CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 9 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6DCE261A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF5DC77FC { margin-left:2.81pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCCF7C909 { width:19.85pt; display:inline-block } .s3B2F4E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9DABA912 { width:188.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s9F2D4B9A { width:77.32pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sE22BA0FA { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s42A05D7A { height:27.15pt } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s319A263B { height:27.2pt } .sF50E7E28 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA1F6673D { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEBCD263B { height:28.6pt } .sC5C65D7A { height:26.25pt } .s579A5D7A { height:28.45pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF USPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 48053/06 and 7 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 30 March 2021 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court     This judgment was revised in accordance with Rule 80 of the Rules of Court in a judgment of 11 January 2022       STRASBOURG 9 February 2021       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Uspanov and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 48053/06 and 7 others) 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 Russian nationals (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the applicants’ complaints concerning their alleged ill ‑ treatment, unrecorded detention and the use of confession statements allegedly obtained under duress; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     Between 2004 and 2010 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of belonging to illegal armed groups and having committed crimes of a terrorist nature in the North Caucasus region. The applicants alleged, among other things, that they had been ill-treated by law-enforcement officers and that they had been convicted on the basis of confession statements obtained under duress. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Uspanov v. Russia , application no. 48053/06 (lodged on 27   July   2006) The applicant’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment between 31   October and 10 November 2004 5.     According to the applicant, on 31 October 2004 at around 4 p.m. a group of armed persons in uniforms without insignia stopped him near a local market in the village of Assinovskaya in the Sunzhenskiy District of Chechnya. According to the applicant, they were officers of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic ( kadyrovtsy ). They hit him with the butts of their guns, put a bag over his head and put him in a car. 6 .     According to the applicant, they held him in a basement. Six men beat him, forcing him to confess to various crimes, to testify against unknown people and to sign blank papers. They kicked and punched him on his torso, shoulders and hips, and beat him with pistol butts and a spade. The beatings continued for about seven days, mostly at night. The officers attached electric wires to his fingers and administered electric shocks to him every fifteen minutes. Unable to withstand the pain, the applicant signed the blank documents. 7 .     On 5 or 6 November 2004 the applicant’s wife, Ms L.Kh., and his mother, Ms Z.T., went to the Gudermes Division of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic. The head of the Security Service informed them that the applicant had been detained because he was suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups. 8 .     Shortly thereafter the applicant was taken to an office to see his mother and wife. According to them, he could barely walk and was dragging his foot. His eyes were red and he had black bruises under them and his clothes were dirty and torn. He could barely speak and asked his relatives to bring him warm clothing and food because he had not eaten for five days. 9.     On 10 November 2004 the applicant was transferred to the Sunzhenskiy Department of the Interior (“ROVD”). 10.     On 11 November 2004 the applicant was taken to an interview. He complained to an investigator about his ill-treatment and unlawful detention but the investigator dismissed his complaints and threatened him with further ill-treatment if he did not confess to the crimes he had been accused of or refused to cooperate. 11 .     On 11 November 2004 at 10.20 a.m. the investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest and he was transferred to a temporary detention centre (“IVS”). 12.     At 10.40 a.m. the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer. He confessed to belonging to illegal armed groups, and stated that the ROVD officers had not applied physical force to him. 13 .     On 12 November 2004 the applicant was examined by an IVS doctor, who recorded bruises and haematomas on his shoulders and hips. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 14 .     On 7 January 2005 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment and unrecorded detention to a prosecutor. 15 .     On 17 January 2005 a forensic medical expert issued report no.   35, according to which the injuries recorded on 12 November 2004 had been inflicted by a hard blunt object seven to ten days prior to the applicant’s examination. 16 .     On 18 January and 22 April 2005 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case. According to the refusals, the applicant had been arrested on 10   November 2004 during a special operation carried out by officers of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD. Referring to the officers’ explanations that the applicant had resisted arrest, the prosecutor found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment unfounded. 