CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { 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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s80E1EC4C { margin-left:-29.19pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s4EFA53D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B08A3BC { width:27.19pt; display:inline-block } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBF82A215 { width:156.63pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sE22BA0FA { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#d5d5d5 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s9AF62556 { height:2.35pt } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF50E7E28 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dcdcdc } .s794E4588 { height:6.15pt } .s69A5C893 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7EB592A7 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s16CBB0A7 { height:14.35pt } .s76E70DDF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1F6673D { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s18A3BEB0 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     THIRD SECTION CASE OF IDRISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19498/11 and 10 others – see appended list)         JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 December 2021   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Idrisov 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 (no. 19498/11 and 10 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 ten Russian nationals (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated in the appendix; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to examination of application Edigov v. Russia (no. 17972/15) by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 23 November 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     Between 2009 and 2017 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of belonging to illegal armed groups and having committed crimes of a terrorist nature in the North Caucasus region. The applicants alleged, among other things, that they had been ill-treated by law-enforcement officers and that they had been convicted on the basis of confession statements obtained under duress. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are Russian nationals. A list of the applicants and their personal details are set out in the appendix. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Idrisov v . Russia (n o . 19498/11) 5.     On 3 August 2009 unknown persons committed a murder attempt on the Head of the Shalinskiy Department of the Interior (“OVD”) by exploding his vehicle in the village of Avtury in Chechnya. A criminal case into the matter was opened. Alleged ill-treatment and unrecorded detention 6 .     On 3 September 2009 at about 1 p.m. officers of the Shalinskiy OVD arrested the applicant on suspicion of the attempted murder. The applicant was taken to the premises of military battalion “Yug” and questioned about the crime. The officers handcuffed him, tied his ankles, suspended him from a rail, kicked and punched him, poured water on him and administered electric shocks to him, forcing him to confess to the explosion. 7.     On 4 September 2009 at about 7 a.m. the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up. 8.     On the same day the applicant was interviewed as a suspect. He confessed to having participated in the attack. He subsequently reiterated his confession statements during the interviews on 5   September and 9   December 2009. 9 .     On 5 September 2009 the applicant was taken to a temporary detention facility (“IVS”). According to its medical notes, the applicant had a haematoma on his face, and bruises on his right foot. 10 .     On 8 September 2009 an ambulance doctor examined the applicant at the OVD. He was diagnosed with a closed brain injury, and a haematoma on the back of his head. According to the applicant, his ill-treatment continued until 21 October 2009. 11 .     On 14 December 2009 and 26 May 2010 the applicant underwent forensic medical examinations. According to forensic reports, he had no injuries. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 12.     On 28 April 2010 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment to an investigator. 13 .     Between April 2010 and February 2011, the investigators issued at least six refusals to open a criminal case. The decisions were overruled by superior investigators as incomplete. According to the latest refusal of 21   February 2011, the applicant sustained minor injuries during the arrest due to his resistance. He had never been taken to the premises of battalion “Yug”. The investigator found the applicant’s allegations unfounded and aimed at evading criminal responsibility. He relied mainly on the statements of police and military officers, who had denied the allegations of ill ‑ treatment. The applicant’s trial 14 .     On 8 June 2010 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicant on charges of terrorism and belonging to illegal armed groups to nine years of imprisonment, relying on his confessions of 4 and 5 September and 9 December 2009. The applicant pleaded partially guilty, arguing that he had been arrested on 3 September 2009, ill-treated by the State officers, who had forced him to confess. The court dismissed his allegations, referring to one of the refusals to open a criminal case dated 27   May 2010. It counted the applicant’s detention from 4   September 2009, the date of his arrest record. 15.     On 15 September 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the conviction. Magomadov and Magomadov v . Russia (n o . 2309/13) 16.     