CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 16 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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3C875DAE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s399ED93 { margin-left:5.67pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-weight:normal; 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 } .sF46BB404 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.17pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71EF2772 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.89pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.61pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sA3262D01 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:23.28pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.22pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sBBCF618B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.11pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.39pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCA386EC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7E837C60 { margin-left:1.97pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.83pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sFAD2C7CC { 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 } .s5AD55022 { margin-left:4.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .s319A263B { height:27.2pt } .sF50E7E28 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .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 } .s18A3BEB0 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sEBCD263B { height:28.6pt } .sE6705E45 { width:22.73pt; display:inline-block } .sE5AE5D7A { height:21.55pt } .s22155D7A { height:23.25pt } .s3BE4E78A { height:19.2pt } .s579A5D7A { height:28.45pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF MANSUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 4336/06 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 16 February 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mansurov 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.   4336/06 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 of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 26 January 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials between 2005 and 2012, and the alleged ineffective investigation in that regard, as well as other complaints under well ‑ established case-law. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various regions of Russia. A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. 3.     The Russian Government (“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. Mansurov v. Russia, application no. 4336/06 Alleged ill-treatment in May 2005 (a)    The events of 25-26 May 2005 5.     On 25 May 2005 at about 9 p.m. police officers of the Ustinovskiy District Police Department (ROVD) arrested the applicant on suspicion of armed robbery of a private apartment in cooperation with his accomplice K. The applicant was taken to a police department in Izhevsk where, according to him, officers beat him, causing injuries to his head and face, and the loss of several teeth. 6 .     On 26 May 2005 at 4.30 a.m. the applicant was taken to a hospital. According to a medical certificate issued by town hospital no. 7 in Izhevsk, he had bruises on his left eyebrow, left eye, chin, and left ear, and on other soft tissues of his face. A brain contusion and the loss of teeth were not confirmed. 7.     At 5.20 a.m. a doctor on duty informed the Police Department of the Interior (OVD) of Ustinovskiy District about the applicant’s injuries apparently caused by violence . 8 .     On 27 May 2005 the applicant was admitted to remand prison no.   18/1 in Izhevsk. According to medical notes of the remand prison, the applicant had bruises on the upper part of his head, left eyebrow and left eye. 9.     Between 3 and 23 June 2005 the applicant stayed in the surgical department of the prison hospital. (b)    Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 10 .     On 23 September 2005 the applicant complained of the ill ‑ treatment to an investigator. 11.     On an unspecified date the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 689, he had bruises on his head and face, caused by a hard blunt object. The injuries were classified as light harm to health. 12.     On 15 October 2005 the investigator issued a first refusal to open a criminal case. The refusal was quashed on 9 December 2005. 13 .     On 19 December 2005 the investigator issued another refusal to open a criminal case. According to it, the applicant was a suspect in the robbery of Ms G.G. The investigator interviewed Ms   G.G., who stated that following the robbery her husband, Mr   O., and her son, Mr R.G., had apprehended the applicant and had used physical force against him. She had seen blood on his face. When the police arrived, they had not applied any force against the applicant. Mr O. corroborated her statement. The investigator interviewed the officers who had arrived at the scene. They confirmed that the applicant had been apprehended by the victim’s relatives. 14.     On 17 March 2006 the Ustinovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal as unfounded. Alleged ill-treatment in June 2005 (a)    The events of 28 June 2005 15.     On 28 June 2005 the applicant was taken from the remand prison to the office of the Department for Combating Organised Crime (UBOP) in Udmurtia. According to the applicant, three officers forced him to make a confession in relation to other robberies, beat him on different parts of his body and squeezed his right thumb between the door and the frame. The officers insulted him in relation to his non-Russian origin and threatened him with rape. 16.     