17.     On 31 August 2006, on behalf of the applicant, Ms L.Kh. challenged the refusals of 18 January and 22 April 2005 before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court. She also complained that his arrest had been recorded ten days after his actual arrest. 18 .     On 11 October 2006 the court dismissed the complaint, using the same terms as in the text of the refusals. 19 .     On 22 November 2006 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the District Court’s decision as unfounded, noting that his allegations had already been examined by the Supreme Court of Chechnya during his trial. The applicant’s trial 20 .     On 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicant on charges of terrorism and belonging to illegal armed groups, relying on the confession statements he had given during the investigation and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. 21.     The applicant appealed, submitting that his conviction had been based on his confession, which had been obtained under duress. On 8   December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. The applicant’s correspondence with the Court 22.     According to the applicant, on 6 February 2006, while he was being held in the Chernokozovo remand prison in Chechnya, he asked officials there to send his preliminary complaint to the Court. 23 .     The Court did not receive the applicant’s letter. 24.     The Government were unable to provide the Court with a copy of the outgoing-correspondence logbooks from the Chernokozovo remand prison because the time-limit for the storage of the documents in question had expired. 25.     According to the applicant, on 27 March and 15 May 2006 he sent two more letters to the Court from correctional colony no. 28 in the Arkhangelsk Region. 26 .     The Court did not receive those letters either. 27 .     According to the outgoing-correspondence logbooks of colony no.   28, provided by the Government, between May and July 2006 the applicant sent letters to human rights organisations and his lawyer. He did not send any addressed to the Court. 28.     On 20 November 2006 the Court received the applicant’s preliminary complaint, which was dated 27 July 2006. 29.     On 4 December 2006 the Court invited the applicant to submit a completed application form. 30.     On 2 March 2007 the applicant submitted his application form. Mutayev and Tatayev v. Russia , application no. 29924/07 (lodged on 13 July 2007) 31.     The applicants are Mr Ismail Mutayev and Mr Ismail Tatayev. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. Alleged ill-treatment of Mr Ismail Mutayev (a)    The applicant’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment between 14 and 17   November 2004 32.     According to the applicant, on 14 November 2004 at a petrol station in Gudermes, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia stopped him and forced him at gunpoint to lie down. They punched him and then handcuffed him, put him in a car and drove away. 33 .     According to the applicant, these were officers of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic. They took him to their headquarters in the village of Tsentoroy, where they beat him for about five to six hours. The applicant was handcuffed to a pipe. His back, shoulder, elbow, the palm of his right hand and his abdomen were burned using gas flames. He fainted on several occasions. Each time he regained consciousness, he was ordered to sign documents. 34 .     On 15 November 2004 the applicant was taken to the Gudermes ROVD. The ROVD officers also beat him and threatened to pour acid on his burnt hand. The applicant signed a confession. 35 .     On 17 November 2004 at 6.20 p.m. the investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest. On the same day he was transferred to the IVS of the Gudermes ROVD. According to the applicant, he was again ill-treated and subjected to electric shocks. 36.     On 18 and 23 November and 2 December 2004 the applicant confessed to belonging to illegal armed groups, blowing up military vehicles, abduction and aggravated murder. 37.     On 28 December 2004 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny. (b)    Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 38 .     On 3 February 2005 the applicant’s lawyer complained to a prosecutor about the applicant’s arrest and his ill-treatment. 39 .     On 7 February 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 124 of 9 February 2005, he had a linear scar on his head, scars on his right shoulder, an extensive scar of an intense pink-red colour on his right forearm and hand, a red oval scar in the lumbar area, a scar on his chest, and two scars on both lower legs. The expert concluded that the scars had been caused by something very hot being applied to the applicant’s skin within two to three months before the examination. The scars on his legs could have been inflicted by a hard blunt object two to three months before the examination. 40 .     On 17 February 2005 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of the police officers and concluding that the injuries had been inflicted before his arrest. 41.     On 11 April 2005 the applicant again complained about his ill ‑ treatment and that his confession statements had been given under duress. 42 .     On 16 May 2005 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment to a prosecutor. He reiterated in detail the circumstances of his apprehension in Gudermes on 14 November 2004 and the ensuing ill ‑ treatment. 43.     