CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 12 septembre 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 } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; 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 } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB95D6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c00000 } .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 } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .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 } .s99FFA883 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s5E503E34 { width:34.45pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4B52A9A9 { 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; font-size:10pt } .sCD6F69EE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.05pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sB495D04F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; 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 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 LAPUNOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 28834/19)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive and procedural) • Abduction, detention and torture of applicant by State agents in Chechnya on account of his sexual orientation • Backdrop of gross human rights violations committed against persons based on their perceived or sexual orientation • State’s failure to discharge burden of proof by providing convincing explanations capable of refuting credible allegations • Ineffective investigation plagued by serious shortcomings, lacking independence and failing to properly investigate possible discriminatory motives • Systemic failure to investigate unacknowledged detentions and disappearances in Chechnya extended more generally to ineffectiveness of investigations therein in respect of Art   2 and   3 complaints involving allegations against State agents Art 14 (+ Art 3) • Discrimination • Abduction, detention and torture of applicant triggered by homophobic motives which were not investigated Art 5 § 1 • Lawful arrest or detention • Arbitrary detention without legal basis and not officially acknowledged   STRASBOURG 12 September 2023   FINAL   12/12/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lapunov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Pere Pastor Vilanova , President ,   Jolien Schukking,   Yonko Grozev,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Peeter Roosma,   Andreas Zünd,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28834/19) 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 Maksim Grigoryevich Lapunov (“the applicant”), on 24 May 2019; the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 3, 5 and 14 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant; the comments submitted by the   European   Region of the International Lesbian,   Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe), the Advice   on Individual Rights in Europe   Centre (AIRE Centre), the   International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), REDRESS, the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), the Equal Rights Trust, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) and Human Rights Watch (HRW), who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge, applying by analogy Rule 29 §   2 of the Rules of Court (see Kutayev v. Russia , no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 4 and 11 July 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns allegations that the applicant was unlawfully detained and tortured by State agents in Chechnya in March 2017 because of his homosexuality, and that there was no effective investigation into the matter. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1987 and lived in Sargatskoye, in the Omsk Region, prior to leaving Russia. He currently resides in a different country. He was represented before the Court by Ms   O.   Sadovskaya (a lawyer practising in Nizhny Novgorod) and Ms   V.   Lapina (a human rights defender practising in St Petersburg). 3.     The Government were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, former Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by his successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND 5.     On 1 April 2017 the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta   published its first report on a campaign of persecution against LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) people in the Chechen Republic which had allegedly been taking place since February that year. Novaya Gazeta reported on the abduction, arbitrary detention and torture of men suspected of being gay – actions which had been carried out with the direct involvement of Chechen law-enforcement officials acting on the orders of the highest Chechen authorities. According to reports, the campaign had been personally instigated by Ramzan Kadyrov, the President of Chechnya. The credibility of these allegations was subsequently confirmed by reports and statements from numerous organisations, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the   Moscow Mechanism   of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see paragraphs 67-74 below), as well as many reputable NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Russian LGBT Network, the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights, and numerous international media, including The New York Times , The Washington Post , the BBC and Deutsche Welle. As a result of that campaign, more than 114   LGBTI people and members of their families fled Chechnya. 6.     The reports and statements generally acknowledged that the campaign of persecution of persons on the basis of their perceived or actual sexual orientation – in the form of arbitrary and unlawful arrests, detentions, torture, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions – had occurred in several “waves” of “purges” between December 2016 and May 2017, and identified a certain pattern as regards such violations. 