The applicant was taken back to the remand prison. No records of injuries were made in the medical documents of the remand prison. 17 .     On 5 July 2005, within the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to forensic report no. 6656, the applicant had scratches on his arms and legs, and an injured right thumb. The injuries had been caused by a hard blunt object within a week before the examination. (b)    Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 18.     On 23 September 2005 the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment. 19 .     Between October 2005 and March 2006 the investigators issued six decisions, refusing to open a criminal case for the absence of evidence of a crime. All decisions were quashed as incomplete. 20 .     On 14 April 2006 the investigator issued the latest refusal to open a criminal case. He found that at the end of June 2005 the applicant had indeed been transferred from the remand prison to the UBOP. Referring to the explanations of police officers, who had denied the use of force against the applicant, the investigator found his allegations of ill-treatment unsubstantiated. 21.     On 15 May 2006 the Industrialnyy District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the refusal, referring to his conviction of 22   February 2006. Relevant information from the criminal proceedings against the applicant 22.     On 22 February 2006 the Ustinovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of robbery. On 18 July 2006 the Supreme Court of Udmurtia quashed the judgment on procedural grounds. 23.     On 13 December 2006 the Ustinovskiy District Court convicted the applicant. During the proceedings, Ms G.G. testified that on 25 May 2005 the applicant and Mr   K. had burgled her flat. After they had run out of the flat, she had seen the applicant being apprehended on the street by her husband and son. 24 .     Mr R.G. and Mr O. testified that on 25 May 2005 they had tried to enter their flat but the door had been locked. Then the applicant and Mr   K. had suddenly opened the door and run out of the apartment block. Mr R.G. and Mr O. had run after them but apprehended only the applicant. On the street they had tripped him and he had fallen to the ground. They had then tied his hands. The police arrived later on. 25 .     The police officers testified that by the time they had arrived at the scene, the applicant had already been apprehended and had blood on his face. No physical force had been used against him by the officers as there was no need. Conditions of detention in remand prison 18/1 in Izhevsk 26.     Between 26 May 2005 and 11 December 2007 the applicant was detained in various cells of the remand prison. 27 .     He submitted that he had to sleep in shifts with other detainees due to the insufficient number of beds in the cells. During the winter the window frame in the cell was not glazed, while the temperature outside fell below 40 o C. The shower facilities were made available once every twenty ‑ five days for five to eight minutes. Other detainees smoked in the cells, which caused the applicant discomfort on account of his asthma. The cells were infested with mice, rats and insects. The toilet was not separated from the main area of the cell and had no flush, causing an unpleasant odour. Gavshin v. Russia, application no. 49683/06 28.     On 14 and 16 January 2003 the applicant, a suspect in a murder case, was taken to the District Police Department in Arsenyev in the Primorskiy Region for questioning, after which he was released. 29.     On 17 January 2003 police officers again took the applicant to the police station for questioning, where he remained until 19 January 2003. The events of 19-24 January 2003 30.     On 19 January 2003 the applicant was released. He submitted that he had been arrested again when he approached his house and held at the police station for two days. The officers had beaten him, forcing him to confess. 31 .     On 21 January 2003 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 83, the applicant had abrasions on his nose, lips, lower jaw, right earlobe, right shoulder, wrist and hand, a scratch on his left palm, abrasions on the right side of his back, left shoulder blade and in the area of the first and second lower back spinal discs. The expert concluded that the injuries had been sustained one or two days before the examination. 32.     On 22 January 2003 the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up. On the same day he was questioned as a suspect. He submitted that he had not committed the murder. 33.     According to the applicant, on the night of 23 January 2003 the officers had again beaten him, forcing him to confess. 34 .     On 23 January 2003 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the temporary detention facility and diagnosed with a contusion of the ribs and a hematoma on the left side of the waist. 35.     On 24 January 2003 the applicant was interviewed again as a suspect in the presence of lawyer Ye. He confessed to the murder of four persons. 36.     On the same day, during the reconstruction of the events, the applicant reiterated his confession statements. 37.     On 24 January 2003 the applicant was charged with premeditated murder of two or more persons in an organised group. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment (a)    Refusals to open a criminal case 38.     On 14 July 2003 the applicant complained to a prosecutor of his ill ‑ treatment and stated that he had confessed under duress. 39.     