The applicants are Mr Khavash Magomadov and Mr Bislan Magomadov. They are relatives. The applicants’ personal details are indicated in the appendix. Alleged ill-treatment and unrecorded detention in September 2010 17.     On 19 September 2010 officers of Police Division no. 4 in Grozny arrested the applicants near local market and took them to an abandoned house in Katayama in the vicinity of Grozny. During the arrest, the officers shot Khavash Magomadov in the left leg. 18 .     The officers placed the applicants in separate rooms and interrogated them about a series of attacks on law-enforcement officers. They subjected the applicants to electric shocks, poured boiling water on them, and beat them with rubber truncheons. The applicants had been thus detained for several days and after they had agreed to confess, they were taken to the police station. 19.     On 25 September 2010 the applicants’ arrest records were drawn up. They were interviewed on the same day, and they confessed to several attacks. 20 .     On 12 October 2010 the investigator ordered the applicants’ forensic medical examinations. According to their forensic reports, Khavash Magomadov had a piercing gunshot wound on his left hip, and Bislan Magomadov had burn wounds on both legs. The applicants’ injuries could be inflicted within three weeks before the examination. 21.     On 18 October 2010 the applicants were transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny. A doctor drew up a report recording the applicants’ injuries. 22 .     On 9 November 2010 Khavash Magomadov was examined again by a forensic expert. According to his report, the applicant had circular burn wounds on his feet, left shank and right foot, and bruises on the legs. It was impossible to establish how and when the injuries had been caused. Alleged ill-treatment in December 2010 23.     Between 20 and 28 December 2010 the applicants were held in IVS no. 4 in Grozny, where the officers again ill-treated them, subjecting them to electric shocks, and suffocation with a bag. 24.     On 24 December 2010 Bislan Magomadov attempted to commit a suicide by cutting his arms, neck, belly and chest. He was taken to a hospital. 25 .     On 29 December 2010 both applicants underwent forensic examinations. According to forensic reports, Khavash Magomadov had bruises on his left feet and hand caused by an impact of a current-carrying wire, and scars on the lower limbs. As to Bislan Magomadov, he was diagnosed with multiple bruises and abrasions on his chest, belly and both forearms possibly inflicted by a cutting object, a circular abrasion on his right hand possibly caused by an impact of a current-carrying wire. It was impossible to determine when the injuries could have been inflicted “due to the lack of medical documents”. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 26.     On 26 October 2010 an investigator initiated a pre-investigation inquiry into the infliction of the applicants’ injuries following the report drawn up by a remand prison doctor on 18 October 2010. 27 .     Between November 2010 and December 2012, the investigators issued at least fourteen refusals to open a criminal case into the alleged ill ‑ treatment in September and December 2010. Mainly relying on the statements of police and IVS officers, the investigator found that no force had been used against the applicants. The refusals were subsequently overruled as incomplete. 28.     On 17 September 2012 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaint against the refusal dated 20 August 2008, referring to their conviction of 21 March 2012 (see below). 29.     On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya quashed the court decision and remitted the applicants’ complaint for a new examination. 30 .     On 23 November 2012 a senior investigator overruled the refusal of 20 August 2008. After a new inquiry, on 3 December 2012 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case. The applicants’ trial 31.     On 21 March 2012 the applicants were convicted by a jury at the Supreme Court of Chechnya to twenty-five years of imprisonment each. They were found guilty of several episodes of murder attempts on law ‑ enforcement officers and belonging to illegal armed groups. The applicants’ confessions were given at the trial to the jury as the evidence against the applicants. 32.     The trial court ordered to count the applicants’ detention from 24   September 2010. 33 .     On 10 July 2012 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the applicants’ appeal and dismissed their arguments that the conviction was based on evidence obtained as a result of ill-treatment. Magomedov v . Russia (n o . 8414/13) Alleged ill-treatment 34 .     On 15 August 2010 a group of armed men apprehended the applicant in Makhachkala in Dagestan and took him to an abandoned house, where they suffocated him with a bag, wrapped electric wires to his fingers and administered electric shocks to him, forcing him to confess to belonging to illegal armed groups. The applicant was then taken to the premises of the anti ‑ extremism centre in Dagestan ( Центр по противодействую экстремизму МВД России по Республике Дагестан ) where he confessed of a number of terrorism-related crimes. 35.     On 17 August 2010 the officers of the Centre took the applicant to the District Police Department in Makhachkala (“ROVD”) where the applicant was interviewed as a suspect. 36.     On 18 August 2010 the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up and the applicant was interviewed. He reiterated his confessions also on 25   August   2010. 37 .     