CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sA5881AC3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sC6590D0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION CASE OF KUTAYEV v. RUSSIA (Application no.   17912/15)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Ill-treatment of Chechen human rights activist aiming to extract confession in relation to drug-related charges amounting to torture • Lack of effective investigation Art 6 § 1 (criminal) • Trial rendered unfair by virtue of domestic courts’ use of applicant’s confessions for his conviction • Failure to carry out independent and comprehensive review of credible allegation that confessions resulted from police violence Art 5 § 1 • Arbitrary arrest and detention lacking legitimate purpose Art 18 (+ Art 5) • Restriction for unauthorised purposes • Deprivation of applicant’s liberty with ulterior purpose of punishing him for arranging a conference and refusing to attend a meeting with the Chechen President   STRASBOURG 24 January 2023   FINAL   24/04/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kutayev v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Yonko Grozev,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the alleged arrest, unlawful detention and ill ‑ treatment of a well-known Chechen human rights activist in connection with a drug-related offence, and his subsequent conviction on the basis of confessions allegedly obtained under duress. The applicant alleged that the actual reason for his arrest and prosecution was the holding of a conference which caused dissatisfaction among the Chechen authorities. PROCEDURE 2.     The case originated in an application (no.   17912/15) 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 a Russian national, Mr Ruslan Makhamdiyevich Kutayev (“the applicant”), on 10 April 2015. 3.     The applicant was represented before the Court by Mr I.A. Kalyapin, Ms O.A.   Sadovskaya and Mr A.G. Ryzhov, lawyers of the non-governmental organisation Committee against Torture, based in Nizhniy Novgorod. The Government were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. 4.     On 17 September 2020 the Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment, unlawful detention, conviction based on confessions obtained under duress, and the alleged ulterior purpose of the applicant’s arrest. On 6 April 2021 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The applicant’s observations were received on 25 July 2021. 5 .     On 16 March 2022 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in the context of a procedure launched under Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, adopted Resolution CM/Res(2022)2, by which the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from 16 March 2022 . 6 .     On 22 March 2022 the Court, sitting in plenary session in accordance with Rule 20 § 1, adopted the “Resolution of the European Court of Human Rights on the consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe in light of Article 58 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. It stated that the Russian Federation would cease to be a High Contracting Party to the Convention on 16 September 2022. 7.     On 5 September 2022 the Plenary Court took formal notice of the fact that the office of judge with respect of the Russian Federation would cease to exist after 16 September 2022. This, as a consequence, entailed that there was no longer a valid list of ad hoc judges who would be eligible to take part in the consideration of cases where the Russian Federation was the respondent State. 8.     By a letter of 8 November 2022, the parties were informed that the President of the Section intended to appoint one of the sitting judges of the Court to act as an ad hoc judge for the examination of the present case (applying by analogy Rule 29 § 2 of the Rules of Court). The respondent Government were informed that it was also envisaged to apply the same approach in respect of other applications against that State that the Court remained competent to deal with. They were invited to comment on that arrangement by 22 November 2022, but they did not submit any comments. 9.     Accordingly, the President of the Chamber decided to appoint an ad   hoc judge from among the members of the composition, applying by analogy Rule   29 §   2 (b). THE FACTS 10.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Deportation of the Chechen people under the Stalin regime 11.     The Chechen-Ingush massive deportation, also known as “Operation Lentil” or Aardakh, occurred during the Second World War immediately after the Soviet Army had reconquered the territories occupied by the German Army. By Decree no. 5073 of 31 January 1944, the USSR State Defence Committee ordered the abolition of the Autonomous Chechen-Ingush Soviet Socialist Republic and the deportation of its population to Central Asia and Kazakhstan for “collaboration with German invaders”. On 23 February 1944 “Operation Lentil” started, under the supervision of the head of the NKVD (People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs), Lavrentiy Beria; it lasted until 9 March 1944. About half a million Chechen and Ingush people were sent into exile, which lasted a total of thirteen years. In 1957 the Chechens were rehabilitated and allowed to return to Chechnya. 12.     On 26 February 2004 the European Parliament adopted a recommendation to the Council of the European Union on EU-Russia relations (2003/2230(INI)), stating that “the deportation of the entire Chechen people to Central Asia on 23 February 1944 on the orders of Stalin constitutes an act of genocide within the meaning of the Fourth Hague Convention of   1907 and the Convention for the Prevention and Repression of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948”. 