On 17 July 2003 the prosecutor dismissed his complaint about the enforced confessions as unfounded. He ruled out any duress, finding that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the investigative activities. 40 .     On 17 and 25 July 2003 the investigator refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment, referring mainly to the explanations of police officers. 41 .     On 11 November 2005 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment, also referring to the explanations of police officers. On 15 March 2006 the refusal was quashed as premature. 42 .     On 6 April 2006 the prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case, reiterating the explanations of police officers. The prosecutor noted that the applicant’s medical documents were unavailable since they were included in his criminal case pending before the trial court. (b)    Judicial review of the inquiry (i)       First round of proceedings 43 .     On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant appealed against the refusal of 6 April 2006 before the Arsenyevskiy Town Court. On 31   October 2008 the court granted the applicant’s appeal against the refusal. It found the refusal unlawful since the prosecutor had not examined the applicant’s medical documents. 44.     On 22 January 2009 the Primorskiy Regional Court quashed the court decision of 31 October 2008. (ii)     Second round of proceedings 45.     On 30 April 2009 the Arsenyevskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 6 April 2006. It found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment unfounded. 46.     On 11 December 2009 the Primorskiy Regional Court quashed the court decision of 20 April 2009 since the applicant had not been notified about the hearing. (iii)    Third round of proceedings 47 .     On 30 April 2010 the Arsenyevskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 6 April 2006. It found that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been examined by a trial court and dismissed as unfounded. 48.     On 8 February 2011 the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld the court decision. The applicant’s trial 49.     On 28 June 2004 the criminal court proceedings started at the Primorskiy Regional Court. The applicant was tried by jury. During the proceedings he requested that the records of his interview as a suspect and the reconstruction record of 24 January 2003 be excluded as evidence because the self-incriminating statements recorded therein had been obtained from him under duress by police officers following his arrest. 50.     The court held that the applicant’s allegations that his confession statements had been given under duress were not based on facts and rejected his requests to have the impugned evidence declared inadmissible. 51.     On 15 April 2005 the Primorskiy Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 52.     In sentencing the applicant the court relied, among other things, on the records of his interview as a suspect and the reconstruction of 24   January 2003. 53.     The applicant appealed, arguing that his confession statements of 24   January 2003 had been obtained under duress. 54.     On 3 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the court judgment. Matyushin v. Russia, application no. 47794/06 Alleged ill-treatment on 26 August 2005 55 .     On 26 August 2005 at around 2 p.m. the applicant arrived at Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Ryazan in connection with the investigation of a crime, in which he was a suspect. According to him, police officers beat him in order to extract a confession. He participated in an identity parade, after which he was released. It follows from the case file that the applicant did not seek medical assistance following the incident. Alleged ill-treatment on 14 October 2005 56.     On 14 October 2005 at around 10 a.m. the applicant again arrived at Oktyabrskiy ROVD in connection with the same investigation. According to the applicant, the officers again tried to force him to confess. The applicant refused and the officers punched him on the head and torso and hit him on the nose with a heavy key ring, several times. He was released at 7   p.m. 57 .     On the same day, the applicant went to Ryazan town hospital no.   11. He was diagnosed with concussion and soft-tissue bruises, and a closed fracture of his nose. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment of 14 October 2005 58.     On 17 October 2005 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about the ill-treatment. 59 .     On 27 October 2005 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case for the absence of elements of a crime. He referred to the explanations of police officers, who had denied any use of force against the applicant. On 24   November 2005 the refusal was quashed as incomplete. 60.     On 5 December 2005 the prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case. The applicant challenged the refusal before the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Ryazan. 61 .     On 27 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claim and found the refusal unlawful and unsubstantiated. It indicated that the prosecutor had failed to establish the origin of the applicant’s injuries, and the timeframe of their infliction. It also referred to witness statements of the applicant’s mother and partner who had submitted that the applicant had no injuries prior to his visit to the ROVD on 14   October 2005. 62.     On 4 May 2006 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the court decision. It also found that the prosecutor had failed to explain the applicant’s presence at the police station for more than ten hours and to assess the actions of the police officers. 63.     