On 18 August 2010 the applicant was taken to the IVS where a doctor refused to admit the applicant due to his injuries. The officers then took him to a hospital where he was diagnosed with a cheekbone fracture. He was then admitted to the IVS. 38.     After about two weeks the applicant was transferred to remand prison, where the officers initially refused to admit the applicant because he had unhealed injuries. The applicant was admitted when he said that he had fallen down the stairs. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 39.     On 16 February 2011 the applicant was interviewed in the presence of a lawyer of his choosing. He retracted his confessions and complained about his ill-treatment. 40 .     On 17 February 2011 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to forensic report, the applicant had a deviated nasal septum and a scar on his left wrist originated from a healed wound inflicted by handcuffs. 41 .     On 14 March 2011 the investigator refused to open a criminal case and found that the applicant’s arrest had been carried out by police officers ( МОРО ГУ МВД России по СКФО ) and that for this reason his complaint should be transferred to the Department of the Ministry of the Interior in the North Caucasus Federal District ( ГУ МВД России по СКФО ). The investigator noted that the applicant’s allegations could not be verified without police officers’ statements. 42.     The outcome of the applicant’s complaint transferred to the Department of the Ministry of the Interior is unclear. The applicant’s trial 43.     On 30 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicant of belonging to illegal armed groups, several murder attempts on law-enforcement officers and other terrorism-related crimes. He was sentenced to seventeen years of imprisonment. The court relied on his confessions of 18 and 25   August 2010. 44 .     The applicant partially admitted his guilt, arguing that the confessions had been obtained under duress. The court examined the applicant’s medical documents and concluded that his allegations of ill ‑ treatment were unfounded. 45.     On 20 August 2012 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the conviction. Edilbiyev v . Russia (n os . 62835/13 and 41560/20) Alleged ill-treatment and unrecorded detention 46 .     On 5 July 2011 at about 11 a.m. officers of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) arrested the applicant in Moscow. They took him to an undisclosed location, where they handcuffed him, subjected him to electric shocks, suffocated him with a bag, threatened him with sexual violence. The officers interrogated the applicant about the preparation to a terrorist attack. 47 .     Meanwhile, on 7 July 2011 the applicant’s father lodged a complaint with an investigation department about the applicant’s disappearance on 5   July 2011, stating that the applicant had went to work and had not returned home. On the same day the FSB informed the applicant’s father that the applicant was wanted for terrorism-related crimes. 48.     On 8 July 2011 the FSB officers took the applicant to the city outskirts, where he was arrested by police officers. According to the applicant’s arrest record, he was arrested near his house. The applicant was taken to a police station where he was interviewed as a suspect and confessed of terrorism-related crimes; he was then taken to a remand prison. 49 .     According to the remand prison medical notes, the applicant had multiple haematomas, bruises on his body, hands, and face. 50.     On 12 July 2011 the applicant reiterated his confession at the interview as a suspect. 51 .     According to undated statements of the applicant’s mother and his lawyer, they visited the applicant in the remand prison two weeks after his arrest. They stated that he had had numerous bruises on his face and body. The applicant had told them that he had been severely beaten. The applicant’s trial 52.     On 10 December 2012 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of belonging to illegal armed groups and manufacturing of explosives. The court relied on his confessions given during the investigation. The applicant partially admitted his guilt. 53 .     At the trial the applicant complained about his unlawful detention between 5 and 8 July 2011 and ill-treatment and argued that he had confessed under duress. The court heard the investigator, who submitted that no pressure had been put on the applicant during his interviews. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations of unlawful detention and ill ‑ treatment as unfounded. 54.     The trial court sentenced the applicant to sixteen years of imprisonment and counted his detention from 8 July 2011. 55.     On 27 March 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia endorsed the reasoning of the Moscow City Court and upheld the conviction. The applicant’s complaints about his ill-treatment 56 .     On 30 July 2013 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the Investigation Office in Moscow submitting detailed factual information about the applicant’s abduction on 5   July   2011 and unlawful detention until 8   July 2011 and subsequent ill-treatment. The complaint was transferred to the Military Investigation Division in Moscow. 57.     On 8 November 2013 the Division informed the applicant’s lawyer that the complaint had been transferred to military investigative department no. 517 in Moscow. 58 .     On 12 December 2013 the military investigative department informed the applicant’s lawyer that the issues raised in her complaint had been examined by the trial court in the conviction of 10 December 2012, and that there were no grounds to open a pre-investigation inquiry. Other relevant information 59 .     