CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 juillet 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 } .s1B1D10B4 { 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 } .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 } .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 } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9CB19847 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s9AF62533 { height:2.65pt } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s319A263B { height:27.2pt } .s9AF62556 { height:2.35pt } .sF50E7E28 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC707261C { height:9.85pt } .s794E4588 { height:6.15pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF ORAZBAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 15367/07 and 3 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 July 2021         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Orazbayev 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.   15367/07 and 3 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 four 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 22 June 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applications concern the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment in police custody in Chechnya between 2002 and 2006, and the alleged ineffective investigation into the ill-treatment, as well as other complaints under well ‑ established case-law. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. 3.     The Government were represented initially 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   A.   Fedorov. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Orazbayev v. Russia (application no. 15367/07) Background information 5 .     On 30 April 2004 the applicant was arrested in Neftekumsk, Stavropol Region, on suspicion of unlawful possession of arms, of which he was convicted by the Neftekumskiy District Court on 26 November 2004 . 6.     On 17 November 2004 the applicant was charged with terrorism and belonging to illegal armed groups in Chechnya. On 19 November 2004 he was interviewed as an accused in the presence of Ms I.O., a lawyer. He refused to testify, relying on his right not to incriminate himself. Alleged ill-treatment 7.     On 19 November 2004 the Neftekumskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention during the investigation and authorised his transfer to Chechnya for investigative activities. The applicant was transported by officers of the Operational ‑ Search Division of the North Caucasus Operations Department of the Chief Directorate of the Russian Ministry of the Interior in the Southern Federal Circuit ( ОРБ-2 СКОУ ГУ МВД РФ по ЮФО    “the ORB ‑ 2”). (a)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 between 20 November 2004 and 25   January 2005 8 .     On 20 November 2004 the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility (“IVS”) at the ORB-2 in Grozny. According to him, on their way to the ORB-2, the officers handcuffed him and put a plastic bag over his head. In the IVS the officers beat him and demanded that he confess and sign documents. They handcuffed him to a radiator, punched and kicked him all over his body and hit him with truncheons, subjected him to electric shocks and suffocated him with a plastic bag. The applicant fainted on several occasions. The beatings continued until 23   November   2004. 9.     On 27 November 2004 the officers again beat the applicant, forcing him to confess. According to him, he was afraid of complaining to the authorities because of the officers’ threats of ill-treatment. 10.     On 25 January 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 1 in Grozny. According to his medical record of 25 January 2005, he had shrapnel scars. (b)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 on 10 February 2005 11.     On 10 February 2005 the applicant was taken to the ORB-2. According to him, the police officers beat him prior to an investigative activity so that he reiterated his confession. 12.     On 10 February 2005 at 10.30 a.m., during an on-site verification of his statements ( проверка показаний на месте ), the applicant reiterated his confession statements. He was represented by a lawyer, Mr S.P. 13.     On 16 February 2005 the applicant was transferred back to the remand prison. (c)    Alleged ill-treatment in the Shelkovskoy IVS between 11 and 21 July 2005 14.     In interviews of 25 May and 1 June 2005, the applicant retracted his earlier confessions, stating that they had been given as a result of ill ‑ treatment by ORB-2 officers. He also submitted that he had not complained to the authorities earlier as he had feared further ill-treatment. 15.     On 11 July 2005 the applicant was transferred from the remand prison to the IVS of the Shelkovskoy district department of the interior (“ROVD”). 16.     According to the applicant, on 19 July 2005 two officers of the Shelkovskoy ROVD beat him because he had retracted his confession. The officers demanded that he reiterate his initial confession during subsequent investigative activities. 17.     