On 4 September 2006 the prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case. Burobin v. Russia, application no. 17418/08 Background information 64.     On 27 April 2007 the applicant was arrested in Ryazan on suspicion of kidnapping and robbery. 65.     On 28 April 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed an investigator’s request to place the applicant in custody for lack of grounds. The applicant was released, having given an undertaking not to leave the city. 66.     On 25 May 2007 the applicant was charged with kidnapping, robbery and murder. The applicant’s detention on remand 67.     On 25 December 2007 the murder charge against the applicant was dropped. He was charged with kidnapping and robbery in an organised group. 68.     On 25 December 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, referring to the gravity of the charges, the organised nature of the crimes and the risk that the applicant would abscond and reoffend or interfere with witnesses. It also noted that the applicant’s accomplices were on a wanted list. 69.     On 17 January 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the court decision. (a)    Extensions of the applicant’s detention on remand 70.     On 18 February 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for the same reasons, finding that there were no grounds to apply more lenient measures. 71.     On 6 March 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the court decision. 72 .     On 24 April 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court again extended the applicant’s detention on the same grounds as before. The court also found that, before being taken into custody, the applicant had attempted to interfere with a witness. 73.     On 15 May 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the court decision. (b)    The applicant’s alleged unlawful detention on remand between 16 and 22   September 2008 74.     On 26 August 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 November 2008. 75.     On 16 September 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court quashed the court decision on procedural grounds. 76 .     On 22 September 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 November 2008. On 21 October 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the court decision. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint that his detention on remand between 16 and 22   September 2008 had not been based on a court order. 77 .     On 13 November 2008 the applicant was released on bail. Between 16 December 2008 and 17 March 2009 the applicant was under an undertaking not to leave the town. Alleged ill-treatment (a)    The events of 31 January 2008 78.     On 31 January 2008 at around 3.30 p.m. the applicant was taken from a remand prison to the Ryazan Investigation Department for an interview. 79.     According to the applicant, at 4.30 p.m. police officers took him out of the building, put him in a police car and drove away. In the car, the officers demanded that he confess to crimes. The applicant refused and the officers applied electric shocks to his thighs. The officers then took the applicant back to the investigator. 80.     At 7.30 p.m. the applicant was taken back to the remand prison. 81 .     On 1 February 2008 the applicant was examined by a prison doctor. According to his medical card, he had multiple spots on both hips, a skin rash ( петехиальная сыпь ) and contact dermatitis ( контактный дерматит ). (b)    Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 82.     On 7 February 2008 the applicant’s lawyer complained to an investigator about the applicant’s ill-treatment. 83 .     Between 20 February and 6 June 2008 the investigators issued four refusals to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime, referring to the explanations of police officers that no force had been applied to the applicant. 84 .     The applicant challenged the refusals before the Oktyabrskiy District Court. The Oktyabrskiy District Court quashed the refusals as incomplete, indicating that the investigators had not established the origin of the applicant’s injuries. 85 .     On 22 August 2008 the investigator issued the latest refusal to open a criminal case on the same grounds as before. The applicant did not appeal against it. Proceedings concerning compensation for unlawful prosecution and detention 86.     On 25 February 2010 all charges against the applicant were dropped for lack of evidence of a crime. 87.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation for unlawful prosecution and detention. He claimed 438,926.71 Russian roubles (RUB) (about 10,970   euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB   6,000,000 (about EUR 150,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 88 .     On 7 September 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court granted partly the applicant’s claims for pecuniary damage and awarded RUB   240,531.14 (about EUR 6,090). The amount covered the applicant’s legal fees and bail expenses in full. His claims for compensation for loss of salary and medical expenses incurred while in detention were granted in part. 89 .     On 28 April 2011 the Sovetskiy District Court granted the applicant’s non-pecuniary claims for unlawful prosecution and detention. The court found that his liberty had been unlawfully restricted between 28   April 2007 and 25 May 2007, between 25 December 2007 and 13   November 2008 and between 16 December and 17 March 2009, as a result of the applicant’s unlawful prosecution. 90.     The court granted him RUB 120,000 (about EUR 2,950) as compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 91.     