Since 25 April 2013 the applicant has been serving his sentence in colony no. 25 in the Republic of Komi. The colony is located about 3,000   km away from the Chechen Republic, where the applicant’s relatives live. 60 .     On 3 October 2019 the applicant’s mother’s request to transfer the applicant to serve his sentence closer to the Chechen Republic was dismissed. Ektumayev v . Russia (n o . 65036/14) and Madayev v .   Russia (n o . 66406/14) 61.     On 17 April 2012 early in the morning an explosive device detonated near the police station of the Sunzhenskiy OVD ( ОМВД по Сунженскому району ) in the village of Assinovskaya in Chechnya. Alleged ill-treatment 62 .     On 17 April 2012 police officers of the Sunzhenskiy OVD arrested the applicants and took them to the police station, questioning about the explosion. The officers handcuffed them, suffocated them with a bag, kicked and punched them, beat them with rubber truncheons, subjected them to electric shocks, and threatened with sexual violence, forcing them to confess to the explosion. The applicants agreed to sign the documents. The applicants’ arrest records were drawn up on the next day. 63.     On 18 and 20 April 2012 the applicants were interviewed as suspects, having confessed to the crime. 64.     On 19 April 2012 the applicants underwent forensic medical examinations. No injuries were found on them. 65 .     On 18 May 2012 the applicants again underwent forensic medical examinations. According to the relevant reports, the applicants had multiple scars on their bodies, in particular, on the knees and shoulders. The injuries could be inflicted within a month before the examination. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 66.     On 26 June 2012, following the applicants’ interviews, an investigator drafted a report on the discovery of evidence of crime ( рапорт об обнаружении признаков преступления ), according to which the applicants had complained about their ill-treatment. 67 .     On 16 July 2012 and 26 August 2013 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, relying on the statements of police officers, who had denied the use of force against the applicants. 68.     On 18 February 2015 the applicants’ lawyer challenged the latest refusal at the Achkhoy-Martan District Court. 69.     On 2 March 2015 a senior investigator overruled the refusal of 26   August 2013. 70.     On the same day the Achkhoy-Martan District Court rejected the applicants’ complaint and discontinued the proceedings. 71 .     On 12 March 2015 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case on the same grounds as before. The applicants’ trial 72 .     On 17 September 2013 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicants of belonging to illegal armed groups, several murder attempts on law-enforcement officers and storage of explosives, and sentenced them both to about nine years of imprisonment. It relied on the applicants’ confessions given on 18 and 20 April 2012. The applicants pleaded not guilty and argued that they had been ill-treated and their confessions had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed their allegations, referring to the refusals to open a criminal case. 73.     On 6 March 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the conviction. 74 .     On 2 April 2014 Mr Madayev, being detained in a remand prison at that time, received a copy of the Supreme Court decision, as confirmed by the prison administration stamp on the document. Chibiyev v . Russia (n o . 70960/14) 75.     On 21 September 2014 at the outskirts of Karabulak in Ingushetia a group of unidentified persons opened fire at law-enforcement officers, killing one of them. A criminal investigation was opened. Alleged ill-treatment and unrecorded detention 76 .     On 29 October 2014 at about 7 a.m. officers of the Nazran OVD ( ОМВД по г.   Назрань ) arrested the applicant at his house in Pliyevo and took him to an undisclosed location. According to the applicant, the officers tied his hands and feet, suffocated him with a plastic bag, kicked and punched him, forcing him to confess to belonging to illegal armed groups. 77 .     Following the applicant’s abduction, his mother and a lawyer lodged several complaints with the prosecution office and human rights organisations about the applicant’s abduction. 78 .     On 30 October 2014 at 9 p.m. the applicant’s administrative arrest record was drawn up and the applicant was taken to the office of the anti ‑ extremism centre in Ingushetia. According to the record, the applicant had a bruise on his face. 79.     On 31 October 2014 a duty officer drew up a report on administrative offence ( протокол об административном нарушении ) that the applicant had disobeyed police orders and offered resistance during the arrest. 80.     On the same day the Magas District Court found the applicant guilty of having committed administrative offence and ordered his detention for five days. 81 .     On 1 November 2014 an investigator drew up the applicant’s arrest record. 82 .     On 3 November 2014 the applicant’s mother saw the applicant at the court hearing concerning his detention on remand. According to her, the applicant’s face was covered with black bruises, numerous abrasions on his forehead as if “someone had pushed it against asphalt”. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 83.     On 11 November 2014 the applicant’s mother complained to an investigator about the applicant’s abduction on 29 October 2014 and his subsequent ill-treatment. 84 .     