On 20 July 2005, during an on-site verification of his statements, the applicant reiterated his initial confession. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 18 .     On 21 July 2005 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the applicant undergo a medical examination. On 28 July 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert. According to report no. 759, the applicant had bruises on his body, a scar on the right side of his chest, and numerous linear scars on his back and lower legs which could have been sustained within two to three weeks before the examination. It was also stated in report no. 759 that the medical records at the remand prison indicated that the applicant had had no injuries on 16 February 2005 and 21 July 2005. 19.     In an interview of 10 August 2005, the applicant retracted his confession statement made on 20 July 2005 and complained that he had been ill-treated by police officers of the Shelkovskoy ROVD and the ORB ‑ 2. 20 .     On 12 August 2005 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the submissions of Ms V., a medical assistant at the remand prison, according to which she had examined the applicant on 21   July 2005 upon his admission to the remand prison. He had had thirty-one cuts on his body and, in particular, on his back and calves. The applicant had explained that the injuries had been inflicted on him by his co-detainees. The decision also contained the submissions of police officers of the Shelkovskoy ROVD and the ORB-2, who had denied having used force against the applicant. The applicant’s trial 21.     On 18 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya started examining the applicant’s criminal case. The applicant pleaded not guilty and submitted that he had made his confession statements during the investigation under duress. He complained that in November 2004 he had been transferred to the ORB-2 and had been held and ill-treated there for about two months. He also submitted that he had been beaten in the Shelkovskoy ROVD. 22.     On 11 November 2005 the Supreme Court ordered a prosecution inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 23 .     On 2 December 2005 the court heard Mr K.T., the applicant’s cellmate at the ORB-2. He submitted that in November 2004 he had been held with the applicant in the same cell at the ORB-2 for three days. The applicant had regularly been taken by the officers for interrogations at around midnight and then returned to the cell in the morning. K.T. had seen bruises on the applicant’s body. When the applicant had been brought back to the cell in the mornings, he had barely been able to walk or hold a bottle of water in his hands. K.T. also submitted that there had been no injuries on the visible parts of the applicant’s body, such as his face. Lastly, he submitted that it had been impossible to complain at the ORB-2 about the alleged ill-treatment because of the fear of severe reprisals. (a)    Refusal to open a criminal case of 2 December 2005 24 .     On 2 December 2005, as a result of the inquiry ordered by the trial court, a prosecutor refused to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime. It was stated in the decision, which is partly illegible, that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during the investigation were unfounded. A senior officer of the ORB-2 submitted that no physical force had been applied to the applicant and that he had not made any complaints to the authorities. (b)    The applicant’s conviction 25 .     On 28 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya found the applicant guilty of belonging to an illegal armed group and other terrorism ‑ related crimes. The court relied on, among other things, the confession statements he had made during the investigation. The court noted that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the investigative activities and found that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded, referring to the most recent refusal to open a criminal case. The court dismissed K.T.’s statements as unreliable. 26.     On 16 January 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on a subsequent appeal and dismissed the applicant’s complaints about the use of his confession statements and ill-treatment. Satabayev v. Russia (application no. 7927/08) The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment 27 .     On 5 March 2002 law-enforcement authorities carried out a special operation in the Oktyabrskiy district in Grozny aimed at identifying and arresting members of illegal armed groups. The applicant was arrested at 8.45 p.m. in the street. He was found to be carrying a gun. According to the applicant, he was severely beaten during his arrest. He was placed in the IVS at the Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (“the UVD”). 28 .     According to the applicant, police officers handcuffed him to a radiator and beat him with rubber truncheons on his back, legs and in the groin area, forcing him to confess to having committed acts of terrorism. The applicant’s arrest record was drawn up on 6   March 2002. (a)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 between 7 March and 13 April 2002 29 .     