The applicant did not challenge the court decisions. Vecherskiy v. Russa, application no. 31880/08 The events of 9 April 2007 92.     On 9 April 2007 at around 3.30 p.m. police officers of the Kirovskiy District Police Department in Astrakhan arrested the applicant on suspicion of murder. The officers twisted his arms and put him in a police car. 93.     The applicant was taken to the police station where, according to him, the officers handcuffed him and hit him on his head and body with rubber truncheons, and applied electric shocks, forcing him to confess. The applicant signed a confession statement ( явка с повинной ). According to his statements, he was beaten again later in the evening. 94.     On 10 April 2007 during a reconstruction of the crime the applicant reiterated his statements in the presence of a lawyer. 95 .     According to medical notes drawn up at a temporary detention facility on 11 April 2007, the applicant had bruises on his back and legs, and hematomas around his eye and on his chest. The same injuries were recorded in medical notes drawn up at a remand prison on 11 April 2007. The applicant explained that he had fallen down stairs. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment (a)    Refusal to open a criminal case 96.     On 18 April 2007 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about the ill-treatment. 97 .     On 19 April 2007 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case, referring to the applicant’s explanations that he had fallen down stairs. 98.     The applicant did not appeal against the refusal before a higher prosecutor or a court. (b)    Correspondence with the trial court concerning his alleged ill-treatment 99.     On 20 March 2008 the applicant complained to a presiding judge in his criminal case pending before the Kirovskiy District Court about the ill ‑ treatment. 100.     On 11 April 2008 the applicant complained to the judge that his complaint about ill-treatment had not been properly addressed in his conviction judgment of 3 April 2008 (see below). 101.     On 18 April 2008 the judge replied to the applicant that his complaint had been received after the pronouncement of the conviction judgment on 3 April 2008, and that he could raise his arguments in his appeal against the judgment. The applicant’s trial 102.     On 3 September 2007 the criminal court proceedings against the applicant started at the Kirovskiy District Court. The applicant pleaded not guilty. 103.     On 1 November 2007 the court convicted the applicant of murder. It relied, among other things, on his confession statement of 9   April 2007 and the reconstruction records of 10 April 2007. 104.     On 10 January 2008 the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the conviction due to evidence assessment errors and remitted the case for a new examination. 105 .     On 3 April 2008 the Kirovskiy District Court examined the case afresh. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The court relied on his confession statement of 9 April 2007 and the reconstruction records of 10   April 2007. Regarding his allegations of police ill-treatment, the court referred to the refusal to open a criminal case of 19 April 2007 and his explanations that he had sustained injuries after he had fallen down stairs. It sentenced the applicant to eight years’ imprisonment. 106.     The applicant appealed, arguing that he had confessed under duress. 107 .     On 22 May 2008 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded, similarly referring to the refusal to open a criminal case and his explanations about the origin of the injuries. Petrov v. Russia, application no. 15362/12 Alleged ill-treatment on 22 February 2011 108.     On 22 February 2011 at about 2 a.m. police officers of the Road Patrol Service ( патрульно-постовая служба ) in Saratov apprehended the applicant while he was robbing an ATM. They took the applicant to the Leninskiy Police Department (OVD). 109.     At about 7 a.m. the officers of the Patrol Service took the applicant to another police department. According to the applicant, at that department police officers suggested that he confess to several crimes. The applicant refused. The officers beat him, applied electric shocks and put a gas mask on him. The applicant signed a statement confessing to crimes ( явка с повинной ). He was held at the station until the following morning. 110.     On 23 February 2011 the applicant was taken back to Leninskiy OVD. The applicant confessed during an interview as a suspect in the presence of state-appointed counsel. 111 .     On 25 February 2011 he was taken to a temporary detention facility. A doctor on duty recorded the applicant’s injuries. According to medical certificate no. 149, he had abrasions on his left cheekbone, eyes, nose, ears, right temple, and bruises on his shoulders, legs, hands, buttocks, abdominal wall and breast. He was diagnosed with a closed brain injury. The applicant explained that he had been beaten by police officers. Criminal proceedings against the applicant 112.     On 11 July 2011 the Leninskiy District Court convicted the applicant of several incidents of robbery. He pleaded not guilty and stated that he had signed confession statements under duress. 113 .     The court relied, among other evidence, on the applicant’s confession statement and records of his interview as a suspect of 22   February 2011. The court heard police officers, who had denied any use of force against the applicant between 22 and 23 February 2011. It found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment unfounded. The interview record was admitted as evidence since he had been questioned in the presence of a lawyer, which ruled out any duress. 