7 .     According to these reports, victims suspected of being homosexual were picked up at various locations by security personnel who were often in civilian clothes, and they were taken to police stations, detention facilities or unofficial secret prisons. They were then subjected to severe beatings, often with plastic rods, pipes or cords, as well as to insults and humiliation because of their homosexuality. They were often deprived of food and water, had no access to medical or legal assistance, and their relatives were not informed of their detention. The aim was to force the victims to admit their homosexuality and/or provide the names of other LGBTI persons. 8.     While in unrecorded detention, victims were often subjected to daily abuse for up to two weeks, or until they signed a confession, reported others, or otherwise agreed to cooperate with the Chechen authorities. Some of the victims died as a result of the torture. Those who survived the detention and severe beatings were released in a kind of ceremony to “shame them for their sins”: the victims’ sexual orientation was revealed to their relatives, who were encouraged to “get rid of the sick family members” and commit so ‑ called “honour killings”,   which are publicly condoned by the President of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. 9 .     NGOs have documented dozens of such murders motivated by prejudice in traditional Chechen society, where an LGBTI person is believed to cast a shameful shadow over the entire family and relatives are effectively entitled to kill the person in question on the basis that he or she is a disgrace to the family. Released victims have also been banned from leaving Chechnya and threatened with intimidation to deter them and their families from filing criminal complaints. There have been reported cases of abductions, including detention and forcible transfer to Chechnya of Ms   Z.M. from Nizhniy Novgorod, Mr S.M. and Mr I.M. from Nizhniy Novgorod, Mr S.T. from the Krasnodar Region, and others. 10 .     According to a publication of 25 April 2017 in the newspaper The   Independent , the UK Minister of State for the Foreign Office stated that Ramzan Kadyrov had announced that all gay men in the Chechen Republic would be exterminated by Ramadan (by 27 May 2017). Shortly afterwards, Mr   Kadyrov’s spokesman, Mr Alvi Karimov, declared that the reports of an “anti-gay purge” were false, as there were no such men in the Chechen Republic. In a clear reference to “honour killings”, he went on to say “If there were such people in Chechnya, the law-enforcement agencies would not have anything to do with them, because their relatives would send them to a place from which there is no return”. Similarly, Ms Kheda Saratova, a member of the Human Rights Council, which is an advisory body to the President of the Chechen Republic, claimed that “[in] Chechen society, any person who respects our traditions and culture will hunt down this kind of person without any help from the authorities, and will do everything to ensure that this kind of person does not exist in our society”. She also stated that she would not even consider a complaint on the matter. 11 .     In a television interview on 14 July 2017 for HBO in the United States, President Kadyrov, when asked about the purge of gay men, said “This is nonsense. We don’t have such people here. We don’t have gays. If there are any, take them to Canada ... To purify our blood, if there are any here, take them ... They are devils. They are for sale, they are not human beings”. On 14 May 2018 the Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation, Mr   Alexandr Konovalov, claimed at the UN Human Rights Council that there were no LGBT people in Chechnya. 12 .     Several international human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House, as well as the Russian LGBT Network and Novaya Gazeta , have called for an effective investigation, but no investigation has been launched. This was the case until the applicant, a man of Russian rather than Chechen ethnicity, lodged a formal complaint alleging that he had been abducted and tortured by Chechen law-enforcement agents because he was gay. THE APPLICANT’S ACCOUNT OF EVENTS 13.     The applicant is a homosexual person who is open about his sexual orientation. When he moved to Chechnya in 2015 he did not hide his sexual identity, but he did not mention it unless this was necessary. He had an event-planning business and sold party balloons in the town of Grozny. Abduction of the applicant’s acquaintance and subsequent events 14 .     On 6 March 2017 the applicant was with an acquaintance, Mr   E.Ts., in the applicant’s flat. At 10 p.m. Mr E.Ts. received a message via a social network and left. A minute later the applicant heard a scream from the street and then spoke with a neighbour, who said that unknown persons had forced Mr E.Ts. into a black Lada Priora car escorted by another similar car. The applicant telephoned Mr   E.Ts., but he did not answer. Immediately thereafter the applicant reported the incident to a local police station. 15.     At 12.30 a.m. on 7 March 2017 an investigator from the Leninskiy district police station arrived at the applicant’s flat and questioned him about the details of the above-mentioned incident. 16 .     On 12 March 2017 Mr E.Ts.’s brother told the applicant that Mr   E.Ts. had been arrested and then released from detention with traces of beatings, and that the applicant was to cease all contact with him. The applicant’s abduction, ill-treatment and release 17.     