CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .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 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s56A455C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s7DEBC00A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFB5995DC { width:179.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sA3C756B { height:54.05pt } .sFCAD2744 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; 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 } .sF24A1E6D { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s9576A132 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sEB017B78 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s42A05D7A { height:27.15pt } .s66FC9126 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A3215E1 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s7B9EDD38 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .s319A263B { height:27.2pt } .s8DAAE797 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .s2520E78A { height:13.8pt } .sCA254627 { height:68.6pt } .s9005D88E { height:66.55pt } .s392E6575 { height:37.95pt } .sE9DFD3E6 { 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; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top } .sDC2F0544 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF KOVAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 29627/10 and 8 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 October 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Koval and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peeter Roosma, President,   Dmitry Dedov,   Andreas Zünd, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   29627/10 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 an Uzbekistani and 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, the lack of an effective investigation thereof and other complaints under the Court’s well ‑ established case-law, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 14 September 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials between 2008 and 2011, and the alleged ineffective investigation in that regard, as well as other complaints under the Court’s well-established case-law. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are an Uzbekistani and Russian nationals who live in various regions in Russia. The applicants’ details and information about their representatives are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, the former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by his successor in that office, Mr. M. Vinogradov. 4.     The relevant facts in respect of each application, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. KOVAL v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 29627/10 The events of 14 and 15 May 2009 5 .     The applicant was arrested and convicted in the same criminal proceedings with Mr Yanchenko (see below, application no.   31414/10). On 14 May 2009 at about 6.10 p.m. three police officers arrested the applicant at the flat of his partner, G., on suspicion of robbery. According to the applicant, the police officers dragged him off the bed and beat him. Later in the evening, the applicant was taken to police station no. 3 in Engels, Saratov Region (3 ОМ УВД по ЭМР ), where, according to the applicant’s version of events, the beatings continued until 10 p.m. It also follows from the applicant’s account of events that the police officers applied electric shocks to his legs, and that he was barefoot and dressed only in his underwear throughout the entire period after his arrest. 6 .     On the same date, at 10 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Engels Town Psychiatric Hospital ( ГУЗ “Энгельсская психиатрическая больница” ) for alcohol testing. According to alcohol testing record no.   1986 of 14 May 2009, the applicant was barefoot and dressed in dirty clothes and had the following injuries: multiple abrasions on the lower limbs and a periorbital haematoma on the left side. According to the applicant, he was provided with some clothes just before being taken to the hospital. 7 .     The applicant was taken back to the police station, charged with the administrative offence of being drunk in a public place and, at around midnight, placed into a cell for administrative detainees where he spent the night. It appears from the material in the case file that on 15 May 2009 the applicant was convicted of that administrative offence. 8 .     According to the applicant, on 15 May 2009 at 8 a.m. the police officers continued to beat him and apply electric shocks to him. At 9.15   a.m. the applicant signed his confession statement ( явка с повинной ). 9 .     At 11.20 a.m. an investigating officer, V., drew up the record of the applicant’s arrest. At 11.35 a.m. she questioned the applicant in the presence of a lawyer. During the interview the applicant made similar statements as in his confession. 10 .     At 2.40 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Engels Town Emergency Care Hospital ( МУЗ “Энгельсская городская больница скорой медицинской помощи” ). According to the hospital’s response to the inquiry of the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region of 26   August 2009, the applicant had the following injuries at the material time: soft ‑ tissue bruises on the face and contusions on the head. 11 .     At 3.20 p.m. the applicant was transferred to the temporary detention facility ( ИВС ). Upon his arrival he was examined by a paramedic ( фельдшер ) who indicated the following injuries in the logbook: soft-tissue bruises on the face, contusions on the head and a haematoma on the left wrist joint. 12 .     On 18 May 2009 at 5.10 p.m., the applicant was transferred to IZ ‑ 64/1 Saratov Region ( ФБУ ИЗ-64/1 ГУФСИН России по Саратовской области ). Upon his arrival the following injuries were indicated in the logbook: soft-tissue bruises and contusions on the face and abrasions on the upper and lower limbs. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 13.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged his first complaint about his ill-treatment by the police officers. On 6 August 2009 the investigating authorities launched an inquiry into his allegations. 14 .     According to forensic medical examination report no. 1789 of 12   August 2009, at the material time the applicant had a haematoma on his forehead and a contusion near his left eye. The medical expert concluded that the injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects. 15.     On 16 August 2009 the investigating officer in charge of the inquiry refused to institute criminal proceedings. On 8 October 2009 that refusal was quashed. 16.     On 31 October 2009 the investigating officer issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant attempted to challenge that decision under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (“the CCrP”). On 18 November 2009 the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region refused to accept his complaint for examination as the applicant had already been convicted. On 3   February   2010 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision in cassation. 17.     On 25 November 2009 and 26 February and 4 May 2010, the investigating officer issued further refusals to institute criminal proceedings. On 24 May 2010 the refusal of 4 May 2010 was quashed. 18 .     On 3 June 2010 the investigating officer issued another refusal to open a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. In his decision the investigating officer relied, inter alia , on the testimony of one of the police officers who had carried out the applicant’s arrest. According to him, the applicant had been very drunk and had not put up any resistance during the arrest. The police officer denied having used any physical force against the applicant but acknowledged having used handcuffs in view of the applicant’s inability to walk in a straight line or talk. The refusal also cited the testimonies of G., who denied having seen the police officers use any physical force against the applicant, and V., who had noticed injuries on the applicant during his first interview and had asked him about their origin. According to V., the applicant had explained that he had hurt himself by accident. The investigating officer concluded that since the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence, the use of physical force by the police officers during his arrest had been lawful and justified. He also concluded that no physical force had been used against the applicant after his arrest, and that his allegations of ill-treatment were merely an attempt to avoid criminal responsibility. 19 .     The applicant challenged the refusal of 3 June 2010 under Article   125 of the CCrP. On 24 September 2010 the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region dismissed his complaint. On 8 December 2010 the Saratov Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision in cassation and discontinued the proceedings. The regional court held that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been examined and dismissed by the trial court, and that it was open to him to challenge his conviction by means of a supervisory review. 20.     On 15 May 2013 the investigating officer issued the most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The contents of that refusal were for the most part identical to the one of 3 June 2010. The applicant’s trial 21.     On 11 November 2009 the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region convicted the applicant. 22.     According to the written record of the trial, G. testified before the district court that she had heard the police officers beating the applicant during his arrest on 14 May 2009 and had later seen bloodstains on the bed sheets. 23 .     The district court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment, relying on the refusal of 31 October 2009, and held that both his confession statement and interview record of 15 May 2009 were admissible as they were consistent with each other and other material in the case file and the applicant had been questioned in the presence of a lawyer. At the same time, the district court held that the administrative offence record of 14 May and the decision of 15 May 2009 convicting the applicant of that administrative offence (see paragraph 7 above) were inadmissible, as they contained information inconsistent with the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest on 14 May 2009 as established during the trial. 24 .     On the same date the district court issued an interlocutory decision acknowledging that the investigating authorities had failed to draw up the record of the applicant’s arrest within three hours from his de facto apprehension on 14 May 2009, in violation of Article 92 §§ 1 and 3 of the CCrP, and to inform the prosecutor thereof. The district court concluded that the applicant’s constitutional right to liberty had thus been violated. 25 .     On 16 February 2010 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in cassation. On 16 July 2012 the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in the supervisory review proceedings. The regional court relied in both decisions on the findings of the trial court. Civil proceedings 26.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a civil claim against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation seeking, inter alia , compensation for non-pecuniary damage for his unrecorded detention on 14   and 15 May 2009 and his unlawful administrative prosecution. In his claim the applicant relied on the interlocutory decision of the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region of 11 November 2009. 27.     