114.     On 1 December 2011 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the conviction. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal about the use of his confession statement allegedly obtained under duress, noting that he had been represented by a lawyer during the interview. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 115.     On an unspecified date the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment. 116 .     On 31 March, 20 May and 1 July 2011 the investigator refused to open a criminal case. The investigator referred to the explanations of police officers that no force had been used against the applicant, and to the explanations of the state-appointed lawyer that the applicant had given his confession statements voluntarily. 117.     On 19 July 2011 the Frunzenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 20 May 2011 as unfounded. 118.     On 10 August 2012 the investigator opened a criminal case into abuse of power by police officers. On 3 December 2012 the applicant was granted victim status. 119 .     It follows from the case file that on 5 March 2013 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 1119, the applicant’s injuries recorded on 25 February 2011 had been inflicted between 2 and 10 days before the examination. 120 .     On 23 July 2013 the applicant underwent another forensic medical examination, which confirmed his injuries recorded on 25   February 2011. According to act no. 226, it was impossible to determine the mechanism of infliction of injuries and its timeframe due to the lack of information. 121 .     It follows from the case file that on 6 November 2013 the applicant underwent additional forensic medical examination. According to report no.   140- ОКиКЭ , the applicant’s injuries on his face and forearms were unlikely to have been inflicted on 22 February 2011. The infliction of hematomas on his shoulders, buttocks, chest and abdominal wall on 22   February 2011 was ruled out. The injuries had possibly been inflicted before 22 February 2011. 122 .     On 10 November 2013 the investigator discontinued the investigation. The investigator referred to the statements of the applicant, police officers, and to the applicant’s medical documents concluding that he had sustained injuries prior to his arrest. He also referred to the conviction of 11 July 2011 that following the applicant’s arrest no breaches of criminal procedure had been established. Zabiyaka v. Russia, application no. 71716/14 123.     On 25 October 2012 the applicant was arrested in the city of Kholmsk of the Sakhalin Region on suspicion of a crime. Alleged ill-treatment between 21 and 28 December 2012 124.     On 21 December 2012 the applicant was transferred from a remand prison to a temporary detention facility in Kholmsk. 125 .     Between 21 and 28 December 2012 the officers of the temporary detention facility handcuffed the applicant to his bed every night from 9   p.m. to 9 a.m. According to the applicant, he was tightly handcuffed by both hands to a metal grid of the bed . Throughout the nights his hands and fingers were freezing and he felt acute pain. He submitted that the officers had laughed at him. He could not sleep because the cell was unheated and he could not cover himself with a blanket. When he asked for water, the officers would tell him to wait until morning. He had to wait a long time for the officers to unfasten him when he needed to go to the toilet. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 126.     On 13 January 2013 the applicant complained to an investigator about the excessive use of handcuffs, alleging that it amounted to ill ‑ treatment. 127 .     On 18 February 2013 the investigator issued a decision refusing to open a criminal case. He referred to the explanations of the temporary detention facility officers that on 9 November 2012 the applicant had injured himself. He had been examined by a psychologist. The investigator referred to the conclusions of a report drawn up by a psychologist at the remand prison that the applicant presented a risk of suicide and self-harm and that he had attempted suicide in the past. The investigator concluded that the use of handcuffs had been lawful and justified. 128.     On 1 April 2013 the investigator issued another refusal to open a criminal case with similar reasoning. 129.     On 22 May 2014 the Kholmskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal of 18   February 2013 as unfounded. On 7 July 2014 the Sakhalin Regional Court upheld the court decision in this respect. The applicant’s detention on remand 130 .     On 26 October 2012 the Kholmskiy Town Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, which was extended until 12   August   2014, the date of his conviction. Sitdikov v. Russia, application no. 23379/13 131.     On 13 January 2012 police officers of the Ministry of the Interior in Tatarstan arrested the applicant on suspicion of a crime. The applicant was placed in custody. Alleged ill-treatment on 2 March 2012 132.     On 2 March 2012 he was taken from a temporary detention facility to the office of the Centre against Extremism of the Republic of Tatarstan ( ЦПЭ МВД по РТ ). 133.     According to the applicant, the officers handcuffed him, hit his head against a metal safe, twisted his arms and put him on the floor. One of the officers pushed him in the back, causing acute pain. The officers insulted him and threatened to kill his relatives. 134 .     At about 6.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to hospital. According to his medical card no. 125499, he had bruises on his forehead, temples, an abrasion on his left shoulder and pain in the spine area. 135 .     