CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 27 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8C49A017 { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E1F8B46 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3B2F4E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sB3F3E90E { margin-left:5.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s18E9ECD9 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB9C4D1BF { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s42A05D7A { height:27.15pt } .s774AA7CD { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .s6996B568 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #0072bc; vertical-align:top } .s319A263B { height:27.2pt } .sCF630DE8 { border-top:0.75pt solid #0072bc; border-right:0.75pt solid #0072bc; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .sEE591B3C { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sC6E95D7A { height:26.55pt } .s79C2263B { height:21.4pt }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF MININ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 29120/06 and 8 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 27 July 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Minin 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.   29120/06 and 8 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 nine Russian nationals (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicants’ alleged ill ‑ treatment by law-enforcement officers and the lack of effective investigation therein and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants by law ‑ enforcement officers during arrest and custody, and the Russian authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into the complaints about such ill-treatment. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are Russian nationals who were arrested on various dates between 2004 and 2012 on suspicion of having committed crimes in different Russian regions. The applicants’ details and their representatives’ details are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the 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 relevant facts in respect of each application, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. MININ v . RUSSIA, N o . 29120/06 The events of 15 December 2004 5 .     On 15 December 2004 at around 5 a.m. officers of the Sovetskiy police station of Kurgan ( ОМ Советский УВД г. Кургана ) arrested the applicant while he was attempting to rob a shop. During his arrest the applicant fired several shots from a sawn-off shotgun at the police officers who were carrying out the arrest (injuring one of them), and then dropped the gun and attempted to escape. According to both the applicant and the Government, in the course of the arrest one of the police officers knocked the applicant off his feet, put a knee between his shoulder blades, twisted his arms behind his back and placed handcuffs around his wrists. The applicant was then taken to a police car where, once inside (according to his version of events), the police officers struck him on the head and body. According to the applicant (who did not provide any specific details) the beatings continued at the Sovetskiy police station. 6 .     At 6.50 p.m. on the same date the applicant was taken to the Kurgan Emergency Care Hospital ( БСМП г. Кургана ), where he was examined by a doctor. According to his medical file, the applicant had soft-tissue bruises on his face and a closed fracture of the ninth rib on the left. 7 .     At 11 p.m. the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention facility (IVS) at the Kurgan Directorate of Internal Affairs. On 16   December 2004 at 12.30 a.m. he was examined by a paramedic, who recorded the following injuries in the IVS logbook: soft ‑ tissue bruises on the face and head, bruises on the back and hips, and a fractured rib on the left side. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 8 .     On 16 December 2004 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention and transferred to Kurgan Region Remand Prison IZ-45/1. Upon his arrival at the remand prison the applicant was examined by a member of the medical staff, who recorded the following injuries in the logbook: contusions in the interscapular and lumbar regions, a contusion of the soft tissues around the right eye and an abrasion on the forehead. 9.     On the same date the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigating authorities regarding his ill-treatment by the police officers of the Sovetskiy police station. 10 .     On 11 January 2005 an investigating officer ordered a forensic medical examination. According to expert report no. 207 of 14   January 2005, the applicant had soft-tissue bruises on the face and closed fractures of the eighth and ninth ribs on the left, all caused by a blunt hard object. The expert concluded that as a result of the described fractures the applicant had suffered damage of medium severity to his health, but noted that it was impossible to establish the time of their infliction. 11 .     On 4 February 2005 and 6 April 2005 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation following the complaint lodged by the applicant. He concluded that the applicant could have been either injured in the course of his arrest or beaten by his acquaintances before the attempted robbery. At the same time the investigating officer held that the police officers had not applied any physical force to the applicant. Both refusals were later quashed by a higher investigating authority on unspecified dates. 12 .     On 5 September 2005 the investigating officer opened a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. On 19   October 2005 the applicant was accorded the status of injured party in the criminal proceedings. 13 .     