On 24 February 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court noted that the applicant had been convicted of several crimes and sentenced to a prison term, that the trial court had deducted the period of his unrecorded detention from his sentence, and that his situation had, thus, been improved. The district court also noted that the applicant had failed to prove the unlawfulness of the investigating authorities’ actions and concluded that he had not submitted any evidence of a violation of his personal non-property rights. 28.     On 24 May 2011 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the first ‑ instance decision in cassation. The regional court relied in its decision on the findings of the district court. YANCHENKO v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 31414/10 The events of 14 May 2009 29.     On 14 May 2009 at about 1 or 2 p.m. the applicant was arrested by three police officers in the street in Engels, Saratov Region, on suspicion of robbery. According to the applicant, after his apprehension the police officers knocked him to the ground, handcuffed him, and started beating and kicking him on the head and body. 30.     In the evening, the applicant was taken to police station no. 3 in Engels where, according to his version of events, the police officers continued to kick, punch and beat him with a plastic bottle of water, forcing him to confess. 31 .     On the same date at 7.10 p.m., the applicant signed a confession statement. At 8.10 p.m. an investigating officer, V., started the applicant’s interview as a suspect which lasted until 10.20 p.m. During the interview the applicant made similar statements as in his confession. 32 .     On 15 May 2009 at 00.21 a.m., the applicant was taken to the Engels Town Emergency Care Hospital and diagnosed with an abrasion of the soft tissues of the face. At 11.30 a.m. the applicant was once again examined by the doctors at the hospital. According to the hospital’s response to an inquiry by the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region of 26   August 2009, the applicant had the following injuries at the material time: closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion and an abrasion on the face. 33 .     On the same date the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility. Upon his arrival there the applicant was examined by a paramedic who indicated the following injuries in the logbook: an abrasion on the face and a bruise on the back. 34 .     On 19 May 2009 at 12.30 p.m. the applicant was once again taken to the Engels Town Emergency Care Hospital and diagnosed with a closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion and an abrasion on the face. 35 .     On 19 May 2009 the applicant was transferred to IZ-64/1 Saratov Region. Upon his arrival, the following injuries were registered in the logbook: a haematoma in the left lumbar region and an abrasion on the nasal bridge. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 36.     According to the applicant, in May 2009 he lodged his first complaint about his ill-treatment with the investigating authorities. On 6   August 2009 the investigating authorities launched an inquiry into his allegations. 37 .     According to forensic medical examination report no. 1788 of 12   August 2009, at the material time the applicant had the following injuries: abrasions on the nose and forehead. The medical expert concluded that those injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects, however, it was impossible to establish when they had been inflicted as the medical documents did not contain a detailed description of them. 38.     On 16 August 2009 an investigating officer in charge of the inquiry refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaint. On 8 October 2009 that refusal was quashed. 39.     On 31 October and 25 November 2009 and 26 February and 4   May 2010, the investigating officer issued further refusals to institute criminal proceedings. Those refusals were quashed on 22 November 2009 and 17   February, 22 April and 24 May 2010 respectively. 40.     The applicant attempted to challenge the refusal of 31 October 2009 under Article 125 of the CCrP. On 18 November 2009 the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region refused to accept his complaint for examination as the applicant had already been convicted. On 3 February 2010 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision in cassation. 41 .     On 3 June 2010 the investigating officer issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings. In his decision the investigating officer relied, inter alia , on the testimony of V., who had noticed injuries on the applicant during his first interview and asked him about their origin. According to V., the applicant had explained that he had hurt himself by accident. The investigating officer concluded that since the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence, the use of physical force by the police officers during his arrest had been lawful and justified. He also concluded that no physical force had been used against the applicant after his arrest, and that his allegations of ill-treatment were merely an attempt to avoid criminal responsibility. 42.     On 15 May 2013 the investigating officer issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The contents of that refusal were for the most part identical to the one of 3 June 2010. The applicant’s trial 43 .     