On 7 March 2002 the applicant was transferred to the ORB-2. According to him, officers punched and kicked him and hit him with plastic bottles filled with water. They induced suffocation by putting a gas mask over his head, administered electric shocks to his ears and fingers on his right hand. They burnt him twice on his back and once on his forehead with cigarettes. They left him hanging by handcuffs fixed to the door. Unable to withstand the pain, on 15   March 2002 the applicant signed the papers they gave him without reading their contents. 30.     On 13 April 2002 the applicant was transferred from the ORB-2 to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny. On 15 April 2002 the applicant was transported to the remand prison in the village of Chernokozovo in the Naurskiy District in Chechnya. (b)    Alleged ill-treatment at the Leninskiy VOVD between 20 and 22   May 2002 31.     On 20 May 2002 the applicant was transferred to the Temporary Department of the Interior of the Leninskiy District in Grozny (“the Leninskiy VOVD”). According to him, he was beaten there by police officers over a period of two days. 32.     On 6 June 2002 the applicant was taken back to the remand prison. 33 .     According to the Government, the copies of the official logs of the Leninskiy VOVD were destroyed following the expiry of the time-limit for their storage. (c)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 between 10 and 16 July 2002 34.     According to the applicant, on 5 July 2002 he was taken to the UVD from where he was regularly taken to the ORB-2 for interviews. 35 .     In an interview with an investigator on 10 July 2002 at the ORB-2 the applicant denied his involvement in the crimes of which he was accused and submitted that he had been ill-treated by ORB-2 officers. He identified two ORB-2 officers who were present in the room and who immediately beat the applicant up in the presence of the investigator. The investigator then left the room, and the officers put a gas mask on the applicant’s head and cut off the air flow, hit and kicked him on his body and also administered electric shocks to his ear and a finger of one of his hands. They continued ill-treating him in this way on 11, 12, 15 and 16   July 2002. On 16 July 2002 the applicant was taken back to the UVD. 36.     According to the applicant, he met his lawyer, Ms M.Ya., for the first time on 22 August 2002 during a detention hearing. (d)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 in September and October 2002 37 .     On 24 September 2002 the applicant was again taken to the ORB-2. The officers punched and kicked him on his body. The applicant was beaten because of his complaint of 2   September 2002 to the prosecutor about his ill-treatment (see below). The applicant’s ill-treatment continued until 27   September when he was taken back to the remand prison. 38 .     On 7 October 2002 the applicant was again transferred to the ORB ‑ 2. According to the applicant the officers ill-treated him until 9   October 2002, punching and kicking him, and beating him with rubber truncheons. They also strangled him and subjected him to electric shocks. Unable to withstand the treatment, the applicant signed the documents he had been asked to sign. On 11 October 2002 the applicant was taken back to the remand prison. 39 .     According to the Government, the copies of the official logs of the ORB-2 were destroyed following the expiry of the time-limit for their storage. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 40.     On 2 September 2002 the applicant complained to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office about his ill-treatment by officers of the ORB-2. (a)    Pre-investigation inquiry 41.     On 9 October 2002 a prosecutor issued a refusal to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime. The parties did not submit a copy of this decision. 42 .     On 11 October 2002 the applicant was examined by a doctor in the Chernokozovo remand prison. According to his medical record ( акт медицинского освидетельствования ), he had two bruises measuring 14   by 10   cm and 10 by 5   cm on his shoulders, a bruise measuring 7 by 4   cm on his right shoulder blade, and a bruise measuring 14 by 10 cm in the collarbone region. All of the bruises were a purple-reddish colour. 43 .     According to the Government, the medical records of the ORB-2 for 2002 were destroyed due to the   expiry   of the time-limit for their storage. 44.     On 25 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court which examined the applicant’s criminal case ordered his forensic medical examination. According to forensic medical act no. 2466 of 29 April 2003, the injuries indicated in the applicant’s medical record of 11 October 2002 had been caused as a result of blows with hard blunt objects within three days before the examination at the remand prison. 45.     On 2 July 2003 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant, dismissing his arguments of unlawful arrest and ill-treatment. On 8   December 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld his conviction on a subsequent appeal. (b)    Inquiry carried out following the applicant’s conviction 46 .     