On 11 May 2005 the investigator opened a criminal case into the infliction of medium harm to health by unidentified perpetrators. On 1   July 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. 44 .     Between 11 July 2005 and 25 April 2008 the criminal investigation was suspended at least nine times for failure to identify a perpetrator. All of those decisions were quashed as incomplete. 45 .     In the meantime, on 6 November 2005 the investigator refused to open a criminal case in respect of several police officers the applicant had identified, owing to the lack of evidence of a crime. 46 .     Between 16 April and 28 October 2013 the investigation was resumed and suspended twice for failure to identify a perpetrator. Alleged ill-treatment of Mr Ismail Tatayev (a)    The applicant’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment between 23 August and 24 September 2004 47.     According to the applicant, on the night of 23 August 2004 a group of armed men in masks and camouflage uniform broke into his house in Gudermes. They beat him and searched the house. The applicant noticed the word “Vostok” (a military unit staffed by Chechens under the command of Mr   S.Ya.) on the men’s T-shirts. The men covered the applicant’s head and, according to him, took him to the Vostok headquarters, where they subjected him to electric shocks while pouring water over his feet. The ill ‑ treatment lasted for about two hours, after which the applicant was unable to walk. When he fell to the ground, the men kicked him in the kidney area. 48.     On 23 August 2004 the applicant was transferred to the Gudermes ROVD. The ROVD officers questioned him about members of illegal armed groups and threatened him with further ill-treatment. They wrapped telephone wires around his head, put a gas mask over it and administered electric shocks to him. Unable to withstand the pain, the applicant confessed and also made several statements incriminating other people. 49.     According to the applicant, on 24 and 25 August 2004 the ill ‑ treatment continued. 50 .     On 27 August 2004 an investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest. He was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer. 51.     On 20 September 2004 he reiterated his confession statement. 52.     According to the applicant, he was regularly ill-treated until at least 24   September 2004 with the use of gas masks and electric shocks, being forced to drink alcohol and inhale cigarette smoke, and pinching various parts of his body with pliers. 53 .     On an unspecified date in March 2005, the applicant’s uncle and mother visited him in the Gudermes ROVD. According to them, the applicant looked “worn-out, pale and sick”. His eyesight had significantly deteriorated although he had had no problems with it before. He had a black bruise on his nose and wounds on his hand. It appears from the material in the case file that the applicant was not examined by a doctor either following his arrest or during his detention. (b)    Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 54 .     On 11 February 2005 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about his apprehension and ill-treatment and that his confessions had been obtained under duress. 55.     On 12 March 2005 during the interview with the prosecutor the applicant retracted his confession and again complained about his ill ‑ treatment. 56 .     On 19 March 2005 the investigator refused to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime, referring only to the explanations of the police officers. 57 .     On 22 June 2005 the applicant lodged another complaint with a prosecutor. He complained about his apprehension and ill-treatment, reiterating his earlier submissions and giving the names and ranks of the perpetrators. 58 .     On 17 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya, examining the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 59 below), ordered an additional inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of ill ‑ treatment which resulted in the refusal to open a criminal case of 30   November 2005. The applicants’ trial 59 .     On 23 June 2005 the applicants’ trial before the Supreme Court of Chechnya started. The applicants pleaded not guilty and complained about their arrest and ill-treatment and that their confessions had been signed under duress. 60 .     On 7 August 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya found the applicants guilty as charged, relying on the confessions they had given during the investigation. 61 .     Questioned as a witness, Mr Tatayev’s mother submitted that he had been arrested at night at their house and that she had seen him for the first time after that four or five days later. According to her, he had been severely beaten. 62 .     Questioned as witnesses, Mr Mutayev’s uncle and his neighbour submitted that Mr Mutayev had been arrested on 14 November 2004. The following day, when officers took Mr Mutayev home to carry out investigative activities, his uncle and neighbour saw him and noted that his face and body were covered with haematomas and bruises and his right hand had been burned. 63 .     The applicants appealed, submitting that their confessions had been obtained under duress. On 16 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed their appeals and amended the judgment, sentencing them to twenty-two and seventeen-years’ imprisonment, respectively. Other relevant information 64 .     On 19 March 2007 Mr Tatayev was issued with a certificate attesting that he had a second-degree disability, in connection with the general state of his health. Aliyev v. Russia , application no. 7626/08 (lodged on 18 December 2007) The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment between 26 and 29 September 2005 65 .     