On 11 November 2009 the Engels District Court of the Saratov Region convicted the applicant and his co-defendant, Mr Koval (see above, application no.   29627/10). The district court examined the police officers who had carried out the applicant’s arrest. The police officers stated that the applicant had not put up any resistance during the arrest but had attempted to flee, and they had had to use physical force and handcuffs to prevent him from escaping. It also appears from the written record of the trial that the applicant’s mother testified that she had seen the applicant on 14 May 2009 at noon and that he had had no visible injuries at that time. She also stated that she had seen the applicant on 15   May 2009 at about 1   a.m. and that he had already had abrasions on his face. As in the case of Mr Koval (see paragraph 23 above), the district court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, relying on the refusal of 31 October 2009, and held that both his confession statement and interview record of 14 May 2009 were admissible as they were consistent with each other and with other material in the case file, and the applicant had been questioned in the presence of a lawyer. 44 .     On 16 February 2010 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in cassation. The regional court relied in its decision on the findings of the trial court. PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA, APPLICATIONS Nos. 59280/10 AND 3   OTHERS The events of 26 June 2009 45.     On 26 June 2009 at 1 a.m., the applicant was arrested in the street in Bratsk, Irkutsk Region, by police officers on suspicion of banditry, multiple counts of armed robbery and multiple murders. At 3 a.m. the applicant was taken to the temporary detention facility at the police department of the Central Circuit of Bratsk ( ИВС ОВД по ЦО г. Братска ). According to the applicant, upon his arrival he was examined by a member of the medical staff who recorded in the logbook that he had no injuries. 46 .     On the same date after 10.20 a.m., the applicant was escorted to the Bratskiy district police department ( ОВД по Братскому Району ) for questioning. According to the applicant, before his interview the investigating officer, M., punched him five or six times on the face, head and body, as well as hitting him once with a rubber truncheon on the neck, inflicting bruises and abrasions on the applicant’s face and neck, including a bruise under his left eye. As it follows from the applicant’s version of events, he eventually agreed to sign the written record of his interview as a suspect for fear of being ill-treated further. 47.     The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by M. were confirmed by his co-defendant B. in his written statement to the Court of 27 July 2010. 48.     On 26 June 2009 at 10 p.m., the applicant was escorted back to the temporary detention facility. 49 .     On 29 June 2009 the applicant was examined by medical experts of the Bratsk Forensic Medical Examination Division ( Братское Отделение СМЭ ). 50.     On 3 February 2009 the applicant was transferred to IZ-38/2 Irkutsk Region ( ФБУ ИЗ-38/2 ГУФСИН России по Иркутской области ). Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 51 .     On 9 December 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint about his ill ‑ treatment by M. with the Irkutsk Regional Court and asked the trial judge to request his medical documents from the temporary detention facility and the Bratsk Forensic Medical Examination Division. It appears from the material in the case file that his complaint was sent by the remand prison, but never reached the regional court. 52.     On 25 January 2010 during the trial hearing in his criminal case, the applicant complained about his ill-treatment by M. On the same date the Irkutsk Regional Court ordered an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. On 2 February 2010 the investigating authorities, acting on the regional court’s order, launched an inquiry. 53 .     On 8 February 2010 the investigating officer in charge of the inquiry refused to institute criminal proceedings. The investigating officer mainly relied in his refusal on the testimony of M., who denied having used any physical force against the applicant, and the statements of the police officers who had carried out the applicant’s arrest. The police officers stated that the applicant and B. had put up armed resistance and attempted to escape and, therefore, they had had to use physical force and handcuffs and fire shots in the air during their arrest. They also denied having used any further physical force against the applicant and B. after their apprehension. The refusal did not refer to the medical examination act of 29 June 2009 or any other medical documents. 54 .     The applicant challenged the refusal of 8 February 2010 under Article 125 of the CCrP. On 15 September 2010 the Bratsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region refused to accept his complaint for examination as the applicant had already been convicted. On 10 November 2010 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld that decision in cassation. The applicant’s trial 55 .     On 17 March 2010 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of banditry, armed robbery, and multiple murders. The regional court excluded any possibility that the applicant had been forced to incriminate himself during his interview as a suspect on 26 June 2009. It relied on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of 8 February 2010 and the testimony of the investigating officer M. and the police officers who had denied using any duress in respect of the applicant. It also follows from the police officers’ testimony that the applicant had been apprehended in his car and had dropped his gun straight away after they had shot in the air, and that no physical force had been used against him during the arrest. The regional court also noted that the applicant had been questioned on multiple occasions in the presence of a lawyer and concluded that the latter’s presence had objectively eliminated any possibility of duress. 56 .     On 22 July 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant’s conviction in cassation. In its decision the Supreme Court also relied on the refusal of 8 February 2010 and the findings of the trial court. The applicant’s attempts to obtain a copy of the medical examination act of 29 June 2009 57 .     