On 2 December 2014 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to forensic report, the applicant had a bruise on his left foot, inflicted within one month before the examination. It was qualified as not having caused any harm to his health. 85 .     On 11 December 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal case on the grounds that the injuries found on the applicant had not been qualified as having caused harm to his health. 86.     On 19 March 2015 the Magas District Court granted the applicant’s appeal against the refusal and quashed it, noting that the investigator had not questioned the officers, solely relying on the conclusions of the forensic report and failing to reason his decision. 87 .     On 28 April 2015 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case, relying on the statements of police officers who had denied the applicant’s allegations. Proceedings related to the applicant’s administrative detention 88.     On 2 February 2015 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Magas District Court of 31 October 2014, arguing that the court had failed to examine properly the facts of his apprehension. 89.     On 24 March 2015 the Supreme Court of Ingushetia dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. Other relevant information 90 .     On 31 October 2014 the applicant’s mother applied to the Court for interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, complaining that the applicant had been abducted on 29 October 2014 by State agents. 91.     On 6 November 2014 the Court requested information from the Government about the applicant’s whereabouts. 92.     On 17 November 2014 the Government submitted information about the applicant’s arrest (see paragraphs 78-81 above). 93.     In view of the information provided by the Government, the Court refused to apply interim measures. Edigov v . Russia (n o . 17972/15) 94.     Before the events in question the applicant lived in Sweden. On 31   July 2012 he came to Urus-Martan in Chechnya to visit his relatives. Alleged ill-treatment and unrecorded detention 95 .     On 3 August 2012 local police officers arrested the applicant near his house in Urus ‑ Martan. The applicant’s relatives and neighbours witnessed his abduction. The applicant was then taken to Grozny. The officers applied electric shocks to his fingers, forcing him to confess to the murder of a police officer, but the applicant refused. He was kept in a police station until 12   September 2012 handcuffed to a bed. The wounds on his fingers got infected, and between 16 and 18   August 2012 a nurse provided him with basic medical aid. 96 .     On 12 September 2012 the applicant signed a confession statement. On the same day his arrest was recorded, and he was placed in an IVS in Grozny. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 97.     On 21 September 2012 the applicant was transferred to a remand prison. According to his medical notes, the applicant had burned scars on little fingers of both hands. On the same day a report on the discovery of evidence of crime (“ рапорт об обнаружении признаков преступления ”) was drawn up. The applicant explained that the burns resulted from electric shock during installation of wires in a house. 98 .     On 15 and 29 October 2012 two refusals to open a criminal case were issued, which were overruled shortly thereafter. 99 .     On an unspecified date between November 2012 and January 2013 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to the forensic report of 22 January 2013, the applicant had scars on his fingers of both hands, inflicted within three months before the applicant’s examination. The applicant’s trial 100.     On 15 May 2013 the criminal court proceedings chaired by Judge A. started at the Supreme Court of Chechnya. 101.     On 18 June 2013 the applicant retracted his confession statement given during the investigation and earlier in court, complaining about unrecorded detention between 3 August and 12   September 2012 in the police department in Grozny and ill-treatment by electric shocks. 102.     On the same day, the court ordered an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 103 .     In July 2013 the applicant again underwent a forensic examination. According to the forensic report of 17 July 2013, the applicant had multiple scars on his fingers and one scar on his forehead, which could have been inflicted within a year or a year and a half before the examination, and caused by the contact with electric wires. 104 .     On 22 July and 16 August 2013 the investigator issued two refusals to open a criminal case on the grounds that the applicant had not complained about ill-treatment during the investigation. The investigator referred to the statements of police officers who had denied the use of force, dismissing the applicant’s and his relatives’ statements as unreliable. The refusals were eventually overruled as incomplete. Judicial inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 105.     On 6 September 2013 the court closed the hearing. In his final word, the applicant reiterated his version of the events, naming police officers who had detained and ill-treated him. The applicant provided a detailed description of the events. Following the applicant’s statement, Judge A. resumed the proceedings in view of new circumstances. 106.     The court heard, among others, the applicant’s mother, police officers identified by the applicant, the investigator who had drawn up the applicant’s arrest record, forensic experts, the investigator who had been in charge of the applicant’s criminal prosecution, and the nurse. 107.     On 8 October 2013 a prosecutor requested the recusal of Judge A. from the proceedings. The judge dismissed the prosecutor’s request. Withdrawal of Judge A. from the applicant’s case 108 .     