On 26 February 2007 the applicant’s mother lodged a complaint with a prosecutor about the applicant’s allegedly unlawful arrest and ill-treatment, enclosing a detailed account of the circumstances of his arrest and ill-treatment between March and October 2002 written by the applicant and a copy of the medical examination report of 11   October 2002. 47.     On 29 March 2007 the investigator requested, among other things, information from the Ministry of the Interior in Chechnya concerning the applicant’s arrest and ordered that the officers who had carried out his arrest be identified. He also requested information from the ORB-2 about the applicant’s detention in that facility. Similar requests were sent to the Leninskiy VOVD and Oktyabrskiy ROVD. 48 .     On 31 March 2007 an investigator refused to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime, referring to the submissions of a deputy head of the ORB-2 that no physical force had been applied to the applicant during his detention at the ORB-2. It appears from the decision that no significant information was received as a result of the investigator’s requests. 49 .     On 11 April 2007 the applicant’s mother complained about the refusal to open a criminal case to the Leninskiy District Court. 50.     On 9 July 2007 the court dismissed her complaint. It found that the applicant had already been convicted and that the circumstances of the alleged unlawful arrest and ill-treatment had been examined at trial. It also noted that the applicant’s mother had no standing to lodge a complaint on her son’s behalf. 51 .     On 28 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the decision of 9 July 2007 on a subsequent appeal. (c)    Inquiry carried out following the Government being notified of the applicant’s application to the Court 52 .     On 22 January 2013 the Government were notified of the applicant’s complaints. 53.     On 22 February 2013 a prosecutor quashed the refusal of 31   March   2007 and ordered a new inquiry. 54 .     On 6 April 2013 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, citing the submissions of a deputy head of the ORB-2 which were similar to those contained in the previous refusal. According to the decision, the applicant’s medical records from the Chernokozovo remand prison did not contain any information about the use of force against the applicant by police officers. The ORB-2 medical records and logs had been destroyed due to the expiry of the time-limit for their storage. The investigator further noted that the injuries mentioned in forensic medical report no. 2466 were “not considered as [entailing] harm to health ”. Finally, the investigator referred to the applicant’s conviction judgment of 2 July 2003, in which it was stated that the allegations of ill-treatment he had made during the investigation had not been made out. Chapanov v. Russia (application no. 16321/08) Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 (a)    Alleged ill-treatment on 14 September 2005 55 .     Late in the evening of 13 September 2005, a group of armed men in military uniforms without insignia arrested the applicant at his house in Shali in Chechnya. The applicant was taken to the ORB-2. During the night of 14   September 2005, the officers beat him on his head and body with plastic bottles filled with water, subjected him to electric shocks, suffocated him with gas masks, and burnt him on his back with cigarettes. 56.     In an interview as a suspect on 14 September 2005 at 2 p.m., the applicant confessed to having committed a robbery. 57.     According to the applicant, on 17 September 2005 the officers brought his pregnant wife to the police station and threatened to rape her if the applicant refused to give further confession statements. 58.     On 22, 28 and 29 September 2005 the applicant was interviewed as an accused and he confessed to having committed several large-scale robberies. He was represented by State-appointed lawyers. 59.     On 3 and 7 October 2005 during an on-site verification of his statements, the applicant reiterated his confessions. 60 .     On 10 October 2005 the applicant was transferred from the ORB-2 to remand prison no. 1 in Grozny. According to the remand prison medical records, the applicant had a scar below his ribs on the right side. (b)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 on 11 November 2005 61 .     On 11 November 2005 the applicant was taken to the ORB-2. According to him, officers again threatened him with further ill-treatment should he refuse to cooperate. They burnt his left forearm with a cigarette. On the same day, the applicant was transferred back to the remand prison. (c)    Alleged ill-treatment at the ORB-2 between 22 November and 1   December   2005 62.     On 22 November 2005 the applicant was again transferred to the ORB-2 where he stayed until 1 December 2005. According to the applicant, police officers interrogated him at night, threatening him with further ill ‑ treatment. 63 .     