CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s50794FE3 { margin-left:42.72pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s2D6EFD2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:50.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 19 December 2013   FIRST SECTION Application no. 71862/13 Sergey Vladimirovich KRIVOV against Russia lodged on 19 November 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Sergey Vladimirovich Krivov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr V.G. Makarov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. A.     Background facts On 23 April 2012 five individuals, but not the applicant in the present case, submitted a notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow stating the date, time and route of the intended march. It was to begin at 4   p.m. on 6 May 2012, with an estimated number of about 5,000 participants, who would march from Kaluzhskaya Square down Bolshaya Yakimanka Street and Bolshaya Polyanka Street, followed by a meeting at Bolotnaya Square. The meeting was to end at 7.30 p.m. The notice stated that the proposed demonstration was intended “to express protest against abuses and falsifications in the course of the elections to the State Duma and of the President of the Russian Federation, and to express a demand for fair elections, respect for human rights, the rule law and the international obligations of the Russian Federation”. On 4 May 2012 the deputy mayor of Moscow charged the Tsentralnyy district prefect with assisting the organisers of the demonstration in maintaining public order and security during the event. On 5 May 2012 a plan of the intended demonstration was officially published, which included a map of the area designated for the march and the meeting. The centre of Bolotnaya Square was indicated on it as the place of the meeting. On 6 May 2012 all of Bolotnaya Square, except a narrow strip along its embankment, was barred with metal barriers and cordoned off by the riot police. The strip was left to serve as a corridor leading to the entrance to the meeting venue, and it was equipped with 15 metal detectors. The march began as planned at 4 p.m. The turnout exceeded the expectations, but there is no consensus as to the exact numbers. The organisers of the demonstration considered that about 25,000 people took part in the event. The police stated the number of participants was 8,000, and the estimates given in different media varied between 45,000 and 120,000 people. The march down Yakimanka Street and Bolshaya Polyanka Street went peacefully without any disruption. However, when the marchers arrived at the corridor, which was substantially narrower than the streets by which they had arrived, a stampede and panic occurred. Apparently some protestors attempted to break through the police cordon, but they were forced back to the restricted area and clashes between them and the police began. The police allegedly used truncheons, electric shock and teargas against the protestors. According to the official sources 436 protestors were arrested at the site of the demonstration, but the organisers considered their number underestimated and claimed that there had been about 650 persons taken into custody. On the same day the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened criminal proceedings to investigate the suspected mass disorders and violent acts against the police (Articles 212 § 2 and 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code). On 28 May 2012 the investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorders (Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The two criminal cases were joined on the same day. On 22 June 2012 the Investigative Committee set up an investigation group of 27 investigators and put them in charge of the criminal file concerning the events of 6 May 2012. On unidentified date two human rights activists filed a request with the Investigative Committee to open criminal investigation into the conduct of the police in the above events, in particular their alleged suppression of the lawful public demonstration. There is no information about the follow-up to this request. Another petition was filed, also on unidentified date, by 44 human rights activists and members of NGOs, calling for curbing repression against the protestors arrested and prosecuted in relation to the events of 6 May 2012 and denying that mass riots had taken place during the demonstration. B.     The applicant’s individual case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is an academic physicist and an active member of the political party RPR-PARNAS. At the time of his arrest he was living at his usual address with his wife and two children. He claims that on 6 May 2012 he arrived at Bolotnaya Square to take part in the peaceful demonstration and that he did not intend to take part in any disorder or clashes with the police. However, he claims that he was beaten up by the police as they were dispersing the demonstration. The applicant was arrested and taken to the police station. On the same day he was convicted of an administrative offence. Until 18 October 2012 the applicant continued his usual professional and political activities while living at his usual address with his family. On the latter date he was detained on remand on charges of having participated in mass disorders and of having used violence against the police during the demonstration of 6 May 2012. On 19 October 2012 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow examined the request to detain the applicant pending criminal investigation. It found that that there had been sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant was likely to abscond, to continue his criminal activity, to influence witnesses, to destroy evidence, or to otherwise obstruct the course of justice. The court ordered the applicant detention until 18 December 2012. On 14 December 2012 the Basmannyy District Court granted an extension of the applicant’s detention until 6 March 2013, relying on essentially the same grounds. On unidentified date in December 2012 the applicant went on a hunger ‑ strike which lasted for 43 days. On 24 May 2013 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow for determination of criminal charges. On 6 June 2013 the latter court granted another extension of the applicant’s detention, until 24 November 2013. This decision concerned all 12 defendants in the case. Having rejected the applicant’s request for another measure of restraint, the court held that no other measure could secure the course of justice in this case. On 6 June 