On 16 March 2017 the applicant was selling balloons on the street in the vicinity of Grand Park in Grozny, a shopping area with many street vendors monitored by CCTV cameras. At about 9 p.m. a police officer,   M.B. (the applicant does not know his full name, but knows that it starts with “B”), approached the applicant and dragged him to a grey VAZ ‑ model car parked nearby. Officer I. took the applicant, who was screaming and asking for explanations, by the other arm. The men said that they would “explain everything” at a police station. Around fifty street vendors (including some of the applicant’s acquaintances) intervened, asking the men to release the applicant, but to no avail. Two other persons came out of Officer M.B.’s car and forced the applicant inside. The car’s door handles had been removed, so the applicant could not escape. 18.     Having heard the commotion, four police officers arrived at the scene. One of the abductors showed them his service identity card. The officers recorded the applicant’s personal details and the car’s registration plates and left. 19 .     In the meantime, the abductors seized the applicant’s phone and told him that he was suspected of murder. Ten minutes later they arrived at a building located behind gates bearing signs for the Ministry of the Interior (the Chechen police headquarters). Having placed a hood over the applicant’s head, the four men escorted him to an office, where the hood was removed. In that office there was a man whose own portrait was on the wall next to a portrait of the Chechen President, Ramzan Kadyrov. According to the applicant, he could identify that man, who, he believes, held a senior position in the Chechen police. 20 .     The man in the office took the applicant’s mobile phone and read his personal messages. He asked the applicant if he knew the reasons for his arrest and then read out several messages sent by the applicant to a man, the content of which suggested that the applicant was a homosexual. The men standing in the room accused the applicant of having come to Chechnya “to seduce Chechen boys” and ordered him to give up the contact details of his sexual partners, expressing particular interest in the gay men who were of Chechen ethnicity. When the applicant refused to provide the information, the interrogator told Officers   M.B. and I. to beat him up. 21 .     Officers M.B. and I. took the applicant to another office, where they insulted him, referring to his sexual orientation, and forced him to make a phone call to a homosexual acquaintance and arrange a meeting. The applicant telephoned Mr T. Then, together with Officers M.B. and I., he was driven to Mr T.’s residence to meet him there. Mr T. was immediately detained and taken, along with the applicant, to the basement floor of the same police building. The floor had several cells. The applicant and Mr   T.   were put in neighbouring cells. 22 .     The floor of the applicant’s cell was covered in blood. Pieces of cardboard served as a bed and a blanket; a bucket was used as a toilet. On one of the days which followed the applicant saw Mr T. being beaten up with a piece of PVC water pipe. 23.     The night after he was first detained, on several occasions the applicant was visited by different men who insulted him for being gay, shouted at him, hit him in the face, and threatened him with sexual abuse. 24.     The next day, two of the applicant’s guards, armed with PVC water pipes, beat him up, saying that they were punishing him for his homosexuality and for having sexual intercourse with Chechens. One of the perpetrators tried to abuse him sexually, but the applicant resisted. The perpetrators struck dozens of blows with the PVC water pipes, particularly on the applicant’s buttocks and hands, causing him to bleed and his blood to stain the cell wall. 25 .     After the beatings the applicant was confronted with Mr T., and both of them were forced to describe the details of the sexual intercourse between them that had taken place at Mr T.’s residence. The applicant also witnessed Mr T. being beaten. It was their last meeting; on approximately the fourth day of his detention the applicant heard from the guards that Mr T. would be handed over to his parents to be “sent to France”. The applicant later found out that this expression meant that a person would be killed, and assumed that Mr T. had been killed. 26 .     On the second or third day of his detention the applicant was forced to clean up cells in the basement. At that time he met Mr A.K., another prisoner, who told him that he had also been apprehended for being a homosexual. In 2018 the applicant learned that a criminal case into Mr A.K.’s murder had been opened in 2017 in Grozny (see paragraph 59 below). The applicant also met Mr A., who had been detained on suspicion of killing a police officer. They discovered that they both knew the same person. Mr A. asked the applicant to pass information about his detention in that basement to his parents. 27.     On 27 March 2017 Officer M.B. came to the applicant’s cell and said that the applicant would go to his flat, pack his belongings and leave Chechnya. The guards put a bag over the applicant’s head and took him to his flat. However, they could not enter as the lock had been changed. They then returned the applicant to his cell. Several hours later they took the applicant to his flat again and opened the door. The applicant had ten minutes to pack. Thereafter, he was returned to his cell again. 28 .     