13 .     23 February is remembered as a day of tragedy by many in Chechnya and Ingushetia. On this date Russia celebrates its Defender of the Fatherland Day ( День защитника Отечества ), decreed as a State holiday. In 2011 the Chechen President Mr Ramzan Kadyrov decreed that 10 May would commemorate the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow of the Chechen People in memory of all tragic events in their history. The applicant’s political activity 14 .     The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chechnya. He is a politician and human rights activist. In the 1990s he set up his own political party advocating for the independence of Chechnya. He served as a deputy prime minister in the government headed by Mr Aslan Maskhadov, the President of the self-proclaimed independent Chechen State. The applicant consistently criticised the military operation in Chechnya and reported human rights violations allegedly committed by Russian servicemen. In 2012 the applicant became the head of the non-governmental organisation “Assembly of Peoples of the Caucasus”. 15 .     On 18   February 2014 the applicant organised a conference in Grozny commemorating the seventieth anniversary of the deportation of the Chechen population (hereinafter “the conference”). According to the applicant, about 100 historians, politicians and other participants from Russia, the United States, Austria and Germany took part in the conference. They discussed, inter alia , the possibility of creating an international committee which could sue the Russian Government as a successor of the USSR. 16 .     According to the applicant, on 19 February 2014 the then head of the Chechen President’s administration, Mr M.D., summoned the applicant and several other conference participants to meet the President of Chechnya, Mr   Ramzan Kadyrov. On the same day the meeting took place, but the applicant refused to come. At the meeting the President admonished the participants, telling them that the activities commemorating the victims of the deportation should have been held on 10 May, the official Day of Remembrance and Sorrow of the Chechen People. THE APPLICANT’S ARREST AND ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT The applicant’s version of the events of 20 February 2014 17.     On 19 February 2014 the applicant left Grozny, fearing for his safety. He stayed at the house of his relative, Mr B., in the town of Gekhi, in the Urus-Martan District. 18 .     At about 12 noon on 20 February 2014 the applicant made several telephone calls to friends and acquaintances, including Mr Kalyapin, his representative. The applicant expressed his concerns about the conference and his refusal to meet Mr   Ramzan Kadyrov leading to pressure being exerted on him and his possible persecution by the Chechen authorities (see paragraphs 49-52 below). 19 .     At about 2 p.m. a group of armed men in black camouflage uniform arrived at Mr B.’s house. They arrived in six black vehicles with registration plates “EE ... E”, as used by the Chechen President’s security service. Without introducing themselves, the men put a jacket over the applicant’s head and put him in a vehicle.   The men took the applicant to an undisclosed location. When they arrived, the applicant found himself in a small yard surrounded by two two-storey buildings. The applicant saw Mr A.A., the Deputy Minister of the Interior of Chechnya, and Mr M.D. from the President’s administration. According to the applicant, the two men beat him for about thirty minutes, during which he fainted several times. The applicant was then taken to a basement. 20 .     Several hours later one of the officers who had arrested the applicant came to the basement with a device resembling a remote controller. The officer held a knife to the applicant’s throat and subjected him to electric shocks using the device. According to the applicant, the ill-treatment lasted for about thirty or forty minutes. The officer demanded that the applicant sign some documents. When the applicant refused, the officer called other officers. Out of fear of being killed, the applicant then agreed to sign the documents. He was taken to the premises of criminal police department no.   2 in Grozny ( Оперативно-розыскная часть №2 Министерства внутренних дел по Чеченской республике ), where he signed the documents, without reading them. The officers who had abducted him and subjected him to ill-treatment stayed in the office next door, except for Mr A.A. and Mr   M.D. The Government’s version of the events of 20 February 2014 21 .     On 20 February 2014 at about 2 p.m., police officers stopped the applicant for an identity check on the street in Gekhi because of his allegedly “suspicious behaviour”. 22 .     According to a personal search record ( протокол личного досмотра ), between 2   p.m. and 2.15 p.m. Officer I.Kh. in the presence of two attesting witnesses inspected the applicant and seized a black plastic bag containing a beige-coloured substance from the right-hand pocket of his jeans. 23 .     According to a site investigation report ( протокол осмотра места происшествия ), Officer R.Yu., who drafted and signed the report, arrived in Gekhi following “receipt of information as part of the operational-search activity”. According to the report, between 2.30   p.m. and 2.50 p.m. the officer stopped the applicant near house no. 32 for an identity check. In the presence of the attesting witnesses, he searched the applicant and seized a powder-like substance. Two photographs depicting the applicant were attached to the report. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT Investigation into the alleged drug storage 24 .     On 20 February 2014 Mr A.A. issued an order for the examination of the substance found on the applicant. The order contained an enclosure, envelope no. 1. It did not contain a description of the evidence allegedly found on the applicant or a description of its packaging. 25.     According to drug expert report no. 094/ ФХИ of 20 February 2014, the object to be analysed was received in a standard white postal envelope sealed with the stamp of the Chechen Ministry of the Interior. The envelope contained a black plastic bundle with a powder-like substance inside of a grey-beige colour, weighing 3.257 grams. The substance was established as being heroin. 26.     On 21 February 2014 at 1.30 a.m., Investigator Ts. recorded the applicant’s arrest.   At 9.30 a.m. the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer, Mr M. The applicant confirmed the version of events as submitted by the Government. On the same day Investigator Ts. ordered a chemical analysis of the seized substance. 27.     On 22 February 2014 the applicant was charged with possession of a large amount of drugs without intent to sell them. According to the indictment, the applicant had been stopped by Urus-Martan police officers “as part of an operational-search activity”. On the same day the applicant was interviewed as an accused and, in the presence of Mr M., he reiterated his statements.   On the same day a reconstruction of the events was carried out near Mr   B.’s house. The applicant showed where he had been allegedly stopped by police officers and searched. 28.     On 24 February 2014 the applicant met Mr   Kalyapin in the presence of. Mr A.A.. The applicant explained that the injuries he had sustained had been caused during a fight with a friend several days before the arrest. 29.     On the same day the applicant met his lawyer, Mr Ye.M. Owing to the risk of surveillance, the lawyer questioned the applicant in writing.   The applicant submitted the interview records, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “... Lawyer:   Has physiological or physical pressure been put [on you]? Applicant:   Yes. [L]:   Who was beating [you]? [A]:   [Mr] A.A. and [Mr] M.D. beat [me] there. [At the IVS], the head of the criminal police and someone else [have beaten me]. ... [L]:   Are you afraid to give statements and tell the truth? [A]:   Yes. [L]:   Were you telling the truth about the injuries being caused during the fight with a friend? [A]:   No. [L]:   Did you tell the employees of the non-governmental organisations the truth about the injuries? [A]:   No. I was tortured, beaten, every minute there are threats from the head of the Urus ‑ Martan criminal police and other people connected to him. They tortured me with electric shocks in Grozny. Every minute I am under threat of reprisal. Help me! They are threatening my family and relatives with reprisals. [L]:   Have there been threats of sexual violence? [A]:   Yes!!! [L]:   Do you confess to the crimes you are charged with ...? [A]:   No, I do not confess, but I am being subjected to torture and threats. [L]:   Do you need medical aid? [A]:   Yes. [L]:   Are you ready to lodge a complaint with the investigative committee ... regarding the events? [A]:   I ask that these replies to the questions be treated as an official complaint to the law ‑ enforcement bodies under Articles 144-45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 30.     The applicant added his signature under each reply. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s detention 31.     On 22 February 2014 the Urus-Martan District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. 32 .     The applicant appealed against the District Court decision, arguing that there were no grounds for his arrest and placing him in detention on remand. 33.     On 27 February 2014 the Supreme Court of Chechnya dismissed his appeal against the court decision. 34.     The applicant’s detention on remand was extended until his conviction on 7 July 2014. OFFICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT 35.     On 1 March 2014 the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta published an article entitled “Memory therapy. By electric shocks” about the applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment. It described in detail the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest as submitted by him and his alleged ill-treatment by law-enforcement officers, and was accompanied by photographs of him with his alleged injuries, and a copy of the text of his interview with his lawyer. 36.     Following publication of the article, on 3 March 2014 the Investigative Committee of Russia in Chechnya opened an inquiry into abuse of power by officials of the Chechen government. The inquiry was delegated to Mr Z., an investigator for particularly serious cases from the Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee of Russia in Chechnya. 37 .     On 7 and 8 March 2014 the applicant’s brothers, Mr A.K. and Mr   G.K., submitted to the investigator that they had learned of the applicant’s arrest from their relative, Mr B., at whose house he had been arrested on 20   February 2014. They had then learned from the applicant that he had been beaten by police officers. He was a law-abiding person and had never used drugs. In their view, his arrest and prosecution were the result of dissatisfaction among the Chechen authorities about the holding of the conference and his refusal to meet Mr   Ramzan Kadyrov. The applicant’s medical records 38 .     