On 1 November 2013 Judge A. withdrew from the applicant’s case. In his decision to withdraw the judge stated that the Minister of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, Lieutenant-General R.A., had called him and warned him against the delivery of an acquittal judgment, insisting that the applicant had been guilty. The judge decided that in view of the interference by the Minister he could no longer preside in the criminal case because it had put into question his impartiality and independence. The judge also stated that the trial court had been provided “with sufficient evidence confirming the applicant’s statements that on 3 August 2012 police officers [under Mr R.A.’s command] had abducted him and deprived him of his liberty until 12   September 2012, and subjected him to torture by electric shocks”. The applicant’s conviction 109 .     Following the withdrawal of Judge A., the applicant’s trial started anew. On 23 May 2014 the Supreme Court of Chechnya, chaired by Judge   Al., convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fourteen   years of imprisonment to be counted from 12 September 2012, the date of his official arrest. The court relied on his confession statements made during the investigation. 110.     On 7 November 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s appeal upholding the conviction of the first-instance court. Other relevant information 111.     On 9 December 2013 a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office requested the Chief of the Russian Investigation Committee to decide on the issue of criminal prosecution in the case concerning the interference in the work of the judge of the Supreme Court of Chechnya. On 16   January and 4   March 2014 a criminal investigation into the matter was refused as ill ‑ founded. 112 .     Between 16 January and 11 June 2014 the Deputy Head of the Special Investigative Department of the Main Investigative Department in the North Caucasus Federal District (“ Управление по расследованию особо важных дел Главного следственного управления Следственного комитета России по Северо-Кавказскому федеральному округу ”), Colonel So., refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged grievances at least four times. All refusals, except for the latest one, were hierarchically overruled as incomplete and inconsistent. 113.     According to the applicant, he challenged the latest refusal of 11   June 2014 before the courts but in vain. Khaybulayev v . Russia (n o . 32268/15) 114.     On 15 March 2013 in the town of Buynaksk in Dagestan an explosive device detonated in a residential area. A criminal investigation into the matter was opened. Alleged ill-treatment 115 .     On 20 July 2013 police officers of the Buynaksk OVD ( ОМВД по г.   Буйнакск ) arrested the applicant and took him to the police station. The officers kicked and punched him all over his body, suffocated him with a bag, subjected him to electric shocks, forcing him to confess to the explosion. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 116.     On 23 July 2013 the applicant’s lawyer complained to an investigator about the applicant’s ill-treatment. 117 .     On 24 July 2013 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to forensic report, the applicant had abrasions on his face and hands, bruises on his back inflicted by the impact of a hard blunt object within four days before the examination. 118 .     On 8 August 2013 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, mainly relying on the statements of police officers, who had denied the applicant’s allegations. Two more refusals were issued on 28   August 2013 and 14 March 2014. The refusals had been overruled as incomplete. 119.     On 18 November 2014 the Buynaksk District Court granted the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 8 August 2013. It found that the investigator had failed to question IVS officers and medical staff. It declared the refusal unlawful. 120.     On 26 December 2014 the Supreme Court of Dagestan quashed the court decision of 18 November 2014 on the grounds that the refusal of 8   August 2013 had already been quashed, and discontinued the proceedings. Shakhruyev v . Russia (n o . 42330/18) Alleged ill-treatment 121 .     On 5 July 2017 officers of the anti-extremism centre in Dagestan ( Центр по противодействую экстремизму МВД России по Республике Дагестан ) arrested the applicant near the village of Semender in Dagestan on suspicion of participation in an illegal armed group and took him to the premises of the anti-extremism centre. The officers kicked and punched him on his head, subjected him to electric shocks, suffocated him with a bag, forcing him to confess to terrorism crimes. The applicant’s arrest record was drawn up on the following day. 122.     On 6 July 2017 the applicant was interviewed as a suspect and he confessed to the crimes. He subsequently reiterated his statements during the on-site reconstruction of events on 7 July 2017. 123 .     On 7 July 2017 the applicant was taken to the IVS. According to its medical records, the applicant had haematomas on his right eye and shoulder, in the pelvic area and buttocks, multiple bruises on his back, stomach, right leg, feet, and a bruise on his cheek. 124.     On 9 July 2017 the applicant was transferred to a remand prison, where he was diagnosed with haematomas on his right eye, back, and left buttock. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment 125 .     On 3 October 2017 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment to an investigator. The applicant’s complaint was registered on 30   October   2017. 