The next day, 28 March 2017, the applicant was taken to the office of the man who had previously ordered Officers I. and M.B. to extract information from him (see paragraphs 19-20 above). That man threatened the applicant and his family with reprisals if the applicant complained about his detention and ill ‑ treatment. He then put a gun in the applicant’s hand so that it would have his fingerprints on it, and forced the applicant to put his signatures on some documents that the applicant could not read and on various blank sheets of paper. He was then forced to read out his personal details and information about his sexual orientation while being filmed on a mobile phone camera by Officer M.B., and to give information about his friends’ addresses. One of the investigators present in the room, Mr S., was subsequently put in charge of the inquiry into the applicant’s disappearance (see paragraph 31 below). 29 .     The applicant was then taken to a train station, where he was given a ticket to Pyatigorsk in the neighbouring region. Instead of departing, the applicant visited Berkat Market, where he told Ms   Kh. and Ms K. about his ill-treatment and showed them his injuries. He also met with Mr A.’s parents and told them about their son’s detention (see paragraph 26 above). On the same day he took a bus to Krasnodar and then to Sochi, as he was afraid to return to the home of his relatives. The applicant did not contact any medical authorities to have his injuries recorded, because he was afraid that the doctors would report the incident to the police and that the people who had abducted him in Chechnya would learn about this. Shortly after his release from detention he took several photos of his injuries with a mobile phone camera and sent them to several people. According to statements collected by the NGO the Committee against Torture on 21 June 2017, which were submitted to the Court by the applicant, several people saw haematomas on his body after his release from detention, including Ms   Kh., Ms K. and Ms   Yu. 30.     On 10 April 2017 the applicant arrived in Perm and moved into the house of a relative in the Perm Region. Search for the applicant 31 .     On 23 March 2017 the applicant’s sister reported his disappearance to the Chechen police. Mr S. was the investigator in charge of the search for the applicant (see paragraphs 28 and 40). According to the investigator, on 25   March 2017 the applicant’s whereabouts were established. The applicant was taken from his flat to the headquarters of the Chechen police to give written explanations, in which he stated that his mobile phone had been out of order, he was busy with work and therefore he had not called his family. On the basis of that explanation, on 17 April 2017 the investigator issued a decision not to open a criminal case into the alleged disappearance. INQUIRY INTO THE APPLICANT’S ILL-TREATMENT 32 .     On 1 June 2017 the applicant asked the Committee against Torture to assist him in initiating a criminal investigation into his abduction, unlawful detention and ill-treatment between 16 and 28 March 2017. The Committee against Torture conducted an independent enquiry and questioned numerous witnesses, including Ms Kh. and the applicant’s aunt Ms Yu., both of whom confirmed that the applicant had told them about his abduction and ill ‑ treatment and had shown them his injuries. On 29 August 2017 the applicant had a personal meeting with the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation, Ms   T.   Moskalkova, who then asked Investigative Committee to investigate the incident. On the same date, 29   August 2017, the applicant lodged a similar request in that regard. 33 .     Investigators from the unit for very important cases of the Russian Investigative Committee in the North Caucasus Region (“the investigators”) were instructed to carry out a pre ‑ investigation inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. At the outset, the investigators requested the assistance of the Chechen police in carrying out operational-search activities and taking other steps to assist the investigation. Thus, the investigative actions in Chechnya – including identifying and interviewing the witnesses, inspecting the crime scene and collecting other evidence – were carried out with the participation of members of the Chechen police force. 34 .     On 28 September 2017 the applicant asked the investigators to allow two people, including the chairman of the Committee against Torture, to represent him in the proceedings. The request was dismissed on 20 October 2017 on the grounds that those people were not advocates. On the same day the applicant also asked to examine Officer M.B.’s mobile phone (see paragraph 28 above), but to no avail. 35 .     On 29 and 30 September 2017 the applicant was interviewed by the investigators. He provided a detailed account of his abduction, detention and ill-treatment, including the names and appearances of the perpetrators, and stated that he could identify them. He stressed that he had been ill-treated on account of his homosexuality. He also explained that he had not contacted doctors after his release, because he had been afraid that they would give that information to the Chechen police. The applicant said that the injuries had mostly healed – only scars on his legs, palms and ears remained. He further stated that he had photographs of his injuries (see paragraph 29 above) and gave a flash drive containing the photographs to the investigators, without asking for this to be recorded. The applicant also described in detail the area in the basement where he had been detained, stating that despite being blindfolded, he had heard that he had passed some mechanism that whirred and had then approached a large metal door blocking the hallway, behind which the detention cells had been located. He described the cells and where his bloodstains could be found, as well as the office in that building where he had been taken by Officers M.B. and I. 36 .     