According to additional expert report no. 7923 dated 27   October 2005, at the material time the applicant had closed fractures of the eighth and ninth ribs on the left side that had been inflicted by a blunt hard object; the injuries were classified as having caused damage to the applicant’s health of medium severity. The expert also noted in the report that on 17 December 2004 the applicant had undergone another medical examination. According to the respective medical certificate, he had a contusion in the interscapular region that had been inflicted by a blunt hard object some time within the twenty-four hours preceding the examination, a contusion around his right eye inflicted by a blunt hard object some time within the forty-eight hours preceding the examination, and soft-tissue bruises in the lumbar region and abrasions on his forehead. The expert concluded that the described injuries could not be classified constituting damage to the applicant’s health and noted that the medical documents did not contain any information attesting to their having been caused by the applicant “falling from his own height” ( при падении с высоты собственного роста ). 14 .     On an unspecified date the investigating officer interviewed the medical expert. The latter asserted that the closed fractures of the eighth and ninth ribs could have been inflicted during the applicant’s arrest, when one of the police officers had knocked him off his feet and pushed him down to the ground with a knee. 15 .     On 19 December 2005 the investigating officer suspended the criminal investigation owing to a lack of suspects. In the respective decision he concluded that the applicant could have been injured before being taken to the police station – that is to say either in the course of his arrest by the police officers or while being escorted to the police station. To verify the latter version, it had been necessary to interview Z., one of the police officers who had escorted the applicant to the police station. However, Z.’s examination was no longer possible, as on 26 August 2005 he had died. On an unspecified date the decision to suspend the criminal investigation was quashed. 16 .     On 18 May 2010 the investigating officer ordered another forensic expert examination. According to expert report no. 335 of 31 May 2010, the closed fractures of the eighth and ninth ribs and the bruise around the right eye could have been inflicted on the applicant in the circumstances described by the police officers who had performed his arrest. 17 .     The criminal investigation was later suspended on 16 July 2010 and 31   January, 29 March and 20 September 2011. It appears that no other procedural decisions were taken after that. The applicant’s trial 18.     On 25 August 2005 the Kurgan Regional Court in a jury trial convicted the applicant of attempted robbery, illegal possession of firearms and an armed assault on a police officer. 19.     On 10 March 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that the issue related to the lawfulness of the physical force applied to the applicant by the police officers after his arrest was not subject to examination during the course of the proceedings related to the applicant’s criminal case. YEROSHENKO v . RUSSIA, N o . 2378/08 The events of 23 and 24 November 2006 20.     On the night of 23 and 24 November 2006 police officers of the organised crime unit of the Orenburg Region ( УБОП Оренбургской области ) arrested the applicant near the settlement of Akbulak in the Orenburg Region. According to the applicant, during his arrest the police officers beat him and strangled him with a cord. He was then taken to the Akbulak police station where, according to his version of events, the police officers continued to beat him and attempted to rape him with a rubber stick ( резиновая палка ). 21.     On 24 November 2006 at 8.05 a.m. an investigating officer drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest. At about 8 or 9 a.m. the applicant was placed in the police station’s IVS. Later the applicant was taken to the investigating officer for questioning, informed his lawyer of his ill ‑ treatment by the police officers and asked to see a doctor. 22 .     On the same date at 11.10 a.m. the applicant was taken to the Akbulak Central District Hospital ( Акбулакская ЦРБ ), where he underwent an X-ray examination and was hospitalised in a surgical unit. The applicant was diagnosed with closed craniocerebral injury, concussion and blunt trauma to the right eye. Moreover, the applicant (according to his medical file) upon arrival had a major contusion on his face, abrasions on both forearms and a bruise on the right side of the thorax. The applicant remained an inpatient at the hospital until 4 December 2006. 23.     According to reports written by the police officers (all dated 24   November 2006), the applicant had resisted arrest and had attempted to escape, and the police officers had had to use physical force against him. The reports did not contain any description of the physical force applied. One of the police officers indicated in his report that the applicant had struck him several times. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 24.     On 4, 6 and 9 December 2006 the applicant complained of his ill ‑ treatment to the investigating authorities. On 13 December 2006 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a further complaint on behalf of the applicant with the Akbulak district prosecutor’s office. 25.     On 14 December 2006 the investigating officer interviewed the applicant and several police officers about the events of 24 November 2006 and ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. 26 .     According to the forensic medical examination act dated 18   December 2006, the applicant had the following injuries: a closed craniocerebral injury, concussion, contusions on the face and a bruise on the right side of the thorax (all inflicted with a blunt hard object) and abrasions on both forearms (caused by handcuffs). Those injuries were classified as causing damage of minor severity to his health. 27.     On 21 December 2006 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaint of 13 December 2006. On 26 January 2007 that refusal was quashed. 28 .     On 15 February 2007 the investigating officer again refused to open a criminal investigation. The investigating officer concluded that the applicant could have been injured in the course of his arrest. The investigating officer noted that according to the testimony given by the police officers who had carried out the arrest, they had had justifiable reason to assume that the applicant would be armed and had had to use physical force against him in order to overcome the vigorous resistance that he had put up. In particular, the police officers asserted that the applicant had hit one of them and had started to fight with another of them, and that in the process of the fight they (that is to say the applicant and the police officer in question) had collided with a car and fallen to the ground. The investigating officer concluded that the physical force applied to the applicant had been proportionate, given the circumstances of his arrest and the nature of the criminal offence committed. The respective decision also suggested that by complaining of ill-treatment the applicant had been attempting to avoid criminal responsibility for his actions. 29.     On 10 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (CCrP) with the Akbulak District Court of the Orenburg Region about the refusal of 15   February 2007 to open a criminal investigation. On 29 May 2007 the district court discontinued the proceedings because the applicant’s criminal case had been transferred to the trial court for examination. On 10 July 2007 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. 30.     On 27 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with a higher investigating authority regarding the refusal of 15   February 2007 to open a criminal investigation. On 13 August 2009 his complaint was dismissed. On 30 September 2009 the Sol ‑ Iletsk District Court of the Orenburg Region dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision. On 19   November 2009 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The courts noted that the investigating officer’s refusal of 15   February 2007 had been relied on by the trial court in the applicant’s criminal proceedings and could only be challenged together with the sentence imposed on 24   June 2008 (see paragraph 33 below). The applicant’s trial 31.     On 18 June 2007 the trial judge ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. 32 .     According to expert report no. 5387, dated 14 August 2007, at the material time the applicant had the following injuries: soft-tissue haematomas and a contusion on his face, and abrasions on the upper limbs which could have been inflicted by blunt hard objects and which did not cause any damage to his health. The expert also concluded that the diagnosis of concussion had not been confirmed by any objective data, and noted that the medical file did not contain any information about injuries to or in the area of the rectum. 33 .     On 24 June 2008 the Akbulak District Court of the Orenburg Region convicted the applicant of extortion. The court also rejected, inter alia , the applicant’s allegations that he had been ill-treated by the police officers. ALAYEV v . RUSSIA, N o . 44541/08 The events of 10 March 2006 34.     On 10 March 2006 at about 4 p.m. officers of the Nizhniy Novgorod regional department of the Federal Drug Control Service ( УФСКН по Нижегородской области – FSKN) wearing plain clothes arrested the applicant at his flat on suspicion of drug dealing. The applicant submitted that the police officers had introduced themselves as the gas company workers, forced their way into his flat, punched and beat him while holding both of his arms; he had then attempted to escape and call for help but had been brought back to his flat, forced to his the knees and handcuffed, after which the police officers had continued to beat him. 35.     Later in the evening, after a search of the applicant’s flat conducted from 5.15 to 6.25 p.m., the FSKN officers drew up a report on the use of physical force; in that report they indicated that the applicant had resisted arrest and that they had had to apply physical force and place handcuffs on him. 36.     During the evening of the same day the applicant was transported to the IVS at the Nizhniy Novgorod Region Central Internal Affairs Directorate, where he spent the night. 37 .     On 11 March 2006 at 10.40 a.m. the investigating officer interviewed the applicant as a suspect in the criminal case. At 3 p.m. the applicant was taken to Nizhniy Novgorod Region Remand Prison IZ-52/1. Upon his arrival, the applicant was examined by a doctor on duty. According to that doctor’s report of 11 March 2006 (addressed to the head of the remand prison) and a medical certificate issued on 13 March 2006, the applicant had a contusion around his right eye and two abrasions on his left forearm. 38.     On 13 March 2006 the applicant wrote an explanatory note to the administration of the remand prison in which he indicated that he had been injured during his arrest and that he had no claims against the remand prison. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 39.     On 21 March 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigating authorities regarding his alleged ill ‑ treatment by the above ‑ mentioned police officers. On 22   March 2006 his lawyer lodged a similar complaint. 40.     On 23 March 2006 the investigating authorities opened an inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The investigator interviewed some of the police officers who had arrested the applicant or who had arrived on the scene soon thereafter. 41 .     On 3 April 2006 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation. The refusal was based solely on the testimony of three police officers, who insisted that the applicant had resisted arrest and that they had had to use physical force against him, push him to the floor and place handcuffs around his wrists.   On 10 May 2007 that refusal was quashed by a prosecutor. 42.     On 14 May 2007 the investigating officer issued another similar refusal. 43.     The applicant lodged a complaint regarding the latest decision, and on 16 October 2007 the Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod ruled the refusal unlawful on procedural grounds. On 7   December 2007 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed the first ‑ instance decision and sent the applicant’s complaint back to the district court for a fresh examination. 44.     On 10 January 2008 the Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod dismissed the applicant’s complaint. On 4 March 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant’s trial 45.     On 27   March 2006, upon the investigating officer’s request, the remand prison issued the description of the injuries identified on the applicant’s body upon his arrival on 11 March 2006 (see paragraph 37 above). 46.     On 4 April 2006 the investigating officer ordered a forensic medical examination. 47 .     On 13 April 2006 the applicant underwent an X-ray examination. On 14 April 2006 the radiologist concluded that the applicant had a nasal-bone fracture. 48 .     According to expert report no. 982 of 26 April 2006, the applicant was missing four teeth on his upper jaw on the right-hand side, but their roots were still in their sockets; he also had two unconsolidated fractures of the nasal bones and frontal process of the maxilla, contusions on the face, and abrasions on the left forearm. The expert classified the contusions on the face, abrasions on the left forearm and one of the nasal-bone fractures as constituting minor-severity damage to the applicant’s health and concluded that they had been caused by blows with blunt objects (probably in the form of kicks and punches). The expert could not rule out the possibility that those injuries had been inflicted on 10 March 2006. The other fracture was classified as constituting medium-severity damage (also caused by a blunt object). The expert also concluded that the fracture could have been inflicted between two and three weeks before the X-ray examination. It was impossible to establish the exact time when the applicant had lost his upper teeth. 49.     On 3 May 2006 the investigating officer separated the case-file material concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment from his case file and transferred it to the investigating authorities for a separate inquiry. 50.     In mid-May 2006 the applicant’s trial began. During the trial the Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod questioned, inter alia , the police officers who had performed the applicant’s arrest. The latter testified that the applicant had resisted arrest and they had had to hold his hands in a “hammerlock” and place handcuffs around his wrists, and that the applicant had fallen to the floor several times during his arrest. 51.     On 3 July 2006 the Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod convicted the applicant of several criminal offences. When passing sentence the district court found that the police officers had not committed any violations in the course of the applicant’s arrest, that they had used physical force in order to prevent the applicant from fleeing and destroying the evidence, that the applicant had vigorously resisted arrest and that the measures applied to him had been proportionate. 52.     On 15 September 2006 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld his conviction. Other relevant information 53 .     On 15 January 2014 the applicant died. 54.     On 22 December 2017 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that his brother, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Alayev, had expressed his wish to maintain the application. 55.     On 11 February 2020 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that they had lost contact with the applicant’s brother. However, the applicant’s widow, Mrs Nina Fedorovna Alayeva expressed her wish to maintain the application and to pursue it before the Court in her late husband’s stead. KONOVALOV v . RUSSIA, N o . 46231/09 The events of 20 August 2008 56.     On 20 August 2008 at about 3 p.m. police officers of a special unit of the criminal police ( ОМСН КМ УВД по Оренбургской области ) arrested the applicant in the street in Orsk, Orenburg Region, on suspicion of drug dealing. The arrest was carried out within the context of an undercover surveillance operation ( наблюдение ). The police officers who performed the arrest were wearing uniform and masks. According to the applicant, during the arrest they forced him to the ground, put a t-shirt over his head, forced him into a car and beat him. 57.     Later the same day, the applicant was taken to the Leninskiy District police station of Orsk ( ОВД по Ленинскому Району МО г. Орск ). At 6   p.m. the investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest and ordered that he undergo a forensic medical examination. 58 .     On 21 August 2008 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. According to expert report no. 3356 of 1 September 2008, the applicant had multiple contusions and abrasions on his face, various parts of his body, legs and arms, as well as soft-tissue bruises on the head. The expert concluded that those injuries had been inflicted within less than twenty-four hours before the applicant’s examination by blunt hard objects, but that they had not caused any damage to his health. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 59.     On 10 September 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigating authorities regarding his alleged ill-treatment. 60.     On 22 September 2008 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation regarding the applicant’s complaint. 61.     The applicant lodged a complaint and on 22   October 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk declared the refusal unlawful. The Orenburg Regional Court later quashed the first-instance judgement and found that the applicant’s complaint should be examined by the first ‑ instance court in the applicant’s criminal case. 62 .     On 27 November 2009 the investigating officer again issued a refusal to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment. The investigating officer found that the police officers had used physical force and handcuffs to overcome the applicant’s resistance and to prevent him from fleeing. The refusal referred, inter alia , to (i) the fact that the applicant had been arrested in the course of committing a crime, (ii) the testimony of a police officer, who had explained that he and his fellow officers had laid the applicant down on the ground, twisted his arms behind his back and handcuffed him, and (iii) the applicant’s prior conviction for unlawful arms possession, which had given the police officers justified reasons to assume that the applicant could have been armed. The investigating officer also referred to expert report no. 3356 and noted that the applicant had not sustained any damage to his health. The refusal also cited the testimony given by two other police officers, according to whom the applicant had not offered any resistance during his arrest but had made one movement that could have been interpreted as an attempt to escape, after which physical force had been applied to him. 63.     The applicant again challenged the refusal to open a criminal investigation. On 4 May 2010 the Orenburg Regional Court, in the final instance, upheld the refusal holding that it had been issued by a proper authority, and that in the course of the inquiry the investigating officer had taken all actions necessary for the examination of the applicant’s claim of ill-treatment. The applicant’s trial 64.     On 17 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk convicted the applicant of possession of drugs. On 24 February 2009 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld his conviction. The district and regional courts concluded that the physical force, as described by the police officers, had been lawfully applied to the applicant in order to overcome his resistance and attempts to run away, while the rest of the injuries identified on the applicant’s body, except for those caused by the use of handcuffs, had been inflicted under some other unclear circumstances. The courts also acknowledged that the police officers had failed to report the use of handcuffs during the arrest, but found that that fact did not render their report on the crime inadmissible. GROTUZIS v . RUSSIA, N o . 66227/10 The events of 28 and 29 December 2008 65.     On 28 December 2008 at 1.30 p.m. officers of the Krasnyy Kut Department of the Federal Drug Control Service in the Saratov Region ( Краснокутский УФСКН по Саратовской области ) arrested the applicant in the town of Novouzensk on suspicion of drug dealing. The arrest was carried out in the course of a “sting operation”, during which some of the police officers were wearing masks. According to the applicant, during his arrest the police officers knocked him off his feet and beat him. 66.     Later in the day the applicant was taken to the Novouzensk Railway Station, where the police officers searched him. He was subsequently taken for interrogation to the police station. According to the applicant, the police officers continued to beat him both at the railway station and at the police station. 67 .     On 29 December 2008 at about 8 p.m. the applicant was released and went to the Novouzensk Central District Hospital ( Новоузенская ЦРБ ). According to the medical certificate of 29 December 2008, at 10 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor and was diagnosed with multiple haematomas of the hips. 68 .     Later in the evening the applicant took photos of his injuries. The photos submitted by the applicant show a major contusion on the inner side of his right hip and a bruise on his right elbow. 69 .     On 30 December 2008 the applicant was admitted as an inpatient by the Novouzensk Central District Hospital. According to the relevant extract from his medical file, the applicant stayed at the hospital until 13   January 2009 and was diagnosed with a closed craniocerebral injury, concussion, multiple soft-tissue bruises on his body and limbs, and arterial hypertension. It appears from the extract that the applicant explained to the doctors that his injuries had resulted from his having fallen off the roof of his house on the evening of 29   December 2008. In his submissions to the Court the applicant clarified that he had given the doctors that story on the advice of his lawyer so that the hospital would not report that information to the police, as he had been afraid that they would put further pressure on him. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 70.     On 21 January 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigating authorities regarding his alleged ill-treatment. 71.     On 19 March 2009 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s complaint. On 23   March 2009 that decision was quashed by a higher investigating authority. 72.     On 10 July 2009 the investigating officer ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. On 18 July 2009 the investigating officer issued another refusal to open a criminal investigation, which was quashed on 26 November 2009. 73 .     According to expert report no. 238 of 19 November 2009, at the material time the applicant had multiple bruises on his left shoulder and left shin, which had been inflicted by blunt hard objects. The medical experts decided that the closed craniocerebral injury and concussion had to be excluded from the scope of the examination, as neither of the medical documents they had been provided with described any injuries on the applicant’s head. They also concluded that the rest of the injuries could have been inflicted in the circumstances described by the police officers who had performed the applicant’s arrest – that is to say when they had knocked the applicant off his feet to prevent him from fleeing. According to the medical experts, the applicant’s heart condition had no causal link with the injuries sustained on 28 December 2008. 74 .     On 19 February 2010 the investigator issued another refusal to open a criminal investigation, referring mainly to the explanations of the police officers and the expert report. According to the testimony of the police officers, one police officer knocked the applicant off the feet, twisted his arms behind his back and placed handcuffs on him when he had had offered resistance and attempted to escape. The investigating officer concluded that the physical force, as described by the police officers, had been lawful and that they had not exceeded their powers. 75.     Apart from the police officers’ testimony, the text of the refusal of 19   February 2010 also cited the testimony of other arrestees apprehended on 28 December 2008 and detained together with the applicant at the Krasnyy Kut police station. Two of them had claimed having witnessed the police officers beating and kicking the applicant, while several others had seen injuries on the applicant’s legs. However, the investigating officer concluded that the respective statements were not trustworthy in view of their friendly relations with the applicant and found that the applicant’s allegations about his being ill-treated at the police station were not corroborated by any evidence. 76.     The applicant appealed against the refusal of 19 February 2010. On 6   July 2010 the Krasnokutskiy District Court of the Saratov Region dismissed his complaint. On 1 September 2010 the Saratov Regional Court upheld that decision. The district and regional courts mainly relied on the reasoning of the refusal of 19 February 2010. TSYKALO v . RUSSIA, N o . 61817/11 The events of 29 September 2009 77.     On 29 September 2009 at about 4.30 p.m. officers of the special unit of the Orenburg regional department of the Federal Security Service in Orsk ( УФСБ России по Оренбургской области в г. Орске ) arrested the applicant on suspicion of bribery. According to the applicant, during his arrest the FSB officers punched and kicked him on the head and various parts of his body, and hit his head against a car. 78 .     At 5.58 p.m. on the same day the applicant underwent a medical examination. According to medical examination act no. 3913 of 30   September 2009, the applicant had abrasions on the right side of his forehead, on his right temple, on the left knee and on the back of the right hand, as well as a contusion on the right ear and soft ‑ tissue bruises on his left shoulder blade. The expert concluded that those injuries had been inflicted by blunt hard objects several hours before the examination but had not caused any damage to the applicant’s health. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 79.     On 25 December 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint about his ill ‑ treatment with the investigating authorities. 80 .     On 12 March 2010 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. According to expert report no. 935, dated 19 October 2010, on the date of his examination the applicant had had multiple brownish stains on the right side of his forehead, on the front of his head, on the right and left sides of his back, on the back of both of his wrists and hands, and on his left shin. The expert concluded that those injuries had been caused by a blunt hard object between five and six months before the applicant’s examination and had not caused any damage to the applicant’s health. 81 .     On 7 April 2011, following the applicant’s complaint, the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation. According to the testimony of the FSB officers cited in the refusal, during the arrest one of them had had to hold the applicant by his right hand and push him to the ground to prevent him from fleeing. The FSB officers had also asserted that after falling to the ground the applicant had refused to show his hands and that they had had to apply physical force in order to be able to handcuff him. The investigating officer concluded that the applicant’s injuries had resulted from his having resisted, and that the FSB officers’ actions and use of handcuffs had been lawful. On 10 May 2011 that decision was quashed by a higher authority. 82.     On 16 May 2011 the investigating officer issued another refusal to open a criminal investigation. In addition to the testimony of the FSB officers, the text of the refusal also cited the testimony of a bystander, P., who had witnessed the applicant’s arrest. The latter attested to having seen one of the FSB officers holding the applicant by the neck and pushing his head against a car, after which another FSB officer had kicked the applicant in the crotch. According to P., throughout the described events the applicant’s hands had been behind his back. 83.     On 15   July   2011, upon the applicant’s complaint, the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court, in the final instance, upheld the refusal of 16 May 2011. It relied in its decision on the conclusions reached by the investigating officer and held that the physical force had been used against the applicant in order to overcome his resistance and had been proportionate.   PALATOV v . RUSSIA, N o . 