According to the record of the medical examination drawn up at the temporary detention facility (“the IVS”) on 21   February 2014, the applicant had bruises on his right leg in the buttock area and his left hand. The applicant explained that he had fallen down the stairs. 39.     In photographs of the applicant taken on 24 and 28 February 2014 and submitted to the Court, it can be observed that he had numerous dark dots on the skin of his left arm, various dark purple marks on his left arm and a large dark purple mark on his right buttock. 40 .     On 11 March 2014 the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant and put forward a question as to whether the applicant’s injuries could have been caused by electric shocks. The applicant was examined on 14   March 2014. According to forensic medical report no.   68, the applicant had an abrasion on the middle third of his left lower leg caused by a hard blunt object. It was deemed not to have caused any harm to his health. The report did not contain an explanation in reply to the investigator’s question as to the injuries possibly caused by electric shocks. Refusal to open a criminal investigation 41 .     On 2 April 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal case into alleged abuse of power, finding the applicant’s complaints unfounded. The investigator relied on the statements of the head of the police and the head of criminal police of the Urus-Martan district, who had denied any use of force against the applicant. Mr M.D. and Mr   A.A. stated that they did not know the applicant, and that they had not beaten him. The decision cited the expert’s conclusions as set out in forensic medical report no.   68 (see paragraph 40 above). The investigator referred to Mr A.K.’s and Mr G.K.’s submissions given on 7 and 8 March 2014 (see paragraph 37 above), and the applicant’s explanations contained in the IVS records that the bruises on his left arm and leg resulted from his having fallen down the stairs (see paragraph 38 above). The investigator also noted that upon his admission to the IVS, the applicant had not submitted any complaints. As to the applicant’s arrest, his allegations were found to be unsubstantiated. The investigator concluded that the applicant was a suspect in a criminal case, that he was represented by a lawyer, that he had not complained of ill-treatment at the time of the events and that by subsequently alleging ill-treatment, the applicant was attempting to evade criminal responsibility. Judicial review of the decision of 2 April 2014 42 .     On 11 July 2014 the applicant’s lawyer challenged before the Staropromyslovskiy District Court the refusal to open a criminal investigation, arguing that the inquiry had been incomplete because the investigator had ignored the applicant’s relatives’ statements about the circumstances of his arrest while mainly relying on the explanations of the police officers and Mr M.D. 43.     On 15   July 2014 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The court cited the investigator’s references to the statements of State officials and the applicant’s medical records, and the investigator’s finding that the applicant was attempting to evade criminal responsibility. 44 .     On 26 August 2014 the Supreme Court of Chechnya rejected the applicant’s appeal, referring to his conviction of 7   July   2014. It concluded that the applicant’s allegations had been examined during his trial. THE APPLICANT’S TRIAL 45 .     On 10 April 2014 the Urus-Martan District Court started the examination of the applicant’s criminal case. 46 .     At the trial the applicant retracted his confession given on 21 and 22   February 2014. He submitted that he had been arrested on 20 February 2014 in Mr B.’s house, that police officers had beaten him and subjected him to electric shocks, and that they had forced him to confess to the crime of which he was accused. The applicant explained that he had not retracted the statements earlier out of fear for his life and family. Witness statements regarding the applicant’s arrest 47.     The court heard several witnesses, who had been warned that they could incur criminal liability for giving false statements. 48.     Mr B., the applicant’s relative, submitted at the trial that the applicant had been in his house when on 20 February 2014, at around lunchtime, police officers had come and asked for the applicant. They had put him in a vehicle and driven in an unknown direction. On 22   February 2014 police officers had arrived with the applicant. He saw that the applicant was handcuffed. 49 .     Mr A.K., the applicant’s brother, submitted that on 19   February 2014 police officers had come to the applicant’s house and asked for his whereabouts. 50 .     Mr Kalyapin stated that on 20 February 2014, at around 12 noon, the applicant had called him and mentioned that “he had problems and was being pursued” in connection with the conference that he had held. At around 7 p.m. Mr Kalyapin had learned that the applicant had been arrested with drugs on him. Mr Kalyapin did not believe the accusations and had travelled to Chechnya to meet the applicant. On visiting him in the IVS on 24   February   2014, Mr Kalyapin had found that the applicant had large haematomas on his left forearm and his leg, as well as dotted marks indicative of electric shocks. Mr A.A. had been present during the entire meeting and the applicant had been reluctant to talk in his presence. Mr Kalyapin stated that he had later learned from the applicant himself that he had been beaten by Mr M.D. and Mr A.A. 51 .     