According to the remand prison medical records of 1   December   2005, the applicant had six cigarette burns in the scapula area. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 64.     On an unspecified date in November 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with a prosecutor about his ill-treatment at the ORB-2. On 5   December 2005 the applicant reiterated his complaint. 65 .     On 19 December 2005 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert. According to report no. 1344, the applicant had eight scars of 1   cm diameter each on his chest, right shoulder and left forearm. The scars had been caused by burns inflicted within one or two months before the examination, and could have been made by a cigarette. 66 .     On 23 December 2005 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, relying on the submissions of the ORB-2 police officers who had denied using any force against the applicant. As to his injuries, the investigator referred to the statement of the applicant’s cellmate at the ORB ‑ 2 that the applicant had injured himself with cigarettes. The applicant’s trial 67.     On 16 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya started examining the criminal case against the applicant and his co-defendants. The applicant pleaded not guilty and submitted that he had confessed as a result of ill ‑ treatment inflicted by ORB-2 officers. 68.     On 14 June 2006 the court ordered a prosecution inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. 69.     On 28 June 2006 the prosecutor quashed the refusal of 23   December   2005 in view of the court’s order. (a)    Refusal to open a criminal case of 7 July 2006 70 .     On 7 July 2006 the investigator refused to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime, referring to the submissions of the ORB-2 officers, who had denied the use of force against the applicant. (b)    Other relevant information from the trial records 71.     On 16 November 2006 the applicant’s cellmate testified as a witness at trial that he had not seen the applicant injuring himself with cigarettes. He submitted that police officers had ordered him under threat to say that the applicant had injured himself. The applicant’s cellmate had been taken to an office where he had reiterated what he had been told to say to an unknown person who had written it down. (c)    The applicant’s conviction 72 .     On 26 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment. The court relied, among other things, on the confession statements he had given during the investigation. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment as unfounded, referring to the decision of 7 July 2006. It also dismissed the applicant’s cellmate’s statement as unreliable and found that the applicant’s injuries had been self ‑ inflicted. 73 .     On 7 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on a subsequent appeal. Zulkarnayev v. Russia (application no. 30478/08) The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment 74 .     On 15 April 2006 a group of unidentified police officers arrested the applicant near his house in Soltovo, in the Volgograd Region. They put him in a car and drove away. They took the applicant to an unknown building, where they put a plastic bag over his head and handcuffed him to a radiator in a position which left him unable to stand upright or sit down. The officers who arrested the applicant told him that they belonged to the Main Intelligence Service (“the GRU”). The officers interrogated the applicant and forced him to sign papers the content of which he had not seen. On each occasion when his replies did not satisfy the officers, they hit him on his head. 75.     Shortly after he had signed the papers, the officers took him to the Volgograd Organised Crime Unit (“the Volgograd UBOP”), where they hit him on his head and neck and forced him to confess to terrorism-related crimes. 76 .     On an unspecified date in April 2006, the applicant was handcuffed to a radiator for the entire night. The applicant confessed to having committed crimes and signed papers given to him by the officers. 77 .     On 25 April 2006 the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up. He was taken to the IVS at the Nozhay-Yurtovskiy VOVD in Chechnya. The applicant was examined by a doctor on duty, who took note of bruises as well as cuts on his body. 78.     On 1, 3 and 4 May 2006 the applicant signed statements ( явка с повинной ) confessing to having unlawfully possessed arms, and having committed terrorist attacks, explosions and assaults on law-enforcement officials. 79.     In an interview on 17 May 2006, the applicant reiterated his confession. On 22 May 2006 the applicant retracted his confession and stated that it had been given under duress. 80.     On 29 May 2006 the applicant was admitted to remand prison no. 1 in Grozny. Between May and December 2006, the applicant was regularly taken to the ORB-2 and the Nozhay-Yurtovskiy IVS for interviews, where he was regularly ill-treated. 81.     According to a copy of the applicant’s medical records from the remand prison, which were mostly illegible, between May 2006 and 10   January 2007 no bodily injuries were recorded on him. 82.     