After being questioned, the applicant asked the investigators to interview the witnesses to his abduction, the alleged perpetrators, and the persons who had seen his injuries. He also asked them to inspect the Chechen police headquarters in his presence, seize CCTV recordings from cameras installed on the premises, and take other steps. Lastly, he applied for protective measures, primarily against the Chechen police officers. That application was dismissed by the investigators on 29   October 2017 on the grounds that there was no real threat to the applicant’s personal security. 37 .     On 6 October 2017 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who found, inter alia , two scars on the right palm and one on the right wrist which had been caused by strong impact from a blunt object around six to eighteen months before the examination. The expert observed “defined tremors” across the applicant’s body at the time of the examination. The applicant explained that his body reacted that way when he recalled the events of March 2017. 38.     On 9 October 2017 the applicant’s representative asked the investigators to grant him leave to represent the applicant in the proceedings. The request was dismissed on 20 October 2017 on the grounds that no criminal case had been opened yet. 39 .     On 10 October 2017 the investigators inspected the location of the applicant’s alleged arrest near Grand Park in Grozny, and the police headquarters. Neither the applicant nor attesting witnesses or experts were invited to take part in the inspection. The investigators examined eleven rooms on the basement floor; none of them resembled prison cells. On subsequent unspecified dates the investigators inspected several other places where the applicant could have been detained. Neither the applicant nor any other witnesses were present during those inspections. According to the applicant, the plan of the building submitted to the inquiry by the Chechen police indicated that there were seventeen cells on the basement floor. Six of those cells were not mentioned in the inspection report. 40 .     On 11 October 2017 the investigators questioned Mr S., whose statement is summarised in paragraph 31 above. Shortly afterwards the investigators identified two police officers who had allegedly established the applicant’s whereabouts and taken him to Mr   S. Both stated that the applicant had been found in his flat and then taken to Mr S. 41.     On 12 October 2017 the investigators asked Grand Park to provide its CCTV recordings from 16 March 2017. Grand Park replied that recordings were kept for twenty-one days, and so the recordings in question had been deleted after that period had elapsed. 42.     On 20 October 2017 Mr E.Ts. was interviewed and stated that he had not been detained by the police and had not met the applicant on 6   or   16   March 2017. On various dates in October 2017 all of the alleged witnesses to the applicant’s abduction refused to appear or give evidence. All the police officers who had been patrolling the Grand Park area on 16   March 2017 denied witnessing the applicant’s abduction. 43 .     On 20 October 2017 the investigators issued a decision refusing to open a criminal case because the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed by the evidence collected. On the same date that decision was overruled by the investigators’ superiors, as not all of the witnesses had been interviewed. 44 .     On 25 October 2017 the investigators interviewed the medical expert about an object which could have caused the injuries noted in his forensic report (see paragraph 37 above). According to the expert, it might have been a water pipe. 45.     When interviewed on 1 November 2017, several Chechen police officers stated that their headquarters were not equipped with either CCTV cameras or detention cells, and they said that neither the applicant nor Mr   E.Ts. had been detained there. 46 .     When interviewed in November 2017, the street vendors working in the vicinity of Grand Park stated that none of them had seen the applicant’s abduction, and only some of them had heard about it from third parties. Several of the vendors who initially refused to be interviewed gave their statements to the investigators after being taken to the Chechen police headquarters by police officers. Two vendors, Ms D. and Ms N., stated in general terms that on an unspecified day in 2017 the applicant had suddenly left his workplace, leaving all his belongings and merchandise behind. They had collected his things and had given them back to him some time later. 47.     On 10 November 2017 the investigators interviewed Ms Kh., who stated that on 28 March 2017 the applicant had visited her and Ms K. at Berkat Market in Grozny. She had given him some food and they had talked about daily activities. Contrary to the statement she had previously given to the Committee against Torture (see paragraph 32 above), she denied that the applicant had told her about his abduction and ill-treatment or shown her his injuries. On 18 November 2017 the investigators questioned Ms K., who denied having any knowledge of the applicant’s abduction and ill ‑ treatment or seeing him on 28 March 2017. When interviewed on 20   November 2017, other vendors, Ms T., and Ms S., confirmed that they had heard about the applicant’s abduction and ill-treatment from Ms Kh. and Ms K. 48 .     On 21 November 2017 the investigators questioned Mr T., who denied knowing the applicant (see paragraph 25 above). He also stated that although he was a student at medical college, he had not attended classes between 16   and 28 March 2017 and had had to take long-term leave to take care of his sick mother. In addition, Mr T. could not recall the address of his own place of residence. Later on the same day the investigators questioned the parents of Mr A. (see paragraphs 26 and 29 above), who stated in general terms that their son had been killed in a clash with law-enforcement officers in March   2017 and his body had not been released to them. In spring 2017 the applicant had contacted them to provide some information about their son, but that information had not been clear or useful to them. 49 .     