Mr V.I., a friend of the applicant, stated that the applicant had called him on 20 February 2014 at around 12.10   p.m. and told him that Mr M.D. had threatened him over the telephone. The applicant had not known what to do and Mr V.I. had recommended that he leave Chechnya immediately. Later that day Mr   V.I. had been unable to reach the applicant by telephone. In the evening he had learned from the applicant’s brother that the applicant had been arrested on drug-related charges, which he did not believe as the applicant had never had issues with drugs. 52 .     Mr G.G. and Mr S.N., Russian politicians, submitted that on 20   February 2014 the applicant had called them and asked for help in view of his possible prosecution because of the conference. On the same day they had learned that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of a drug-related crime. In their view, the applicant’s prosecution was politically motivated. 53 .     The attesting witnesses submitted that on 20   February 2014, at about 2 p.m., they had been invited by police officers to attest to the applicant’s search. By the time they had approached the scene, other police officers and the applicant had already been waiting for them. 54.     Police officers B.Z., I.Kh., S.M., Kh.B., S.A. and R.Yu. stated that they had stopped the applicant at around 2 p.m. on 20 February 2014 for an identity check because he had “been acting strangely”. They had decided to search him and for that reason they had invited attesting witnesses. As a result of the search, they had discovered drugs on the applicant. 55 .     Mr   M.D. submitted in court that he had not known the applicant before he had called him in February 2014. The purpose of the telephone call had been to arrange a meeting with the applicant but the latter had been out of town. Mr M.D. refused to provide any details about the date of the telephone conversation with the applicant and its content. He also denied any involvement in the events in question. 56 .     It appears from the documents available to the Court that Mr A.A. was never summoned to the trial and questioned as a witness. The applicant’s conviction 57 .     On 7 July 2014 the Urus-Martan District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The court relied, among other evidence, on the following: –     the applicant’s statements of 21 and 22 February 2014; –     witness statements of police officers and attesting witnesses; –     the site investigation report of 20   February 2014; –     chemical expert report no. 094/ ФХИ of 20 February 2014; –     the reconstruction record of 22 February 2014. 58 .     The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments that his arrest had been motivated by his involvement in the conference, which had caused discontent among the Chechen authorities. It found the statements of defence witnesses in support of his arguments unreliable because they were based on the assumption that the applicant could not have been involved in a drug-related offence. 59 .     The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments that the confession had been obtained under duress, noting that he had not complained during the investigation that he had been ill ‑ treated, and that he had given his statements in the presence of a lawyer. Appeal proceedings 60 .     On 7 August 2014 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Chechnya. He argued that the officers had arrested him in the house of his relative and not on the street with drugs on him, that he had been ill ‑ treated by the police, and that he had been forced to confess to the possession of heroin. His arrest and prosecution had been triggered by the conference that he had arranged. The applicant challenged the witness statements of the police officers about the circumstances of his arrest and the statements of the attesting witnesses. 61 .     On 31 October 2014 the Supreme Court of Chechnya dismissed the applicant’s arguments as unfounded and endorsed the findings of the Urus ‑ Martan District Court. Regarding the alleged ill-treatment and confessions allegedly obtained under duress, the court referred to the refusal of 2   April 2014 to open a criminal case. OTHER MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 62 .     On 25 February 2014 a local Chechen television channel broadcast the meeting between the Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov and the Public Chamber of Chechnya. The President gave a statement, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “Now that [the applicant] is arrested, everyone is talking about it ... I will tell you the whole story. ... [A]llegedly [the applicant] was tortured. [The applicant] was asked: Were you tortured? He replied: No. Was there any misconduct towards you? He replied: There was not. They all met, they had a dialogue, lawyers were present, but yet the article was issued. And what were they doing? [The applicant] conducted a conference timed for 23   February – that is why he was arrested. There were [the applicant’s] uncle ..., all our professors, our people. I invited them all and told [Mr M.D.] to call them and ask them to come. ... What was the reason for choosing the date of 10 May? ... We, by coordinating all tragic dates and events of our people on one day, have decided that for one day we will pray and implore Almighty God for our killed, dead and infirm ... At the academic conference one has to tell the truth so that we will not have any more such instances. Now human rights activists are worried ...” 63 .     On 11 March 2014 Novaya Gazeta published an article entitled “Is this the first political prisoner in Chechnya?”, citing the Chechen President’s speech of 25   February 2014. 64.     On an unspecified date after the conviction, Amnesty International declared the applicant a “prisoner of conscience”. 65.     On 30 December 2014 Novaya Gazeta reported that Mr A.A. and Mr   M.D. had been included in the United States Magnitsky Act on sanctions in relation to their involvement in the alleged falsification of the criminal case against the applicant. 66 .     Between March and October 2014 Novaya Gazeta published several articles highlighting the court proceedings against the applicant. On 11   August 2014 the newspaper reported that the Memorial Human Rights Centre had declared the applicant to be a “political prisoner”. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 67.     For the relevant domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the rights of suspects, see Ryabtsev v.   Russia (no.   13642/06, §§ 48 ‑ 52, 14 November 2013); Lyapin v.   Russia (no.   46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24   July 2014); and Turbylev v.   Russia (no.   4722/09, §§ 46-49, 6 October 2015). 68 .     Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides for judicial review of decisions, acts or inaction on the part of an inquirer, investigator or prosecutor which affect constitutional rights or freedoms. The judge is empowered to verify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision, act or inaction and to do the following: (i) to declare the impugned decision, act or inaction unlawful or unreasonable and to order the authority concerned to remedy the violation; or (ii) to dismiss the complaint. 69 .     In its Resolution of 10 February 2009, the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia stated that it was incumbent on judges – before processing an Article   125 complaint – to establish whether the preliminary investigation had been completed in the main case. If the main case has already been sent for trial or the investigation completed, the complaint should not be examined unless it has been brought either by a person who is not a party to the main case or if such a complaint is not amenable to judicial review under Article   125 at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. In all other situations the complaint under Article 125 should be left unexamined and the complainant should be informed that he or she can raise the matter before the trial or appeal courts in the main case. RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL 70 .     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 (with 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) ... 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. ... [T]he 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. ...” 71 .     On 8 June 2016 the rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe published a report entitled “Human rights in the North Caucasus: what follow-up to Resolution 1738 (2010)?”. The relevant part of the report reads as follows: “[P]olice officers still routinely apply torture in order to obtain confessions, which remain the principle basis of guilty verdicts by courts. In some cases, the accused had explicitly complained in court that their confession had been extracted by torture, for example in the case[s] of [the applicant] ... Regarding [the applicant’s case], the Assembly’s President received an appeal signed by numerous representatives of Russian civil society. According to the signatories, [the applicant] had been ‘punished’ by trumped-up drug possession charges for having protested against the change, decided by [Mr Ramzan Kadyrov], of the date of the official remembrance day for the deportation of the Chechen people by Stalin during the Second World War ...” 72 .     On 25 April 2017 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 2157 (2017), which stated, in particular, the following: “... 3.7 [I]n the Chechen Republic, the authorities continue to nurture a climate of pervading fear in an atmosphere of personalisation of power. The head of the republic has made public threats against political opponents, human rights activists and their families ...” 73 .     On 7 February 2020 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement on physical assaults against a journalist and a lawyer in Chechnya which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “... The climate of hostility against independent civil society activists, human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists in Chechnya is often fomented by virulent and threatening speech of political leaders, including at the highest levels of the Republic, which in turn leads to impunity for those who committed these serious human rights violations. ...” Relevant european union documents 74 .     On 14 February 2019 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the situation in Chechnya and the case of Oyub Titiev (2019/2562(RSP)). The relevant parts of the Resolution read as follows: “... Chechnya has experienced a dramatic deterioration in the human rights situation over the past few years, which effectively prevents independent journalists and human rights activists from continuing their work without putting their own lives and the lives of their family members, friends and colleagues at risk; whereas the numerous reports of systematic and serious human rights abuses in Chechnya demonstrate the failure of the Chechen and Russian authorities to uphold the rule of law; ... Chechen officials have repeatedly threatened human rights defenders or denounced their work and have failed to publicly condemn threats of violence against them, thereby creating and perpetuating a climate of impunity for the perpetrators of acts of violence against human rights defenders; ... [The European Parliament] [e]xpresses its deep concerns over the worrying trend of arrests, attacks and intimidation of independent journalists, human rights defenders and their supporters ... which appear to be part of coordinated campaigns; considers the case of Oyub Titiev to be illustrative of numerous other prosecution cases built on fabricated evidence that underpins the flawed justice system in the Chechen Republic and the Russian Federation; recalls that similar charges related to drug possession have also been brought against Caucasus Knot journalist Zhalaudi Geriev and human rights activist Ruslan Kutaev, and calls for them also to be released ...” THE LAW PRELIMINARY ISSUES 75.     The Court observes that the Russian Federation ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe as from 16 March 2022 (see paragraph 5 above) and that it also ceased to be a Party to the Convention on 16 September 2022 (see paragraph 6 above). 76.     In those circumstances, the Court is called upon to determine whether it has jurisdiction to deal with the present application, although its jurisdiction has not been disputed in the context of the present proceedings by the respondent State. Since the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction is determined by the Convention itself, in particular by Article 32, and not by the parties’ submissions in a particular case, the mere absence of a plea cannot extend that jurisdiction (see Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR   2006   III). The Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in any case brought before it, and is therefore obliged to examine the question of its jurisdiction at every stage of the proceedings, of its own motion where necessary (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2   others, § 201, ECHR 2014 (extracts)). 77.     The legal basis for the Court’s jurisdiction in the event that one of the Council of Europe member States ceases to be a Contracting Party to the Convention can be found in Article 58 of the Convention. That provision, in so far as relevant, provides: “1.     A High Contracting Party may denounce the ... Convention only after the expiry of five years from the date on which it became a party to it and after six months’ notice contained in a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who shall inform the other High Contracting Parties. 2.     Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under [the] Convention in respect of any act which, being capable of constituting a violation of such obligations, may have been performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became effective. 3.     Any High Contracting Party which shall cease to be a member of the Council of Europe shall cease to be a Party to [the] Convention under the same conditions. ...” 78.     It appears from the wording of Article 58, and more specifically the second and third paragraphs, that a State which ceases to be a Party to the Convention by virtue of the fact that it has ceased to be a member of the Council of Europe is not released from its obligations under the Convention in respect of any act performed by that State before the date on which it ceases to be a Party to the Convention. 79.     This reading of Article 58 of the Convention was confirmed by the Court, sitting in plenary session (in accordance with Rule 20 § 1 of the Rules of Court), in its Resolution of 22 March 2022. The Court stated that it “remain[ed] competent to deal with applications directed against the Russian Federation in relation to acts or omissions capable of constituting a violation of the Convention provided that they occurred until 16 September 2022” (see paragraph 2 of the Resolution). 80.     In the present case, the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present application. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 81.     The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment by Chechen law-enforcement officers and that no effective investigation into his complaint had been carried out, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...” Admissibility The parties’ submissions 82.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit, arguing that the final decision regarding his complaint was the decision of 26 August 2014 of the Supreme Court of Chechnya, which had dismissed his appeal against the refusal of 2 April 2014 to open a criminal case. 83.     The applicant argued that he had been unable to seek judicial review of the refusal of 2 April 2014, because his criminal case had been sent for trial on 10 April 2014. He had raised the issue during the trial and for that reason the six-month time-limit should be counted from the decision of the Supreme Court of Chechnya upholding his conviction on appeal. The Court’s assessment 84 .     The Court observes that on 2 April 2014 the investigator refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, and that the Urus-Martan Di