In interviews on 8 August and 8 September 2006, the applicant retracted his confession. On 19 September 2006 the applicant reiterated his initial confession statements. 83.     According to excerpts from the ORB-2 logbooks, the applicant was held there from 8 to 21 September and from 25 to 27 September 2006. According to the applicant’s medical records from the ORB-2, he only had a scar on his left knee which had been sustained during his arrest in April   2006. The applicant’s trial and inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 84 .     On an unspecified date in 2007, the criminal case against the applicant was sent for trial to the Supreme Court of Chechnya. The applicant pleaded guilty in part, admitting to belonging to an illegal armed group but denying his participation in terrorist attacks. He retracted the confession statements he had given during the investigation in that regard. The applicant complained about his arrest on 15 April 2006 and his ill ‑ treatment at the ORB-2, the Volgograd UBOP and the Nozhay ‑ Yurtovskiy IVS. He submitted that the reason the officers of the different authorities had held him on their premises for so long had been to give his injuries time to heal. 85.     The applicant’s wife confirmed at trial that the applicant had been arrested on 15   April 2006, and submitted that on the following day police officers had searched their house and told her that her husband had been arrested because of his membership in illegal armed groups. 86 .     The applicant’s cellmates at the Nozhay-Yurtovskiy IVS and remand prison submitted that during his detention the applicant had had many bruises, a wound on his arm, and the other arm had been broken. They also submitted that the officers had repeatedly taken the applicant away overnight and when they had returned him, the applicant had been unable to walk. During the applicant’s detention at the remand prison, he had been ill ‑ treated on at least four occasions and he had had bruises on his body all the time. On one occasion the applicant had simply been thrown in the cell, he had been unable to move or eat and had had a severe headache. He had been hit with plastic bottles on his head. (a)    Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 87.     On 28 March 2007 the trial court ordered a prosecution inquiry into the ill-treatment to which the applicant, as well as several other persons who had been interviewed as witnesses in his case, had allegedly been subjected. 88 .     On 24 April 2007 a prosecutor refused to open a criminal case, finding, among other things, the applicant’s allegations unfounded. According to the decision, the applicant’s cellmates had been convicted and transferred to correctional colonies in other regions to serve their sentences and could not therefore be questioned. Officers of the Nozhay-Yurtovskiy IVS, seconded from other regions in Russia, had left Chechnya due to their secondments coming to an end. The prosecutor referred to medical records from the ORB-2 according to which the applicant had had no injuries apart from a wound sustained during his arrest. The ORB-2 officers denied using force against the applicant. (b)    The applicant’s conviction 89 .     On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicant as charged, relying, among other things, on his confession statements. The court dismissed the applicant’s and his cellmates’ allegations as unfounded and unreliable, referring to the refusal of 24   April   2007. The court found that the applicant had been detained on 15   April 2006 and ordered that his sentence be counted from that date. 90 .     Meanwhile, on 13 August 2007 the Zavodskoy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint that he had lodged in separate court proceedings against the refusal of 24 April 2007. The court found his complaint unfounded, referring to his conviction. 91 .     On 6 December 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on a subsequent appeal. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 92.     For the relevant domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, procedure for examining a criminal complaint and the rights of suspects, see Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48 ‑ 52, 14   November 2013); Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24   July   2014); and Turbylev v. Russia (no. 4722/09, §§ 46-49, 6   October   2015). RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL 93 .     The relevant part of the public statement of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation of 10 July 2003, reads as follows: “5.     