10031/13 The events of 18 October 2009 84.     On 18 October 2009 at 11.40 p.m. the police officers arrested the applicant at his friend’s flat in Pskov on suspicion of robbery. According to the applicant, during his arrest the police officers hit him several times with a rubber truncheon on his left hip, and later, on their way to the patrol car, punched him one time in the chest. According to the applicant, in the car he also cut his own forearm with a razor blade in order to protest the police officers’ actions. 85.     Later in the day the applicant was escorted to police station no. 3 of Pskov ( 3 ГОМ УВД по г. Пскову ). 86.     According to a report submitted on 18 October 2009 by a police officer who had taken part in the applicant’s arrest, no physical force or special equipment had been applied to the applicant. 87 .     On 20 October 2009, upon his arrival at Pskov Region Remand Prison IZ-1, the applicant was examined by medical staff. According to the resulting medical certificate, dated 29 October 2009, the applicant had the following injuries: incised wounds on the left forearm, haematomas on the left hip and on the thorax on the right. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 88.     On 6 November 2009 the applicant complained of his ill ‑ treatment to the investigating authorities. 89.     On 9 November 2009 the investigating officer ordered a forensic medical examination. On 15 November 2009 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation. 90 .     According to medical examination report no. 2739, dated 26   November 2009, the applicant had a haematoma on the front of his hip that could have been inflicted on 18 September 2009 by a blunt hard object; that object had not caused any damage to the applicant’s health. 91.     On 12 March 2010 the refusal of 15 November 2009 was quashed by the Pskov Town Court. The investigating officer subsequently issued several other decisions refusing to institute a criminal investigation on, inter alia , 31   March, 25 August and 12 December 2010 and 8 June and 16   October 2011. All those decisions were subsequently quashed on various dates by a higher investigating authority. 92 .     On 5 October 2012 the investigating officer issued the latest refusal to open a criminal investigation. The refusal cited the testimony of a friend of the applicant, who attested to having seen one of the police officers giving the applicant several blows on the leg with a rubber truncheon. It also cited the statements made by the police officers, who had initially denied having applied any physical force to the applicant, suggesting that the applicant might have injured himself, as he had been drunk at the time of the arrest. However, the police officers later acknowledged that one of them might have jabbed the applicant with a truncheon after the latter had refused to get into the patrol car. The investigating officer concluded that despite the police officers’ failure to report any use of physical force or special equipment against the applicant, they had acted in a lawful manner when putting an end to the applicant’s criminal behaviour and overcoming his resistance. 93.     On 11   June 2013 the Pskov Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 5 October 2012. It found that the refusal to open a criminal investigation had been lawful, as the investigating officer had conducted a comprehensive inquiry into the applicant’s allegations by collecting all necessary evidence, examining all the relevant witnesses, providing a plausible explanation for the applicant’s injuries and concluding that the police officers’ actions had been lawful, given the circumstances of the arrest. On 5 September 2013 the Pskov Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal. NAKAGUTOV v . RUSSIA, N o . 42417/13 The events of 20 December 2012 94.     On 20 December 2012 at 10 p.m. police officers of police station no.   2 in Yekaterinburg ( ОП № 7 УМВД России по г.   Екатеринбургу ) arrested the applicant at his friend’s flat on suspicion of sexual abuse of a minor. According to the applicant, in the course of the arrest the police officers knocked him off his feet, placed handcuffs around his wrists and punched and kicked various parts of his body. 95.     After the arrest the applicant was taken to the police station, where he signed a confession, and was later taken to a medical facility, where he received emergency treatment. 96 .     On 21 December 2012 the applicant was examined by medical experts. According to expert report no. 12435 of 29 January 2013, he had the following injuries: contusions on the left cheekbone and left elbow; abrasions on the left hand, on the right side of the lumbar region and on the right hip; abrasions on the right wrist (probably inflicted by handcuffs); and intradermal haemorrhage on the right side of his back. The experts concluded that those injuries had been caused by blunt hard objects one to three days before the examination, but that they had not caused any damage to the applicant’s health. The official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 97.     On 1 February 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint about his ill ‑ treatment with the investigating authorities. 98 .     On 19 May 2013 the investigating officer refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. The investigating officer concluded that one injury on the applicant’s hands had been inflicted by his victim, while other injuries might have been inflicted by the police officers during his arrest. The investigating officer noted that the use of physical force against the applicant had been justified, given the circumstances of the arrest and need to protect the victim. He also referred to the fact that the police officers had provided the applicant with the requisite medical aid after his arrest, and suggested that the applicant could already have been injur