On 26 September 2005 at around 1   p.m. officers of the special police forces (OMON) and officers of the Groznenskiy ROVD burst into the car service centre where the applicant worked. They took him at gunpoint to OMON premises in Grozny. According to the applicant, the officers beat him for three days, forcing him to confess to killing three police officers. They kicked and punched him on his body, beat him with rubber truncheons and a spade, and administered electric shocks to him. 66.     On 29 September 2005 the OMON officers threatened him with sexual violence. The applicant signed a confession. 67 .     On 7 October 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny where he was examined by a doctor. According to his medical notes of 7 October 2005, he had two vertical stripes on his back 25   and 10 cm in length, scabbed-over abrasions on his back, swelling of his left shoulder joint, and bruises on his right leg. The applicant explained that the injuries had been caused by rubber truncheons. The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment between 15 and 18 February 2006 68 .     According to the applicant, on 15 or 18 February 2006 police officers of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD again ill-treated him, suspending him from a pipe, strangling him and subjecting him to electric shocks. 69.     On 26 February 2006 the applicant was taken back to the remand prison. A doctor recorded three scabbed-over bruises on his back. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 70.     On 28 February 2006 the applicant’s lawyer complained to a prosecutor about the applicant’s ill-treatment in September 2005 and February 2006. 71 .     In his forensic medical report no.   215 of 10 March 2006, the expert noted the applicant’s injuries recorded on 7 October 2005. According to the report, the bruises on the applicant’s back recorded on 26 February 2006 had been inflicted by a hard blunt object. The applicant explained that on 15   February 2006 police officers had beaten him all over his body and subjected him to electric shocks. The expert concluded that it was possible that the injuries had been sustained on the date and in the circumstances described by the applicant. The expert also recorded a scar on his forearm, three scars on his back and a scar on his lower right leg, which had been caused by injuries inflicted between one and three months before the examination. 72 .     On 13 March 2006 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of the OMON and ROVD officers, who had denied the applicant’s allegations. The investigator concluded that the applicant’s injuries had been sustained before his arrest. 73 .     On 25 May 2007 the Zavodskoy District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the refusal, referring to his trial proceedings and final conviction of 27 July 2006, in which the trial court had dismissed his allegations of ill-treatment. 74 .     On 20 June 2007, on an appeal by the applicant, the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the District Court’s decision. Shavayev v. Russia , application no. 8187/08 (lodged on 24   December 2007) The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment on 8 May 2005 75 .     On 8 May 2005 at about 10 a.m. officers of the Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic ( Управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью – “UBOP”) stopped the applicant on the street in Nalchik and took him to their premises. The officers put a bag over his head, handcuffed him and transferred him to the Federal Security Service (FSB) in Cherkessk in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic. 76 .     According to the applicant, the officers kicked and punched him and beat him with rubber truncheons, forcing him to confess to belonging to illegal armed groups and having participated in terrorist attacks . 77.     On 8 May 2005 the applicant signed a confession. 78 .     On 11 May 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. Unidentified convoy officers were present during the examination. According to report no. 431, the applicant had abrasions on his wrists, neck and upper left shoulder that had been inflicted by a hard blunt object between one and five days before the examination. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 79.     On an unspecified date, the applicant was transferred to Moscow. On 26 July, 15 and 29 August and 12 September 2005 he complained to a prosecutor about his ill-treatment. 80 .     On 27 October and 12 December 2005 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring solely to the explanations of the FSB officers. 81 .     On 7 November 2007 the Basmannyy District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the refusal of 27 October 2005, referring to his conviction of 30 August 2007 (see paragraph 83 below) and noting that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had already been examined during his trial. 82 .     On 12 March 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. The applicant’s trial 83 .     On 2 February 2007 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty on charges of terrorism and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying on the confession he had given during the investigation. In court the applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that his confession had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed his allegations, referring to the refusals to open a criminal investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. 84 .     