At 9.20 p.m. the applicant was taken to a remand prison. He was examined by a nurse. According to her report no. 4/22, he had a deep abrasion of 2-3 mm on his forehead, hematomas over his eyebrows, an abrasion on his left shoulder and linear marks on both wrists. 136 .     On 13 March 2012 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 1765/1611 he had bruises and abrasions on his forehead and right elbow, inflicted by a hard, blunt object within ten days before the examination. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 137.     On an unspecified date the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment. 138 .     On 13 April 2012 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, mainly referring to the explanations of police officers that the applicant had injured himself. They explained that in the office the applicant had hit himself against a metal safe and resisted their orders to calm down. They had to put him to the floor and handcuff him to overcome his resistance. After an incident he had been taken to hospital. The investigator referred to the forensic report and concluded that it confirmed the police officers’ explanations about the applicant’s self-inflicted injuries. 139.     On 10 August 2012 the Vakhitovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal as unfounded. 140.     On 2 October 2012 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan upheld the court decision. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 141.     For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin   v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia , no.   13642/06, §§ 48 ‑ 52, 14 November 2013. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 142.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION 143.     The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. Mr Vecherskiy complained only under the substantive limb of Article   3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated. Mr Matyushin and Mr   Sitdikov also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of the Convention provisions read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 144.     Regarding Mr Mansurov, the Government submitted that it could not be established “beyond reasonable doubt” that on 25 and 26   May 2005 he had been subjected to police ill-treatment. They submitted that the applicant had been apprehended by the victim’s relatives on the street and that he had had injuries by the time the police had arrived. The applicant complained only in September 2005, four months after the alleged ill ‑ treatment, which cast doubt on the credibility of his allegations. The Government stated that the applicant’s allegation was manifestly ill ‑ founded. 145.     In the case of Mr Gavshin, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by the time he lodged his application before the Court. They pointed out that the applicant had challenged the refusal to open a criminal case before the court about two years after lodging an application. 146.     Regarding Mr Burobin, the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to challenge the latest refusal of 22 August 2008. He had therefore failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 147.     In the case of Mr Vecherskiy, in answering the Court’s question as to whether the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint about ill-treatment, the Government submitted that the applicant had not appealed against the refusal of 19 April 2007. However, he raised the arguments before the trial and appellate courts, and the courts dismissed them. The Government considered that the investigative authorities and domestic courts had thoroughly examined his allegations of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant therefore exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint of ill-treatment. The Government did not raise any objections concerning the admissibility of the complaint. 148.     Mr Mansurov, Mr Gavshin and Mr Burobin maintained their complaints. The Court’s assessment (a)    Mr Mansurov 149.     The Court observes that between 9 p.m. on 25 May 2005 and 4.30   a.m. on 26 May 2005 the applicant sustained injuries to his face. His allegation that he had lost several teeth was not confirmed (see paragraph   6 above). 150.     Four months later the applicant complained that he had been ill ‑ treated by the police following his arrest (see paragraph 10 above). The applicant did not explain why he had not complained about the ill ‑ treatment earlier. 151.     During the inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment and the criminal court proceedings against the applicant, the police officers consistently claimed that on 25 May 2005 he had been apprehended by Ms G.G.’s relatives following the robbery and that he already had injuries to his face when they arrived at the scene (see paragraphs 13 and 25 above). Ms   G.G., Mr   R.G. and Mr O. corroborated the officers’ statements. Ms   G.G. also submitted that she had seen blood on the applicant’s face when he was held by her son and husband (see paragraphs 13 and 24 above). 152.     In these circumstances, it is clear that the whole set of events did not “lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities” (see Pihoni v. Albania , no. 74389/13, § 81, 13   February   2018). Although the applicant’s injuries were well ‑ documented following his arrest without a significant delay, it could not be established “beyond reasonable doubt” that he had sustained injuries due to police ill ‑ treatment. There were strong indications in the case materials that the injuries sustained by the applicant mig