On 18 February 2010 during the trial hearing in his criminal case, the applicant requested the Irkutsk Regional Court to make an inquiry with the Bratsk Forensic Medical Examination Office about his medical examination on 29 June 2010. On the same date the regional court dismissed the request as the inquiry into his allegations of ill-treatment had been completed. 58.     On 14 May 2010 the applicant requested a copy of the medical examination act of 29 June 2009 from the Bratsk Forensic Medical Examination Office. On 4 June 2010 the head of the Bratsk Forensic Medical Examination Office replied to the applicant’s request with an extract from Order no. 694 of 21 July 1978 of the Ministry of Health of the USSR, which provided in section 3.8 that two copies of medical examination acts were to be drawn up, one of which was to be sent to the law-enforcement or judicial authorities, and the other to be stored at the relevant forensic medical examination bureau. 59.     On 25 June 2010 the applicant complained about the reply of 4 June 2010 to the Bratsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region. On 1 July 2010 the town court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article   125 of the CCrP. On 14 September 2010 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld that decision in cassation. 60.     In 2013 on an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Bratsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region about the refusal to provide him with a copy of the medical examination act of 29 June 2009. On 17 July 2013 the town court dismissed his claim as the applicant had failed to comply with the three-month time-limit for lodging such a claim. 61 .     On 1 February 2016 the applicant lodged another request for a copy of the medical examination act of 29 June 2009 with the Irkutsk Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau. On 2 March 2016 the latter replied that a copy of the medical examination act could be provided only upon a request made by the relevant judicial or investigating authority. On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the reply of 2 March 2016 to the Ministry of Health of the Irkutsk Region. On 24 August 2016 the Deputy Minister of Health of the Irkutsk Region replied that in accordance with the domestic law it was not possible to issue him with a copy of the medical examination act. Other relevant information 62 .     From 16 March to 24 May 2017 the applicant was detained in IZ-2 Irkutsk Region ( ФКУ СИЗО-2 ГУФСИН России по Иркутской области ). Throughout the entire period of his detention, the prison guards systematically put handcuffs on the applicant whenever he was outside his cell. 63 .     On 27 March 2017 the head of IZ-2 Irkutsk Region decided to place the applicant under surveillance ( профилактический учёт ) as a prisoner who was likely to abscond or assault members of the prison administration or other law-enforcement officers. 64.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an administrative claim with the Bratsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region in which he complained, inter alia , about being systematically handcuffed during his detention in IZ ‑ 2 Irkutsk Region. 65 .     On 19 January 2018 the Bratsk Town Court dismissed the applicant’s administrative claim. The court noted that the applicant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for having committed particularly grave crimes against human life and public safety, referred to the relevant decision of the head of the remand prison , and concluded that the systematic use of handcuffs on the applicant had been lawful and in accordance with the domestic law. 66.     From 22 April to 23 December 2019 the applicant was detained in IZ-1 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region ( ФКУ СИЗО-1 УФСИН России по Ямало-Ненецкому автономному округу ). According to him, during his detention there he was under constant surveillance, mostly by female guards, using two closed-circuit television cameras (“CCTV cameras”) installed inside the cell in such a way that the entire cell, except for the toilet, was clearly visible. 67.     From 21 May to 2 July 2019 the applicant was transported on multiple occasions to the Labytnangi Town Court of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region to participate in an unspecified set of proceedings. During the court hearings the applicant was held in a small metal cage installed in the courtroom. Each time he was transported to and from the town court, the applicant was handcuffed. 68.     On 29 May 2019 the administrative commission of IZ-1 Yamalo ‑ Nentskiy Region decided to place the applicant under surveillance as a prisoner who was likely to assault members of the prison administration and other law-enforcement officers. 69.     On various dates the applicant lodged complaints about his handcuffing with the Labytnangi town police department (ОМВД России по г. Лабытнанги ) and the Labytnangi town prosecutor’s office. On 11   July and 5 August 2019 those authorities replied that his handcuffing had been lawful and based on the decision of the administrative commission of the remand prison and the relevant provisions of the domestic law. 70.     It also appears from documents submitted by the Government that the applicant had earlier been placed under surveillance as a prisoner who was likely to assault members of the prison administration and other law ‑ enforcement officers in IK-18 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region ( ФКУ ИК-18 УСФИН России по Ямало-Ненецкому автономному округу ), his usual place of detention. 71.     On 31 January 2020 the applicant was transferred again to IZ-1 Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region. According to him, his current prison cell is also equipped with two CCTV cameras and is constantly monitored by prison guards. TYGULEV v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 25694/12 The events of 22 February 2011 72.     