The applicant appealed, submitting that his confession had been obtained under duress. On 30 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. Khadziyev and Others v. Russia , application no. 30444/08 (lodged on 19 June 2008) 85.     The applicants are Mr Umar Khadziyev, Mr Alikhan Ozdoyev and Mr Rustam Tsurov. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. The applicants’ alleged ill-treatment between 21 and 23 July 2006 86 .     On 21 July 2006 traffic police officers stopped the applicants between the villages of Kartsa and Chermen in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania for an identity check. When two of the applicants failed to produce their identity documents, the police searched their car and found an object which was later identified as a bomb. 87.     The applicants were taken to the Promyshlenniy ROVD, where officers of the UBOP of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania questioned them. 88 .     According to the applicants, the officers repeatedly kicked and punched them all over their bodies, put plastic bags over their heads , strangled them, beat them with rubber truncheons, administered electric shocks to their fingers, ears and genitals, put needles under their nails and burned them with cigarettes. 89.     On 22 July 2006 at about 7 p.m. the applicants were taken to remand prison no. 99/6 in Vladikavkaz. 90 .     According to the remand prison medical records, Mr Khadziyev had a black eye, bruises on his right forearm and multiple bruises on his legs. Mr   Ozdoyev had a haematoma under his left eye, multiple bruises on his left shoulder and bruises on his legs. Mr Tsurov had bruises in the scapula area and multiple scratches on his legs. 91.     On 23 July 2006 the applicants were again questioned and, according to them, ill-treated. 92 .     On 23, 24 and 25 July 2006 the ambulance doctor examined the applicants. According to their medical notes, they had multiple bruises and haematomas on their bodies and limbs. Mr Tsurov also had fractured ribs and a damaged chest . 93.     On 24 July 2006 Mr Khadziyev and Mr Ozdoyev signed confession statements. 94.     On 24, 25, 26 and 29 July 2006 Mr Tsurov also confessed during his interviews as a suspect. 95.     On 31 July 2006 Mr Ozdoyev reiterated his confession statement during his interview as a suspect. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 96.     On an unspecified date in August or September 2006 the applicants complained about their ill-treatment to a prosecutor. 97 .     According to forensic medical reports nos. 2059 and 2060 of 2   October 2006, injuries to Mr Khadziyev and Mr Ozdoyev had been recorded on 22, 23 and 24 July 2006. It was impossible to determine the mechanism of their infliction owing to lack of information. 98 .     On 19 October 2006 the investigator opened a criminal case into infliction of injuries. 99 .     Between 15 and 17 November 2006 forensic experts issued three more reports: no. 2423 (in respect of Mr Ozdoyev), no. 2424 (in respect of Mr   Khadziyev) and no. 2425 (in respect of Mr   Tsurov). In those reports, they reiterated the applicants’ multiple injuries, bruises and haematomas recorded in their medical notes on 22, 23 and 24 July 2006. The experts did not find any injuries consistent with having been inflicted by electric shocks . In report no. 2425, the expert confirmed the fractures of Mr   Tsurov’s ninth and tenth ribs on the left side. 100 .     By two separate decisions of 19 March 2007, the investigator discontinued the investigation for lack of evidence of a crime. Referring to the statements of the UBOP officers, the investigator concluded that the applicants’ injuries had been inflicted while they were resisting arrest . 101 .     On 7 November 2007 the Promyshlenniy District Court endorsed the investigator’s reasoning and dismissed the applicants’ subsequent appeals. 102 .     The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, which on 19 December 2007 upheld the court’s decision. The applicants’ trial 103 .     On 13 December 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania convicted the applicants on charges of terrorism and belonging to illegal armed groups, relying on their confessions of 24, 25, 26, 29 and 31   July 2006. The applicants had pleaded not guilty, arguing that the statements had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed their allegations as unfounded, referring to two decisions of 19   March 2007. 104.     Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov were sentenced to twenty-three, eighteen and twenty-four years’ imprisonment, respectively. 105 .     On 2 July 2009, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the convictions. Laypanov v. Russia , application no. 8600/09 (lodged on 6   February 2009) The applicant’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment on 17   March 2006 106.     On 17 March 2006 at about 10 p.m. officers of the Karachayevsk UBOP in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic apprehended the applicant near his house. They put him in a car and drove to Cherkessk. 107 .     According to the applicant, on the way the officers twisted his arms, hit him on his head and various parts of his body. He was taken to the Khabezkiy ROVD, where the officers kicked and punched him. 108.     On 18 March 2006 at about 12.30 a.m. the officers took the applicant to a hospital because he was bleeding profusely from the head . 109 .     On 18 March 2006 at an unspecified time in the evening an investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest. 110 .     On 19 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to the IVS in Cherkessk. According to medical notes taken there, he had haematomas under his eyes and on his left shoulder, and a fresh scar on his head. The applicant complained of headaches. 111 .     On the same day the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 179, he had abrasions on his head and bruises on his face and head inflicted by a hard blunt object between one and two days before the examination. 112.     On 31 March 2006 the applicant was admitted to remand prison no.   9/1. 113 .     According to the applicant, on 2 May 2006 the officers beat him again. It appears from the extract of the remand prison medical notes of 2   May 2006 that the applicant had contusions on his chest and forehead and bruises on his upper limbs. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 114.     On 23 March 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic about his unrecorded detention and ill-treatment on 18 March and 2 May 2006. 115 .     On 6 April 2006 a prosecutor refused to open a criminal case, mainly referring to the explanations of the UBOP officers. 116 .     On 13 April 2006 the applicant’s lawyer questioned a nurse, Ms   L.O., who had been on duty at the hospital on 18 March 2006. According to her, the officers had taken the applicant to the hospital at night. He was bleeding from the head. The officers ordered her not to record the applicant’s presence. She treated the wound on his head and the officers took him away. 117 .     On 20 November 2006 the refusal of 6 April 2006 was quashed as incomplete. 118 .     On 25 November 2006 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of the UBOP officers. 119 .     On an unspecified date in January 2009 the applicant appealed against the refusal of 25 November 2006 to the Cherkesskiy Town Court. 120 .     On 22 January 2009 the court declared the refusal unsubstantiated and unlawful. It noted that the investigator had failed to properly address the applicant’s complaint that he had been ill-treated by the police on 18   March and 2 May 2006. The court also noted that the investigator had not addressed the applicant’s allegation concerning his unrecorded detention between 17 and 18 March 2006 at all. 121 .     On 26 February 2009 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case on the same grounds as before. The applicant’s trial 122 .     On 18 July 2008 the Supreme Court of the Karachayevo ‑ Cherkessiya Republic convicted the applicant of belonging to illegal armed groups and illegally storing weapons and explosives, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant had pleaded partially guilty, and stated that his confession had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed his allegations, referring to the refusals to open a criminal case. 123 .     On 23 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal and upheld the judgment in its entirety. 124.     On 15 March 2013 the applicant was released upon completion of his sentence. Vitrigov and Others v. Russia , application no. 21123/09 (lodged on 23 March 2009) 125.     The applicants are Mr Aslanbek Vitrigov, Mr Anzor Agamerzayev and Mr Ayub [1] Tuntuyev. The applicants’ personal details are indicated in the appendix. 126.     On 19 July 2005 a car exploded in the village of Znamenskoye in Chechnya, resulting in the death of ten police officers and three civilians and injuries to twenty-four other persons. A criminal case into the matter was opened. The applicants’ apprehension and alleged ill-treatment (a)    Mr Aslanbek Vitrigov 127 .     On 20 July 2005 at about 12.30 p.m. police officers of the Nadterechniy ROVD went to Mr Vitrigov’s house and ordered him to follow them. The officers took him to a police station, where he was asked to confess to blowing up the car. The applicant refused and the officers beat him. According to the applicant, they put a plastic bag over his head, suffocating him, and punched and kicked him on his body, breaking his nose. They also took off his trousers, pinched his penis with pliers and poured water over his body. 128 .     On 21 July 2005 at 10.30 a.m. Mr Vitrigov’s arrest was recorded. 129 .     On 21 and 22 July 2005 the applicant’s ill-treatment continued, including by administering electric shocks to him. The officers had the applicant’s sister brought to the police station and threatened to rape her if he refused to confess. The applicant signed all the papers the officer had given him. 130.     On 31 July 2005 the applicant confessed to having participated in the explosion. 131.     According to the applicant, he was not examined by a doctor during the ensuing two months of his detention at the ROVD. 132 .     On 16 September 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 208, he had small superficial abrasions on his left foot, which could have been caused by the impact of a hard blunt object four to five days before the examination. (b)    Mr Anzor Agamerzayev 133 .     On 21 July 2005 police officers of the Nadterechniy ROVD went to the applicant’s house, beat him and took him to a police station. The applicant was forced to stand facing the wall with his legs apart while the officers hit and kicked various parts of his body. They put a plastic bag over his head, suffocating him, and administered electric shocks through the wires attached to his hands. 134.     On 22 July 2005 Mr Vitrigov’s relatives, whom the officers had had brought to the Nadterechniy ROVD, saw Mr Agamerzayev in the building. According to them, he had been severely beaten and could barely walk. The officers had to drag him around. 135 .     On 22 and 23 July 2005 the officers continued to beat him and again subjected him to electric shocks. Unable to withstand the treatment, the applicant agreed to confess. 136 .     On 24 July 2005 at 10.30 a.m. the applicant’s arrest was recorded. 137.     On 26 July 2005 the applicant confessed to an investigator. 138 .     On 16 September 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 210, he had a scar and several areas of skin depigmentation on his left leg caused by wounds and abrasions which could have been sustained at the time and in the circumstances described by him, namely as a result of the beatings by police officers on 21   July 2005. (c)    Mr Ayub [2] Tuntuyev 139 .     On 30 July 2005 at about 11 a.m. Mr Ayub [3] Tuntuyev, who was an employee of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic, was taken to the Nadterechniy ROVD. 140 .     The applicant was questioned as a witness about the car explosion. He denied having participated in the crime. According to the applicant, the police officers beat him, subjected him to electric shocks, made him squat while one of the officers sat on his back and suspended him from the ceiling by his handcuffs with a plastic bag over his head. 141.     On the same day, Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev identified Mr   Tuntuyev in an identification parade as their accomplice. 142.     On 31 July 2005 the applicant signed a confession statement. 143 .     According to the applicant, after his arrest and during the ensuing two months of his detention at the Nadterechniy ROVD he was routinely subjected to ill-treatment, including by administering electric shocks and threats of sexual violence. 144 .     On 4 October 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny. According to his medical record, he had bruises on his right shoulder and the right side of the thorax and scabbed ‑ over abrasions on both wrists, around his left eye and on his nose. 145 .     On 19   October 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 206, he had scars and abrasions on his nose, both wrists and around his left eye, areas of depigmentation and bruises on his hands and right shoulder, and abrasions and bruises on the right side of the thorax. The injuries could have been inflicted by a hard blunt object four to five days before the examination. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment (a)    The applicants’ complaints to a prosecutor 146.     On various dates in August, September and October 2005 the applicants and their relatives lodged several complaints with a prosecutor about the applicants’ ill-treatment by the ROVD officers. 147 .     On 17 October 2005 and 17 February 2006 respectively Mr   Agamerzayev and Mr Vitrigov complained about their unrecorded detention following their arrests. 148 .     On 22 and 25 October 2005 and 30 May 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr   Tuntuyev, finding his allegations unfounded. 149 .     On 26 October 2005 and 30 March 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Agamerzayev, referring to the report on his forensic examination of 19 October 2005 which stated that he had no injuries. 150 .     On 26 March 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Vitrigov, finding his allegations unfounded. 151.     The decisions contained no conclusions concerning Mr   Agamerzayev’s and Mr Vitrigov’s complaints about their alleged unrecorded detention. (b)    Inquiries ordered by the Supreme Court of Chechnya 152 .     On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya, examining the criminal case against the applicants (see paragraphs 157-158 below), ordered an additional inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of unlawful arrest and ill-treatment. 153 .     On 12 December 2006 the prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment. 154 .     On 7 March 2007 the Supreme Court again ordered an additional inquiry. It noted, among other things, that the prosecutor had failed to explain Mr Vitrigov’s injuries recorded in forensic report no. 208 of 16   September 2005. 155 .     On 26 March 2007 the refusal of 12 December 2006 was quashed as incomplete. 156 .     On 28 March 2007 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, finding that Mr Vitrigov’s and Mr Tuntuyev’s injuries could have been caused “as an act of revenge for them having committed a terrorist act and not necessarily with the aim of extracting confession statements”. Mr   Agamerzayev’s injuries could have been sustained before the arrest. The decision did not contain conclusions concerning the applicants’ complaints about their alleged unrecorded detention. The applicants’ trial 157 .     On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya found the applicants guilty on charges of terrorism, belonging to illegal armed groups, several counts of murder and assault against law-enforcement officers and unlawful possession of arms. The court relied on their confessions, dismissing the applicants’ complaints that they had been obtained under duress. 158 .     On the same date the Supreme Court of Chechnya issued a separate decision, in which it noted numerous breaches committed during the inquiry into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment. It noted, among other things, that the investigator had failed to explain the origin of the applicants’ injuries. 159.     On 25 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment, finding the sentences imposed too lenient. 160 .     On 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Chechnya again found the applicants guilty and sentenced them to seventeen, nineteen and twenty ‑ four years’ imprisonment. 161.     On 23 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment and dismissed the applicants’ subsequent appeals. Other relevant information 162.     On 30 January 2014 Mr Tuntuyev was transferred to correctional colony no. 7 in the Omsk Region to serve his sentence. There, he was characterised as a “persistent rule-breaker”. 163 .