One establishment stands out in terms of the frequency and gravity of the alleged ill-treatment, namely ORB-2 (the Operative and Search Bureau of the North Caucasus Operations Department of the Chief Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs in the Southern Federal District) in Grozny. ORB-2 has never appeared on any official list of detention facilities provided to the CPT. However, persons certainly are being held there, on occasion for very lengthy periods of time. In the course of its visits in 2002, the CPT received a large number of allegations of ill-treatment concerning this establishment which were supported in several cases by clear medical evidence gathered by its delegation. During the CPT’s most recent visit to the Chechen Republic, in May 2003, further allegations were received, once again supported in some cases by medical evidence. When the CPT re-visited ORB-2 in May 2003, it was holding 17 persons, some of whom had been there for several months. The persons detained were extremely reluctant to speak to the delegation and appeared to be terrified. From the information at its disposal, the CPT has every reason to believe that they had been expressly warned to keep silent. All the on-site observations made at ORB-2, including as regards the general attitude and demeanour of the staff there, left the CPT deeply concerned about the fate of persons taken into custody at the ORB. The CPT has repeatedly recommended that a thorough, independent inquiry be carried out into the methods used by ORB-2 staff when questioning detained persons; that recommendation has never been addressed in a meaningful manner. To argue that ‘a formal, written complaint is required for action to be taken’ is an indefensible position to adopt given the climate of fear and mistrust which currently pervades the Chechen Republic, and constitutes a dereliction of responsibility. The CPT calls upon the Russian authorities to put a stop to ill-treatment at ORB-2 in Grozny.” 94 .     For the CPT public statements concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation of 13 March 2007 and 24 January 2013, also mentioning the ORB-2 in Grozny, see Mukayev v. Russia , no. 22495/08, §§   60 ‑ 61, 14 March 2017. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 95.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 96.     The Government made a number of preliminary objections. Orazbayev v. Russia (application no. 15367/07) 97.     The Government questioned the date of 31 January 2007 as the date of introduction of the application form. 98.     The Court notes that the applicant sent his first letter alleging a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention on 31   January   2007. The Court requested the applicant to submit a duly signed and completed application form, which he did without undue delay on 15   August 2007. The Court therefore accepts the date of 31 January 2007 as the date of introduction of the application form and dismisses the Government’s objection as to the failure to comply with the six-month time ‑ limit. Satabayev v. Russia (application no. 7927/08) 99.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. They argued, in particular, that the applicant had not challenged the prosecutor’s refusal of 9 October 2002 before a court. Instead he had raised the issue before the trial court, which could not be regarded as part of the normal process of exhaustion in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The Government further argued that the applicant’s mother had complained of his ill-treatment in February 2007, that is, more than three years after his conviction. They argued that the decision of 28   August   2007 of the Supreme Court of Chechnya, in which it had dismissed the applicant’s mother’s complaint, could not be considered as a final decision, since she had had no standing to lodge the complaint with that court. As regards Article 5 of the Convention, they argued that the applicant did not raise the issue before the national authorities. 100.     Regarding the first part of the Government’s objection, the Court considers that it is irrelevant whether the conviction judgment of 2   July   2003 constituted a final decision for the purposes of the exhaustion of domestic remedies since, in any event, the applicant lodged his application with the Court more than six months after this decision. It remains to be ascertained whether the decision of 28 August 2007 of the Supreme Court of Chechnya can be considered as “final” within the meaning of Article   35   §   1 of the Convention and whether the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit. 101.     In this regard the Court observes that the applicant’s mother complained about his ill-treatment to the prosecutor three years after the applicant’s conviction. Contrary to the Government’s submission, she also complained about the unlawfulness of the applicant’s arrest (see paragraph 46 above). The Court notes that, despite this delay, after receipt of the complaint, the prosecuting authorities gave instructions to carry out investigative measures. They launched an inquiry, which resulted in a refusal of 31   March 2007 to open a criminal case (see paragraph 48 above). The Court notes that the domestic authorities did not consider investigative efforts to be manifestly futile in view of the time that had elapsed. The Court also notes that the applicant alleged systemic and serious ill-treatment and that he had been subjected to reprisals for attempts to denounce it earlier (see paragraphs 35 and 37 above). In the circumstances of the case, and despite the delay, the ensuing investigation must be taken into account for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Velikanov v.   