On 22 February 2011 between 8 and 9 p.m. the applicant was arrested by police officers in the street in Saratov on suspicion of robbery. According to the applicant, during his arrest the police officers pushed him down to the ground, twisted his arms behind his back, handcuffed him, and dragged him to a police car. 73 .     Later in the evening, the applicant was taken to the operative ‑ search division of Criminal Investigations Service no. 1 in the Saratov Region ( ОРЧ по линии УУР № 1 при ГУ МВД РФ по Саратовской области ), where, according to his version of events, three police officers beat him on the head and body, then took him to another office, put him on the carpet face down, handcuffed him, tied his legs together with wire, suffocated him with a gas mask, and applied electric shocks to his legs. 74 .     On 23 February 2011 the applicant was taken to police station no.   4 ( ОМ № 4 ) where at 4 p.m. an investigating officer drew up the record of his arrest. On the same date the applicant signed the record of his interview as a suspect which contained self-incriminating statements. 75.     On 24 February 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Saratov ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 76.     On the same date the applicant took part in the on-site verification of his statements ( проверка показаний на месте ) and signed the relevant record . 77 .     On 25 February 2011 upon his arrival at the temporary detention facility at the Saratov Directorate of Internal Affairs ( ИВС УВД по г.   Саратову ), the applicant was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with autonomic dysfunction of hypotonic type and recorded the following injuries in medical examination register no. 123: abrasions to the right malar region, left buccal region and on the left upper eyelid, a yellow-green haematoma in the pit of the left elbow, abrasions on the lower third of both forearms, subcutaneous haemorrhages on the right side of the chest, a bruise on the top of the left foot, an abrasion in the lumbar region of the spinal cord, and a yellow-green haematoma on the posterior surface of the right shoulder. Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 78.     On 24 February 2011 the applicant complained about his ill ‑ treatment during his detention hearing at the Leninskiy District Court of Saratov. 79.     On 14 March 2011 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment to the investigating authorities. 80.     On 20 April 2011 an investigating officer refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to the absence of any evidence of a crime. 81.     On 18 May 2011 the applicant lodged another complaint about his ill-treatment by the police officers. 82.     On 16 June 2011 the investigating officer issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings.   On 21 June 2011 that refusal was quashed. 83 .     On 1 July 2011 the investigating officer again refused to institute criminal proceedings. The refusal was based on the testimony of the police officers who stated that the applicant had put up resistance during the arrest and they had had to twist his arms behind his back to prevent him from fleeing. The police officers denied having used any further physical force against the applicant either during or after his arrest. 84.     On 1 March 2012 the refusal of 20 April 2011 was quashed. 85.     On 10 August 2012 the investigating authorities instituted criminal proceedings in response to the complaint lodged by the applicant’s co ‑ defendant, Mr Mikhail Eduardovich Petrov, one of the applicants in Mansurov and Others v. Russia ([Committee], nos. 4336/06 and 7 others, §   118-22, 16   February 2021), about his ill-treatment by the same police officers on 22   February 2011. 86.     On 31 January 2013 the applicant’s wife was questioned in connection with the above-mentioned criminal case. According to her, she had witnessed the police officers pushing the applicant and holding him down on the ground during his arrest. She also testified that on 23   February 2011 she had seen the applicant at the police station, that at that time he had already had injuries on his face, and that on 25 February 2011 she had seen him at the Leninskiy District Court of Saratov and had learnt from him that on 22 February 2011 he and Mr Petrov had been ill-treated by the same police officers. 87 .     On 21 June 2013 the refusal of 1 July 2011 was quashed, the investigating authorities instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaint, joined them to the criminal proceedings opened on 10 August 2012, and granted the applicant victim status. 88 .     On 26 June 2013 the investigating officer ordered a forensic medical expert examination.   According to expert report no. 3243 of 5 July 2013, the applicant had the following injuries at the material time: abrasions to the right malar region, the left buccal region and on the left upper eyelid, a haematoma on the left elbow, abrasions on both forearms, haemorrhages on the right side of the chest, an abrasion in the lumbar region, and haematomas on the right shoulder and the left buttock. The medical expert was unable to confirm the previously diagnosed bruise on the top of the left foot due to the absence of a specific description of it in the medical file. The medical expert further concluded that the haematomas on the elbow, shoulder and buttock could have been inflicted five to seven days before the applicant’s examination on 25 February 2011, but was unable to establish when the other injuries had been inflicted due to the absence of a detailed description of them in the medical file. All the injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects in no less than seven traumatic impacts. The medical expert further stated that it was unlikely that the applicant had sustained those injuries by falling down on the ground and hitting himself against it, but that it would be possible to inflict the injuries on the face, buttock, forearms and chest oneself. The diagnosed injuries had caused no damage to the applicant’s health. The medical expert also indicated that the applicant had no injuries characteristic of electric shocks and that it was necessary to conduct an investigative experiment to verify if the applicant could have sustained his injuries during his arrest. 