On 22 November 2017 the investigators again refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s allegations. Two days later the investigators’ superiors overruled that decision and ordered that the inquiry be resumed, as more steps needed to be taken. 50 .     On 29 November 2017, for the second time, the applicant’s lawyer applied for protective measures in respect of the applicant, who had received threats. The lawyer stated that if the request was granted, the applicant could go to Grozny, identify the perpetrators and find traces of his detention in the basement of the police headquarters. The investigators dismissed the request as unsubstantiated on 29   December 2017. That decision was overruled by the investigators’ superiors on 5   February 2018, but the investigators refused the request again on 8   February 2018. 51 .     On 25 December 2017, for the third time, the investigators refused to open a criminal case; on 10 January 2018 the inquiry was resumed, following criticism from the investigators’ superiors. 52 .     On 15 January 2018 the investigators added to the case file a copy of the case file in respect of the investigation into the death of Mr A. (see   paragraphs 26, 29 and 48 above). Without taking other steps, on 9   February 2018 they again refused to open a criminal case, but on 19   February 2018 their superiors ordered that the inquiry be resumed. 53.     On 15 February 2028 the investigators obtained a statement from Ms   Yu. (see paragraph 32 above), who denied that the applicant had told her about his abduction and ill-treatment upon his return from Grozny. The investigators did not ask her whether she had seen his injuries. On 20   February 2018 the investigators questioned a witness who had heard rumours about the applicant’s detention from a colleague of the applicant. 54.     On 21 March 2018 the investigators issued the fifth decision not to open a criminal case, concluding that the applicant’s allegations were not confirmed by the evidence collected. The investigators also found that the applicant was not guilty of deliberate false denunciation, as he had not identified the perpetrators. APPEAL AGAINST THE REFUSAL TO OPEN A CRIMINAL CASE 55 .     On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Yessentuki Town Court (“the Town Court”), stating that the investigators had failed to take basic investigative steps, such as: including the photographs of his injuries in the case file; questioning the witnesses who had seen those injuries; obtaining information about the location of his mobile phone between 16 and 28 March 2017 from the mobile phone service operators; and questioning the officers who had been on duty at the entrance of the Chechen police headquarters on 16   March 2017. The applicant stressed that important steps such as an identification parade and the cross ‑ examination of witnesses could have been carried out only if a criminal case had been opened. 56.     On 22 August 2018 the Town Court dismissed the appeal. It found that the inquiry had been thorough, as all of the required steps had been taken, and its outcome did not support the applicant’s allegations. The court also noted that the applicant had left Russia, which prevented the investigators from taking further steps. 57 .     On 12 September 2018 the applicant challenged the above decision before the Stavropol Regional Court. He stated that he was prepared to participate in the investigation and had repeatedly made requests to participate in the verification procedures, including one in September 2017 (see paragraphs 36 and 50 above), however, all such requests had been refused. He also stated, in particular, that on 3 November 2018 he had accessed his Google account, which contained information about the location of his mobile phone on the day of the abduction. A screenshot attached to the appeal indicated that at 9.13   p.m. on 16   March   2017 his phone had been at Grand Park in Grozny when it had started moving to the Chechen police headquarters. From 10.46 p.m. to 10.51 p.m. his phone had been located at Mr   T.’s residence. Later, the phone had moved back to the police headquarters (see paragraphs 21, 22 and 25 above). From 17 to 29   March 2017 the phone had been switched off. 58 .     On 26 November 2018 the Stavropol Regional Court upheld the Town Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. INQUIRY INTO M r A.K.’S MURDER 59 .     On 31 October 2017 the Zavodskoy District Investigative Committee in Grozny opened a criminal case into the murder of Mr   A.K. in March 2017 (see paragraph 26 above). An examination of his mobile phone data on 23   January 2018 showed that from 14 to 16 March 2017 Mr   A.K.’s phone had been in the vicinity of the Chechen police headquarters. The investigation into the criminal case was suspended and resumed on several occasions; the last suspension was on 23 August 2019. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS 60.     At some point in 2017 or 2018 the applicant left Russia. 61 .     Since 2018 the applicant has taken part in two psychological rehabilitation courses. In his report of 6 November 2020 his counselling psychologist concluded that the traumatic events of March 2017 had caused the applicant to develop an anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The psychologist had observed little improvement in the applicant’s mental state over the course of the rehabilitation courses. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK and public material DOMESTIC LAW 62 .     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, as in force at the material time, read as follows: Article 66 Aggravated circumstances “1.     