CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 septembre 2024

.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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF FRENKEL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 2504/19 and 9 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 12 September 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Frenkel and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   María Elósegui , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. Jurisdiction 6.     The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§   68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 7.     The applicants complained principally of inhuman or degrading treatment. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.     The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no.   23380/09, §§   81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was in favour of applicants claiming   to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia , no.   65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The Court has found that while performing their functions, teachers of public or municipal nursery schools may be regarded as State agents (see V.K. v. Russia , no. 68059/13, § 182, 7   March 2017). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force by State agents, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v.   Poland , no.   46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v.   Russia   [Committee], nos.   62003/08 and 5 others, §   84, 5 July 2022). With respect to a medical intervention to which a detained person is subjected against his or her will, the medical necessity must be convincingly shown to exist, and relevant procedural guarantees must be complied with (see Gorobet v. Moldova , no. 30951/10, §   51, 11   October 2011, and   Bataliny v. Russia , no. 10060/07, § 87, 23 July 2015). 9.     Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no.   46956/09, §§   128 ‑ 40, 24   July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no.   57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20   November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland , no.   76813/16, §   88, 2   September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that   the authorities’   refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the State agents were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article   3 of the Convention. This is all the more so in cases where the authorities have refused to either carry-out an official inquiry into the applicants’ allegations or officially register the applicants’ complaints (see the appended table). 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and decides that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, with the exception of application no.   43709/19 where it finds only a violation of the procedural limb of that provision. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see the attached table). These complaints are not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tomov and Others v. Russia , nos.   18255/10 and 5 others, 9   April 2019; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no.   76204/11, 4 December 2014; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no.   21613/07, 3 October 2013; Novikova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   25501/07 and 4 others, §§   106 ‑ 225, 26 April 2016; Korneyeva v.   Russia , no.   72051/17, §§ 34-36 and §§   62 ‑ 65, 8 October 2019, Ksenz and Others v. Russia , nos.   45044/06 and 5   others, §§ 111-12, 12   December 2017;   Karelin v. Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016; Fortalnov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia , nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §§   74-76, 13   October 2020. REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     Some applicants raised further additional complaints under the Convention. In view of the findings above, the Court considers that there is no   need   to deal separately with these remaining complaints. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Having regard to the documents in its possession, its case-law (see, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022) and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid , cited above, § 138), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16   September 2022; Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning inhuman and degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation into it and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court (as indicated in the appended table), admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints raised by the applicants; Holds that there has been a breach of both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention concerning inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants and lack of an effective investigation into it, with the exception of application no.   43709/19, where there has been a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention only; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 September 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   María Elósegui   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)   No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Factual information Medical evidence of ill ‑ treatment Date of first complaint Decision issued in response to complaint of ill ‑ treatment Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP Appeal decision Information relating to conviction Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     2504/19 25/12/2018 David Aleksandrovich FRENKEL 1991 Gayazova Regina Fargatovna Kazan On 11/12/2016 the applicant, a journalist, was attempting to take photographs at a rally of a national liberation movement in St Petersburg when one of the participants attacked him, trying to knock out his camera and making anti-Semitic remarks. The incident was filmed by another journalist. The applicant called the police, who on their arrival let the other man go and took the applicant to police station no. 78. At the station, the deputy head of the station, Officer M., asked the applicant to turn off his telephone, which he refused to do. A hostile argument ensued, after which the Officer called an emergency psychiatric team for the applicant. The three medical personnel, including Doctor K., without asking the applicant any questions, immediately used physical force against him by applying a chokehold and forcibly putting a rubber tourniquet to his hands. For three hours, while the applicant remained tied up, the doctor spoke to the applicant’s father, who had arrived at the police station, and then to Officer M. The doctor then ordered the paramedics to release the applicant. The entire incident was filmed by the police station’s CCTV. Medical certificate no. 5693 issued by trauma unit of outpatient clinic no.   37 on 11/12/2016: bruises and abrasions on the left lateral neck, bruises on the anterior surface of both forearms, both wrist joints, abrasions on the nail phalanges of two fingers. On 15/12/2016 complaint of ill ‑ treatment against the police officers and the medical personnel/On 10/02/2017 refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti. On 10/09/2018 the Dzerzhinsky District Court in St Petersburg rejected the applicant’s appeal against the refusal/On 30/10/2018 the decision was upheld by St Petersburg City Court. The courts failed to examine the applicant’s argument that the call for the psychiatric emergency team was unnecessary and that it was caused by Officer M.’s hostile attitude towards the applicant.     6,500     34970/19 20/06/2019 Magomed Ziyaudinovich MUTSOLGOV 1987   Ruslan Zuyatdinovich YANDIYEV 1900   Kogan Vanessa Moscow On 17/11/2018 the applicants were beaten by the police in Magas during a manifestation against the inter-government decision of the authorities of Chechnya and Ingushetia concerning the delimitation of the territory. They were detained on the same day and subjected to administrative arrest for 5   days. Applicant 1: on 20/11/2018 medical examination at the trauma unit of the Akhushkova hospital: abrasions on both elbow joints. Applicant 2: on 20/11/2018 medical examination at the trauma unit of the Akhushkova hospital: haematoma on the scalp, abrasion on the right eye and right hand, bruises on both knee joints, contusion of the cervical spine.   On 26/11/2018 and 27 /11/2018 the applicants complained of ill-treatment to the Ingushetia investigative committee/On 29/12/2018 refusal to open a criminal case. The video of the beating was not examined, the witnesses to the incident were not questioned. On 21/02/2019 the applicants appealed against the refusal to the Magas Town Court/On 01/03/2019 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/ On 16/04/2019 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 17/11/2018 for compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art.   6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial police officers on whose written statements the conviction was entirely based. 16,000     43709/19 30/07/2019 Tatyana Vyacheslavovna POPOVA 1981   Mariya Vladimirovna MOROZOVA 2015   Morozov Vladimir Gennadyevich Volgograd On 08/12/2017 a teacher at the municipal educational institution nursery school no. 135 [МОУ "Детский cад no. 135"] in Volgograd hit the second applicant, who was 1 year and 11   months old at the time, in the face. The second applicant allegedly told her parents (the first applicant and the father) that a teacher had hit her. The second applicant developed fear of nurses and was refusing to go to school. She had been supervised by a neurologist by the time of lodging the application. A certificate and a medical record of 08/12/2017 by the State Emergency Hospital no.15 in Volgograd (bruise to the face, brain concussion); Certificate of 11/12/2017 by a neurologist of the State Children Pout-Patient Clinic no. 16 of Volgograd (brain concussion); Forensic medical expert report no. 5400 of 18/12/2017 (bruise to the right zygomatic region, could have been caused by a solid blunt object); Forensic medical examination report no. 2105 of 21/06/2018 (bruise to the face; expert not competent to establish whether the injury could have been caused by a fall from the applicant’s height, or by an impact of a pacifier, or by hitting against a car hood).   On 08/12/2017 State Emergency Hospital no.   15 sent information about the second applicant’s injuries to the 8th police station in Volgograd. On 11/12/2017, the first applicant lodged complaints with the police about the beatings and requested institution of criminal proceedings against the director of the nursery school and the teacher. Between 05/01/2018 and 03/07/2019 seven refusals to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti, all set aside by the investigators’ superiors as incomplete. Defects identified in the latest decisions to quash the refusal: failure to examine the scene; to question other employees of the nursery school; to question a forensic expert. The applicants appealed against the refusal of 09/01/2019 to the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court in Volgograd; on 22/07/2019 the court refused to examine the appeal as the impugned refusal had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors and the inquiry had been reopened.     12,500 jointly     38872/21 12/07/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SHUMEYEV 1994 Aksenova Darya Dmitriyevna Kolomna Around 6 p.m. on 23/01/2021, officers of the Russian Guards Service stopped the applicant near Trubnaya metro station in Moscow during a manifestation in support of Navalnyy and subjected him to beatings. According to the applicant, the officers hit him several times all over his body with a truncheon and then took him to a police bus. The beatings were recorded on video. On 24/01/2021 the applicant sought medical help in the Sklifosovskiy hospital. Medical history extract issued by the emergency department of the Sklifosovskiy hospital on 24/01/2021: bruises of the soft tissues of the head, bruise of the thorax, injury of the left shoulder and elbow joints. On 04/02/2021 complaint to the Main Investigative Department in Moscow/ According to their letter dated 19/03/2021, the inquiry had not identified any breaches of law by the officers and the complaint had been transferred to the Russian Guards Service. The Tverskoy District Court in Moscow on 19/04/2022 rejected the applicant’s complaint of the authorities’ inaction for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decisions had been taken in respect of the ill ‑ treatment complaint/upheld by the Moscow City Court on 27/06/2022. The applicant was convicted in administrative proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in the proceedings under Article 20.2 §   5 of the CAO;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in the unauthorised rally in support of A.   Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 / final decision Moscow City Court 13/05/2021.   16,000     44648/21 01/07/2021 Kseniya Mikhaylovna MASLOVA 1989 Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich Mytishchi On 23/01/2021 the applicant was beaten by officers of the Russian Guards Service, who used truncheons to hit her on various parts of the body during opposition rally “Free Navalnyy”. Forensic medical examination certificate / Administrative Detention Centre no. 2 of Ministry of Interior in Moscow / 27/01/2021: hematomas on a right knee, right hip, the right part of a lower back. Medical Certificate / Trauma Department of Town Clinical Hospital no. 67 of Moscow / 02/02/2021: hematomas on the right buttock, [illegible] of the right hip.   On 07/04/2021 the first complaint to Preobrazhenskiy Inter-district investigative department in Moscow about the ill-treatment/On 25/11/2022, after the applicant’s appeal of the investigators’ inaction to domestic courts, the investigators refused to open a criminal case.       On 27/07/2021 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court in Moscow found that no procedural steps had been taken by the investigators in connection with the applicant’s complaint (no pre-investigation inquiry carried out, no procedural decision taken) and ordered them to correct said violations. On 19/08/2021 this decision was confirmed by the Moscow City Court. The applicant’s repeated subsequent appeals to the same courts were to no avail. The applicant was convicted in administrative proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and 19.3 §   1 of CAO Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record and detention there between 11.40 p.m. on 23/01/2021 and 1:00 p.m. on 25/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative ‑ offence proceedings – Final decision: Moscow City Court 20/02/2021;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of transfer in a police van on 23/01/2021 between 9:30   p.m. and 11:40   p.m.: overcrowding (25 ‑ 30 persons, standing room only); no heating, low temperature inside; no access to a toilet, water or food,   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 11 (1) - restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events - Rally "Free Navalnyy" / Moscow/ 23/01/2021 / article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO / Moscow City Court 20/02/2021 / deten   20,000     46513/21 15/09/2021 Maksim Vasilyevich VASILYEV 1995 Terbalyan Edgar Slavikovich Tomsk On 28/12/2016 the police broke into the applicant’s house for a search. The applicant, who was not under arrest and was not armed, was sitting at a desk and opened the door by a remote control. The officers pulled the applicant out of the desk, shoved him to the ground, pressed him against the floor and twisted his arms on the back. Then the officer, who was on the applicant’s back, administered at least eight blows on different parts of the applicant’s body. The incident was filmed on video. Medical certificate of the Tomsk emergency care hospital of 28/12/2016: hematomas on the face, contusion of the right side of the ribcage, hematomas on the right hip. On 13/03/2017, upon the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint, a criminal case was opened. On 07/08/2019 police officer B. who had used the physical force against the applicant was convicted by the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Tomsk of unlawful use of force. The decision was based on the statements of, inter alia, four of police officers. On 21/10/2019 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed that decision and acquitted officer B. for the lack of corpus delicti in his actions. The appellate court re-examined the facts on the case and found that the use of force was proportionate and justified - it gave different assessment of the evidence, without the direct assessment of the video recording of the incident and it did not provide reasons for the difference in its assessment of the evidence in comparison to the District Court.   The decision of 21/10/2019 was upheld on appeal by the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction on 13/05/2021.     16,000     54427/21 20/10/2021 Yegor Sergeyevich KOLOSOV 1997 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan At 10.25 p.m. on 21/04/2021, police officers of the Russian Guards Service stopped the applicant in the street in St   Petersburg and without introducing themselves or posing any questions subjected him to beatings: they shoved him to the ground, pressed their feet on his neck to suffocate him, hit him multiple times with a rubber truncheon on various parts of the body, bound his hands behind his back causing injury to his shoulder, pulled his hair, hit his face and head with elbows and knees and attempted to pull out his dental braces. The beating was recorded on video by the applicant’s friends. Then the applicant was taken to police station no. 9 in the Krasnoselskiy District of St Petersburg to compile an administrative offence record for participation in a public protest. At 2.56 a.m. on 22/04/2021 the applicant was taken by the ambulance to City Hospital No. 26 where a number of injuries were identified. Later on that day he went to the traumatology department of the City Hospital No. 27 where further injuries were identified. 1) Hospital release certificate issued by the City Hospital no. 26 on 22/04/2021: bruises on the head, bruises and hematomas on the left side of the chest, bruises and abrasions on the left wrist and hand, vestibular syndrome. 2) Medical certificate issued by the traumatology department of the City Hospital no. 27 on 22/04/2021: bruises and hematomas of the face, the right ear, the left side of the chest, the left and right wrists and hands. On 27/04/2021 complaint to the Investigative Department of Admiralteyskiy District of St Petersburg/ According to the letters from the Investigative Department of Admiralteyskiy District of St Petersburg dated 30/04/2021 and 01/10/2021, the internal inquiry into the applicant’s claims was ongoing / no decision issued. On 16/06/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg refused to accept the applicant’s appeal against the letter from the Investigative Department of Admiralteyskiy District of St   Petersburg contesting the authorities’ inaction, since it was merely an "informational reply" and not a formal decision on the applicant’s criminal complaint. On 19/08/2021 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld that decision on appeal.     16,000     61043/21 27/11/2021 Aleksandr Denisovich SHADRIN 1999 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan At 8.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021, officers of the Russian Guards Service unit stopped the applicant in the street in St Petersburg during a manifestation in support of Navalnyy and subjected him to beatings. According to the applicant, the officers shoved him to the ground, hit him at least three times on the face, lifted and pushed him in the direction of the bus for arrested persons, hit him at least two more times on the body and face, and tasered him prior to putting in the bus. The beating was recorded on video.   Medical history extract issued by the traumatology department of the City Polyclinic no. 37 on 22/04/2021: hematomas of the face and head. On 29/04/2021 complaint to the Admiralteyskiy District Investigative Department in St   Petersburg/ According to their letters dated 04/05/2021 and 27/08/2021, the internal inquiry into the applicant’s allegations was to be initiated /no decision issued. On 16/06/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St   Petersburg refused to accept the applicant’s complaint concerning inaction of the investigators, since the letter of 04/05/2021 was not a "procedural decision" and, therefore, not a formal decision on the applicant’s criminal complaint/On 22/09/2021 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld that decision on appeal.     16,000     61047/21 27/11/2021 Boris Anatolyevich KANTOROVICH 1992 Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich Kazan At 5.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 at a rally for free elections in Moscow the applicant interfered with the arrest of a third person by officers of the Russian Guards Service and was subjected by them to beatings. According to the applicant, officer K. hit him numerous times with a truncheon until the truncheon broke and officer K. forced the applicant’s hands behind the back and took him to the bus for the arrested persons, where unidentified officer took him by the hair and slammed the applicant’s head against the doorframe. The beating was recorded on video. While in the bus, the applicant asked the officers to call an ambulance and, having his request refused, called the ambulance himself to the Presnenskiy District police station. The ambulance took the applicant to the Botkin Hospital in Moscow, where he was hospitalised until 29/07/2019.         Hospital release certificate issued by the Botkin Hospital in Moscow on 29/07/2021: blunt traumas of the chest, right arm, head and neck, multiple hematomas and bruises on the head, neck, upper ‑ back, right arm. On 02/08/2019 complaint to the Meshchanskiy District Investigative Department in Moscow / According to their letter dated 06/09/2019, the inquiry identified no breach of law by the officers and the complaint was transferred to the Russian Guards Service. On 11/01/2019 the latter informed the applicant that no "unjustified use of force" had been established. Meshchanskiy District Court on 25/02/2021 rejected the applicant’s complaint of the authorities’ inaction for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decisions had been taken in respect of the ill ‑ treatment complaint/upheld by the Moscow City Court on 15/07/2021.     16,000   17285/22 10/03/2022 Murad Asadulayevich DINGAYEV 1996 Shabanov Arsen Khidirnabiyevich Makhachkala On 25/03/2017 the applicant was apprehended by officers of the Dagestan Investigative Committee, taken to an unknown location and subjected to beatings and electrocution via his fingers to make him to confess to leadership of an illegal armed group. On the same date the applicant confessed under pressure. The IVS medical examination of 26/03/2017: petechial haemorrhages in the phalanges of the fingers of both hands.   The applicant raised the ill-treatment complaint during his interrogation on 14/11/2017 and then during his trial on 15/02/2018. On 05/03/2020 the Dagestan Human Rights Ombudsman demanded opening of a criminal case against the police officers, alleging that they had ill ‑ treated the applicant on 25   and 26/03/2017/ Refusals to open a criminal case: 12/03/2020, 20/05/2020, 02/08/2020, each decision was overruled by the investigators’ superiors as deficient. The last refusal was issued on 01/10/2020. Medical evidence of the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment was left unexamined. The complaint was raised and examined during the trial and then during the appeal proceedings/the latest decision by the Fifth Cassation Court, 29/09/2021.   On 16/10/2020 the applicant was convicted of organising an illegal armed group, trafficking of firearms and explosives and sentenced to 11   years of imprisonment and a fine of RUB   200,000. The latest decision – the Fifth Cassation Court, 29/09/2021.   26,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.