89 .     On 8 July 2013 the investigating officer ordered another forensic medical expert examination. In expert report no. 224 of 22 July 2013, the medical experts made similar conclusions to the ones in expert report no.   3243 of 5 July 2013. They also noted that it was likely that the abrasions on the forearms had been caused by handcuffs, that the haematomas on the left buttock, right shoulder, and in the pit of the left elbow had been inflicted seven to ten days before the applicant’s examination on 25 February 2011, and that the applicant’s injuries could have been caused by falling accidentally from five metres or one metre seventy centimetres and hitting himself against objects. 90 .     On 6 August 2013 the investigating officer ordered an additional forensic medical expert examination. According to expert report no. 207- y of 30 October 2013, the medical experts confirmed the findings of the previous expert examinations concerning the nature of the applicant’s injuries and when they had been inflicted, but excluded the diagnosed haematoma on the left buttock as there was no record of that injury in the medical records of 25 February 2011. 91 .     On 10 November 2013 the investigating officer discontinued the criminal proceedings for the absence of any evidence of a crime. The decision relied, inter alia , on the testimony provided by the three police officers who had stated that the applicant had put up active resistance and attempted to escape during the arrest and, therefore, they had had to use handcuffs and wrestling techniques, namely twisting his arms behind his back, and pushing and holding him down on the snow. According to the police officers, they had taken the applicant to the operative-search division and subsequently, when he had agreed to sign a confession statement, had escorted him to police station no. 4. The decision also referred to the testimony of the police driver who attested to having seen abrasions on the applicant’s face after his arrest on 22 February 2011. The investigating officer concluded in his decision that the applicant had sustained his injuries during the arrest on 22 February 2011, and that the police officers had acted within their powers and in accordance with the law. 92.     The decision of 10 November 2013 also cited the testimony provided by Mr Petrov’s mother who had attested to having seen the applicant at the police station on 23 February 2011 with injuries on his face and limping and moving around in a bent position; by the applicant’s wife who had seen him on 23 February 2011 at about 1 a.m. with abrasions and bruises on his face; and by the applicant’s acquaintance, K., who had stated that on 22   February 2011 she had seen no injuries on the visible parts of the applicant’s body, while on 24 February 2011 she had noticed bruises and abrasions on his face. The applicant’s trial 93 .     On 11 July 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Saratov convicted the applicant of multiple counts of robbery. The district court relied, inter alia , on the applicant’s self-incriminating statements in the record of his interview as a suspect of 23 February 2011 and in the record of the on-site verification of his statements of 24 February 2011. The district court held that the applicant had been questioned in the presence of his lawyer, which ruled out any duress, and dismissed his allegations of ill-treatment, relying on the refusals to institute criminal proceedings. The district court also noted that the police officers had been examined during the trial and had denied having used any physical force against the applicant during his arrest or the investigative actions. The district court concluded that the applicant’s injuries had not been inflicted by the police officers and had been sustained by him in other circumstances. 94 .     On 1 December 2011 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in cassation. The regional court relied in its decision on the findings of the trial court. Other relevant information 95 .     On 16 February 2021 the Court delivered its judgment in Mansurov and Others (cited above). In that judgment the Court held that on 22   February 2011 the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr Petrov (application no.   15362/12), had been ill-treated by the same police officers, who had applied electric shocks to him, at the same place and in connection with the same criminal case as in the applicant’s account of events (ibid., §§ 108-22 and 188-89). The Court found in that case that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention both under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of Mr Petrov (ibid., § 190). MASALGIN v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 30722/12 The events of 21 August 2008 96.     On 21 August 2008 at about 1.10 a.m., the applicant was arrested by police officers in the street in Moscow near his house. According to the applicant, during his arrest the police officers pushed him to the ground and started kicking and punching him on the head and body, then they handcuffed him, pulled his arms up behind his back, dragged him by the handcuffs to a police car and continued to beat him inside the car. The applicant was escorted to “Khamovniki” police department ( ОВД «Хамовники» ) in Moscow. According to his account of events, while being escorted to the police department he had been unconscious and ha