Russia , no.   4124/08, § 44, 30 January 2014, contrast Finozhenok v.   Russia (dec.), no.   3025/06, 31 May 2011). 102.     The Court further observes that the decision of 31 March 2007 was subject to judicial review by the Leninskiy District Court. In its decision of 9 July 2007, that court did not question her standing. Rather, the court examined and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the applicant had been convicted and that the allegations of unlawful arrest and ill-treatment had been assessed at his trial and dismissed. On 28 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld that decision on appeal (see paragraphs 49-51 above). The Court reiterates that the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be held against the applicant if, in spite of his failure to observe the formalities prescribed by law, the competent authority has nevertheless examined the substance of the claim (see Markaryan v. Russia , no.   12102/05, § 45, 4   April 2013). 103.     Lastly, the Court observes that, following the Government being notified of the applicant’s complaint, in February 2013 the prosecuting authorities quashed the decision of 31 March 2007 and ordered a new inquiry into his alleged ill-treatment. The inquiry resulted in yet another refusal (see paragraphs 52-54 above). 104.     In view of the above, the Court finds that the decision of 28   August   2007 of the Supreme Court of Chechnya can be considered a final decision within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and that the applicant lodged his complaint about his unlawful arrest and ill ‑ treatment within six months following that decision. The Government’s objection as to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention and to comply with the six-month time-limit must therefore be dismissed. Chapanov v. Russia (application no. 16321/08) 105.     Firstly, the Government questioned the date of 7 February 2008 as the date of introduction of the application form. Secondly, they argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention, since he had not challenged the refusal of 23 December 2005. 106.     As to the Government’s first objection, the Court notes that the applicant sent his first letter on 7 February 2008. The Court asked the applicant to submit a completed application form, which he did without undue delay on 28 August 2008. The Court therefore accepts the date of 7   February 2008 as the date of introduction of the application form and dismisses the Government’s objection as to the failure to comply with the six-month time-limit. 107.     Regarding the Government’s second objection, the Court observes the following. On 23 December 2005 an investigator issued the first refusal to open a criminal case to investigate the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The applicant did not challenge that decision before a court. During the criminal proceedings, the trial court ordered a prosecution inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On 7 July 2006 the second refusal was issued (see paragraph 70 above). On 26 December 2006 the trial court convicted the applicant and rejected his ill-treatment allegations, relying on the refusal of 7 July 2006. The Court further notes that the Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s conclusions on appeal (see paragraphs 72-73 above). 108 .     Given that the prosecution inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment was ordered, examined and accepted by the trial court and later reviewed by the appeal court, the Court finds that the applicant made the domestic courts sufficiently aware of his grievances in respect of his alleged ill-treatment (see, in a similar context, Tangiyev v. Russia , no. 27610/05, §   39, 11 December 2012). Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies. Zulkarnayev v. Russia (application no. 30478/08) 109.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. 110.     The Court observes that during his trial, the applicant complained about his arrest and alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 84 above). On 28   March 2007 the trial court ordered an inquiry into his allegations, which resulted in a refusal of 24 April 2007 to open a criminal case. On 16   May   2007, shortly after the refusal was issued, the trial court, relying on it, convicted the applicant and dismissed his allegations of unrecorded detention and ill-treatment. The conviction was reviewed on appeal and upheld (see paragraphs 89 and 91 above). In such circumstances the Court finds that, similarly to the case of Mr Chapanov (see paragraph 108 above), the applicant made the domestic courts sufficiently aware of his grievances in respect of the alleged unrecorded detention and ill-treatment. Moreover, the Court notes that the applicant challenged the refusal of 24 April 2007 in separate court proceedings. His complaint was, however, dismissed with reference to his conviction (see paragraph 90 above). In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTI