 the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the decision of 22 October 2004 and referred the matter back to the Garrison Court. 52.     On 21 January 2005 the Garrison Court allowed the applicants’ claim and instructed the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office to grant them victim status in the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with their son’s death. 53.     On 22 March 2005 the Military Court of the Moscow Command upheld that decision on appeal. 54.     In May 2005 the applicants asked the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office to provide them with copies of the court decisions regarding the instituting of the criminal proceedings, the granting to them of victim status and the termination of the proceedings. 55.     On 16 June 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Mulino Garrison refused to enforce the decision of 21 January 2005 granting the applicants victim status. He justified the refusal on the grounds that the criminal case ‑ file was still with the court and the proceedings had not been resumed. 56.     On 1 July 2005 the applicants’ representative asked the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office to send the case file to the applicants. 57 .     On 6 July 2005 the applicants were provided with copies of the decisions on the institution and termination of the criminal proceedings. They were further informed that there was no possibility that the instructions of the court granting them victim status would be enforced, because the criminal case was still with the court and, therefore, criminal proceedings had not been resumed. 58.     On 9 January 2006 the applicants challenged the investigator’s decision of 16 April 2004 before the Garrison Court. 59 .     On 31 January 2006 the Garrison Court granted the applicants’ claim and ordered the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office to quash the decision of 16   April 2004. The court held as follows: “... As established at the court hearing, by a judgment of 21 January 2005, upheld on appeal on 22 March 2005, the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Mulino Garrison was ordered to grant [the applicants] victim status in the criminal proceedings. However, at the present moment they have not been granted victim status, [they] are not acquainted with the material in the case file, [they] have had no opportunity to give evidence, to file applications or challenges, or to exercise other powers provided for by the law. [The aforesaid], in the court’s opinion, represents a substantial violation of [the applicants’] rights. For this reason the court considers the decision to drop the criminal proceedings to be unjustified ...” 60.     In autumn 2007 the applicants again tried to see the case file, but in vain. 61.     In spring 2008 the case file was submitted to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Ryazan Region, and the applicants’ representative photographed the documents it contained with a digital camera. 62 .     On 18 August 2009 the acting head of the Military Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 16 April 2004 discontinuing the criminal proceedings. On the same day the criminal investigation into the death of the applicants’ son was resumed. 63.     On 1 September 2009 the applicants were granted victim status in the proceedings. 64 .     On 18 September 2009 investigator S. of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence that a crime had been committed. The decision was worded identically to the decision of 16 April 2004. 65 .     On 22 September 2009 the deputy head of the Military Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 18 September 2009. It found that the investigation was incomplete, the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ son had not been fully investigated, and the decision was unjustified and perfunctory. In particular, the applicants had not been informed of the decision of 1 September 2009 granting them victim status in the proceedings and they had not been questioned. The criminal proceedings were resumed. 66 .     On 4 October 2010 the applicants were again granted victim status. 67 .     On 6 October 2010 the applicants were informed of the decision of 4   October 2010 and were questioned by investigator Kh. of the Military Investigations Department of the Investigative Committee of the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office. 68 .     On 11 October 2010 the proceedings were yet again discontinued owing to the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed. The decision was worded identically to the decisions of 16   April 2004 and 18   September 2009. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 69 .     The Statute of Military Service of the Russian Federation, adopted by Presidential Decree no. 2140 on 14 December 1993 (in force until 1   January 2008), provided that the commander of a military unit bore personal responsibility before the State for all aspects of the life and functioning of the unit, its subdivisions and each serviceman (clause 30). The military commander of the unit was responsible for constantly maintaining strict military discipline and high standards with regard to the morale and psychological well-being of the personnel under his command (clause 76). The military commander was required to thoroughly study the personnel under his command by way of personal communication, to be familiar with the personal and psychological features of his subordinates and to be engaged in their daily education (clause 81). III.     RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND OTHER MATERIAL 70 .     On 20 October 2004 Human Rights Watch published a report entitled “The Wrong of Passage: Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of New Recruits in the Russian Armed Forces” (vol 16 no. 8 (D)), documenting abuses under a system called dedovshchina , or “rule of the grandfathers”, which hundreds of thousands of new recruits in the Russian armed forces faced at the hands of more senior conscripts. The report resulted from the three years of research in several regions across Russia. The relevant parts of the report read as follows: “Under a system called dedovshchina , or ‘rule of the grandfathers’, second-year conscripts force new recruits to live in a year-long state of pointless servitude, punish them violently for any infractions of official or informal rules, and abuse them gratuitously. Dozens of conscripts are killed every year as a result of these abuses, and thousands sustain serious – and often permanent – damage to their physical and mental health. Hundreds commit or attempt suicide and thousands run away from their units. This abuse takes place in a broader context of denial of conscripts’ rights to adequate food and access to medical care, which causes many to go hungry or develop serious health problems, and abusive treatment by officers ... Dedovshchina exists in military units throughout the Russian Federation. It establishes an informal hierarchy of conscripts, based on the length of their service, and a corresponding set of rights and duties for each group of the hierarchy. As in militaries around the world, newcomers have essentially no rights under the system—they must earn them over time. At the beginning of their service, conscripts are ‘not eligible’ to eat, wash, relax, sleep, be sick, or even keep track of time. Thus, any restrictions placed on these functions are considered permissible. The life of a new recruit consists of countless obligations to do the bidding of those conscripts who have served long enough – a year or more – to have earned rights in the informal hierarchy. Second-year conscripts, called the dedy , have practically unlimited power with respect to their junior colleagues. They can order them to do whatever they like, no matter how demeaning or absurd the task, while remaining beyond the strictures of the Military Code of Conduct or any other set of formal rules. If a first-year conscript refuses to oblige or fails in the assigned task, the senior conscript is free to administer whatever punishment he deems appropriate, no matter how violent. Dedovshchina is distinguished by predation, violence, and impunity. During their first year of service, conscripts live under the constant threat of violence for failing to comply with limitless orders and demands of dedy . Many conscripts spent entire days fulfilling these orders, which range from the trivial, like shining the seniors’ boots or making their beds, to the predatory, such as handing over food items to them at meal time, or procuring (legally or illegally) money, alcohol or cigarettes for them. First-year conscripts face violent punishment for any failure – and frequently not only for their own individual failure, as punishment is often collective – to conform to the expectations of dedy . As a rule, punishment happens at night after officers have gone home. Dedy wake the first-year conscripts up in the middle of the night and make them perform push-ups or knee bends, often accompanied by beatings, until they drop. First-year conscripts also routinely face gratuitous abuse, often involving severe beatings or sexual abuse, from drunken dedy at night. Dedy sometimes beat new recruits with stools or iron rods. Dedovshchina has all the trappings of a classic initiation system; indeed, it likely emerged as one several decades ago. Such systems, which exist in many social institutions around the world, including schools, athletic clubs, and especially the armed forces of many countries, can play a legitimate role in military structures by enhancing group cohesion and esprit de corps. Initiation systems license the group to erase a certain degree of individuality in its members, and the possibility of abuse is inherent in that license. While dedovshchina may once have served the purpose of initiation, it has in the past twenty years degenerated into a system in which second-year conscripts, once victims of abuse and deprivation themselves, enjoy untrammelled power to abuse their juniors without rule, restriction, or fear of punishment. The result is not enhanced esprit de corps but lawlessness and gross abuse of human rights. The collapse of dedovshchina as an initiation system has occurred at both the command level and at the conscript level. At the command level, abusive practices associated with dedovshchina have persisted due to an almost universal failure on the part of the officers’ corps to take appropriate measures. Our research found that the vast majority of officers either chose not to notice evidence of dedovshchina or, worse, tolerate or encourage it because they see dedovshchina as an effective means of maintaining discipline in their ranks. Indeed, we found that officers routinely fail to send a clear message to their troops that abuses will not be tolerated, reduce existing prevention mechanisms to empty formalities or ignore them altogether, and fail to respond to clear evidence of abuse. The perversity of this attitude toward ‘maintaining discipline’ in the short run is that it so clearly undermines the effectiveness of Russia’s armed forces over time. Horror stories about dedovshchina motivate tens of thousands of Russian parents every year to try to keep their sons out of the armed forces. As the most affluent and educated families do so most successfully, the armed forces increasingly draw recruits from poor segments of the population, and many of the recruits suffer from malnutrition, ill-health, alcohol or drug addiction, or other social ills even before they start to serve. Moreover, as mentioned above, thousands of the young men who are drafted each year run away from their units, and hundreds commit suicide. At the conscript level, the degeneration of the system is more contemptible than perverse: instead of initiating new recruits into their new role of soldiers, dedy use dedovshchina primarily as a means of avenging the abuses they themselves faced during their first year of service and of exploiting new recruits to the fullest extent possible, both materially and otherwise ... Although international law requires the Russian government to take immediate measures to end these abuses, it has thus far failed to take the appropriate steps. Instead of taking a clear and public stance against the abuses, government officials have largely ignored the issue in their numerous speeches about military reform. The government has yet to adopt a clear and comprehensive strategy to deal with the abuses. Instead of vigorously examining the reasons why first-year conscripts flee their units, military officials routinely threaten runaways with prosecution for unauthorised departure from their bases. Military commanders and the military procuracy routinely shield their perpetrators from justice, rather than investigate reported incidents of abuse.” 71 .     On 26 March 2006 the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe prepared a report entitled “Human Rights of Members of the Armed Forces” (Doc.   10861), which described the situation in the Russian armed forces as “extremely worrying”: “22.     The situation of the Russian armed forces is extremely worrying. In the v