126 .     On 12 October 2017 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, mainly relying on the statements of police officers, who had denied the applicant’s allegations. 127.     On 1 March 2018 a prosecutor overruled the refusal as incomplete. 128.     The outcome of the proceedings is unclear. The applicant’s trial 129 .     On 23 March 2018 the Kirovskiy District Court in Makhachkala convicted the applicant of membership in illegal armed groups, relying on his confession statements given during the investigation, and sentenced him to eleven years of imprisonment. The applicant pleaded not guilty, arguing that he had been ill-treated and that he had confessed under duress. The court dismissed his arguments and noted that the applicant had been represented by a lawyer during the investigation. 130.     On 16 May 2018 the Supreme Court of Dagestan dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the conviction. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 131.     For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48 ‑ 52, 14   November 2013), and Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§   96-102, 24   July   2014). 132.     For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the rights of suspects, see Turbylev v. Russia (no. 4722/09, §§ 46-49, 6   October 2015). 133 .     Article 393 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a copy of the appeal decision must be sent to the defendant within three days after the receipt of the copy by the first-instance court. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL 134 .     The relevant parts of the Public statement of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the Chechen Republic and other republics of the North Caucasian region of 11 March 2019 read as follows [Original emphasis]: “Since it issued the 2007 public statement, the CPT has carried out a further three visits to the Chechen Republic (in April 2009, April/May 2011 and November/December 2017), while seeking to pursue a constructive dialogue with the Russian authorities on various matters related to the treatment of persons detained by the law enforcement agencies in that Republic. Regrettably, it is clear from the information gathered by the Committee in the course of those visits that resort to torture and other forms of ill-treatment by members of law enforcement agencies in the Chechen Republic remains widespread , as does the related practice of unlawful detentions which inevitably heightens significantly the risk of resort to ill ‑ treatment, in particular due to the denial of fundamental safeguards. Further, it remains deeply worrying that, in their responses to the CPT’s visit reports, the Russian authorities have failed to acknowledge the gravity of the situation. ... It should also be emphasised that the widespread practice of police ill-treatment is not unique to this republic of the Russian Federation; this problem has been repeatedly highlighted also in respect of other republics of the North Caucasian region after the 2007 public statement, in particular in the context of the CPT’s 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2016 ad hoc visits to the Republics of Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino ‑ Balkaria and North Ossetia. [...] The Committee’s findings in the course of those visits demonstrated that resort to torture and other forms of severe ill-treatment remained a common occurrence in law enforcement establishments in these republics. As had been the case during previous CPT visits to these republics, the visiting delegations received a considerable number of credible allegations of physical ill ‑ treatment of detained persons whilst in the custody of law enforcement agencies. The ill-treatment alleged was often of such a severity that it could amount to torture; the methods involved included the infliction of electric shocks to various parts of the body (e.g. toes, fingers, ears and genitals), extensive beating and asphyxiation using a plastic bag or gas mask. In a number of such cases, allegations of ill-treatment were supported by medical evidence, in the form of both traumatic lesions directly observed by the delegations’ forensic medical experts and entries in medical documentation examined in detention facilities. ...” THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 135.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. PRELIMINARY ISSUES 136.     In the cases of Mr Edilbiyev (no. 62835/13), Mr Madayev (no.   66406/14) and Mr Edigov (no. 17972/15), the Government raised objections regarding the admissibility of the applications. Edilbiyev v. Russia (nos. 62835/13 and 41560/20) Complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention 137.     The Government submitted that the trial court had examined the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint and dismissed it. They further submitted that the applicant’s representative’s complaint was similarly dismissed by the investigators with reference to the findings of the trial court. The applicant failed to lodge a complaint about his alleged unrecorded detention. He “should have brought his complaint to the domestic authorities at least in substance”. In the Government’s view the applicant had failed to do so and thus had failed to exhaust domestic remedies under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. 138.     The applicant submitted that he had complained about his detention and ill-treatment for the first time during the trial. His representative’s criminal complaint lodged with the investigation office and military investigation uni