Aggravated circumstances are: ... (e)     committing a crime on the grounds of political, ideological, racial, national, or religious hatred, or on the grounds of hostility or hatred towards any social group.” 63 .     In accordance with the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23   September 2014 on the constitutionality of Article 6.21 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Russia, the concept of “a social group” may apply to a group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation. 64 .     Under Article 73 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a criminal motive is one of the elements that must be established during criminal proceedings. 65.     For other relevant provisions of domestic law regarding the prohibition of ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014). RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 66.       On 31 March 2010 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the text of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 to member States on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, the relevant parts of which read as follows: A.     “Hate crimes” and other hate-motivated incidents “1.     Member states should ensure effective, prompt and impartial investigations into alleged cases of crimes and other incidents, where the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is reasonably suspected to have constituted a motive for the perpetrator; they should further ensure that particular attention is paid to the investigation of such crimes and incidents when allegedly committed by law enforcement officials or by other persons acting in an official capacity, and that those responsible for such acts are effectively brought to justice and, where appropriate, punished in order to avoid impunity. 2.     Member states should ensure that when determining sanctions, a bias motive related to sexual orientation or gender identity may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance. ... 5.     Member states should ensure that relevant data are gathered and analysed on the prevalence and nature of discrimination and intolerance on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, and in particular on ‘hate crimes’ and hate-motivated incidents related to sexual orientation or gender identity.” Documents relevant to the persecution of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic 67 .     On 13 April 2017 the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement by United Nations human rights experts, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “Men detained in the Russian Republic of Chechnya simply for being perceived to be gay must be immediately released and their abuse and persecution ended ... ... We call on the authorities to proceed with the immediate release of everyone unlawfully detained in the Republic of Chechnya on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of abduction, unlawful detention, torture and unlawful killing, and to ensure that all those involved in such acts are held to account, and that victims are provided with effective remedy ... ... We call on Russia to take urgent measures to protect the life, liberty and security of gay and bisexual people in Chechnya and to investigate, prosecute and punish acts of violence motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation ...” 68.     On 18 May 2017 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the implementation of the European Council’s LGBTI Guidelines, particularly in relation to the persecution of (perceived) homosexual men in Chechnya, Russia. The relevant parts of that resolution read as follows: “The European Parliament, having regard to its previous resolutions on Russia, ... 1.     Expresses its deep concern at the reports of arbitrary detention and torture of men perceived to be gay in the Republic of Chechnya in the Russian Federation; calls on the authorities to end this campaign of persecution, to immediately release those who are still illegally detained, to ensure legal and physical protection for victims and the human rights defenders and journalists who have worked on this case, and to allow international human rights organisations to conduct a credible investigation into the alleged crimes; 2.     Condemns all statements by the Chechen authorities that condone and incite violence against LGBTI people, including the statement by the Chechen Government spokesperson denying the existence of homosexuals in Chechnya and discrediting the report as ‘lies and absolute disinformation’; deplores the unwillingness of local authorities to investigate and prosecute the serious violations directed specifically at individuals based on their sexual orientation, and reminds the authorities that the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression are universal rights and apply to all; calls for the immediate release of those who are still illegally detained; urges the Russian authorities to provide legal and physical protection for the victims, as well as for the human rights defenders and journalists who have worked on this case; ...” 69.     On 27 June 2018 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted Resolution 2230 (2018) entitled “Persecution of LGBTI people in the Chechen Republic (Russian Federation)”, the relevant parts of which   read as follows: “7.     In the light of these considerations, the Assembly urges the Russian Federation to: 7.1.     conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the persecution of LGBTI   people in the Chechen Republic and ensure there will be no impunity for the perpetrators; 7.2.     allow an independent international investigation by an international human rights organisation, should an investigation at national level not be pursued; 7.3.     ensure the legal and physical protection of victims, their fami