2013 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow began the hearings of the criminal case. The applicant alleges that he was twice beaten up by the convoy of that court and that the judge disregarded his complaints about the ill-treatment. On 2 July 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order of 6   June 2013. On 19 September 2012 the applicant announced that he commenced the second hunger-strike to protest against the appalling conditions of his detention including those in the courthouse, against the extensions of his pre-trial detention, against his persecution for having taken part in an authorised political rally and against the allegedly unfair manner in which the court conducted the hearing of the criminal case. On 18 November 2013 during the court hearing the applicant lay on the bench motionless and the counsel called for an ambulance. The judge did not allow the medical team of the ambulance to enter the courtroom to examine the applicant. On 19 November 2013 the applicant’s counsel lodged a request for interim measures to be indicated by the Court to the Russia Government. He complained about the allegedly inadequate medical assistance the applicant was receiving in relation to the hunger-strike. He alleged that he detention facility doctor conducted irregular and superficial check, but the counsel’s numerous requests for a thorough assessment of the applicant’s condition lodged with the penitentiary, judicial and prosecution bodies, as well as with the Health Ministry, were not followed up. On 21 November 2013 the President of the First Section requested factual information from the Government, in particular to confirm that the applicant was indeed on hunger-strike, to verify his state of health and the medical assistance he was receiving. On 22 November 2013 the applicant ceased the hunger-strike. He accepted to resume food intake under the medical supervision in the prison hospital. On 27 November 2013 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had ceased the hunger-strike and that he had accepted to be transferred to the prison hospital wing for assisted resumption of food intake. They submitted medical files describing the medical supervision of the applicant during the hunger strike and setting out the treatment he was receiving for its safe termination. On 9 December 2013 the applicant’s counsel submitted comments to the Government’s information, claiming that the applicant was still not feeling well and that his medical supervision during the hunger-strike had been inadequate. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill ‑ treatment he has been subjected to during the dispersal of the rally. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the ill ‑ treatment by the convoy at the courthouse. He also alleges a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the allegedly inadequate medical treatment while in detention, in particular in relation to his hunger-strike. He further complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was not based on a “reasonable suspicion” that he had committed a criminal offence. In addition to that, the applicant complained that his detention on remand was not justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article   5 § 3 of the Convention. He also relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in this connection. Finally, he complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about various violations of fair trial guarantees in the criminal proceedings against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to ill-treatment during the dispersal of the demonstration on 6 May 2012, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? 3.     Were the treatment of the applicant and the conditions of the applicant’s detention during the hearing at the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to comment on the allegations made by the applicant as regards his ill-treatment by the convoy. 4     Have the Government met their obligation to ensure that that the applicant’s health and well-being are being adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom , no.   50390/99, § 46, ECHR   2003 ‑ V), as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention? The Government are invited to comment on the adequacy of the medical supervision of the applicant during his most recent hunger strike and the medical assistance he was receiving for resuming food intake and the follow-up supervision and treatment. 5.     The Government are invited to provide an update on the progress of the applicant’s criminal case and on the preventive measures currently applied to him (pre-trial detention or other). If the applicant’s detention was extended after the date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court, the Government are invited to indicate the overall length of the detention and the reasons for the extension, and to produce copies of the relevant detention orders and judicial decisions. 6.     In the proceedings in which detention was imposed or extended (remand proceedings), did the courts satisfy themselves that there existed a “reasonable suspicion” against the applicant, as required by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In particular, in the remand proceedings did the courts assess evidence showing the existence of such “reasonable suspicion” (see Khudoyorov v. Russia , no. 6847/02, § 180, 8 November 2005, and Shcheglyuk   v.   Russia , no.   7649/02, §   43, 14   December 2006)? 7.     Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the detention orders (see, for example, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no.   4378/02, §   66, 10 March 2009, and Savenkova v. Russia , no. 30930/02, §§   85 and 87, 4   March 2010), was the applicant’s detention on remand justified by “relevant and sufficient reasons”, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 (c) thereof? In particular: Did the courts respect the “presumption in favour of release” (in particular, insofar as the distribution of the burden of proof was concerned (see Vlasov v. Russia , no. 78146/01, § 108, 12 June 2008, and Moiseyev v. Russia , no. 62936/00, § 154, 9 October 2008)? Did the courts assess specific factual circumstances demonstrating the existence of the risks allegedly posed by the applicant (see, for example, Panchenko v.   Russia , no.   45100/98, §   107, 8   February 2005; Dolgova v. Russia , no.   11886/05, §   49, 2   March 2006; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia , no.   36911/02, §§   57-59, 24 May 2007; Gusev v. Russia , no. 67542/01, §§   80-82, 15 May 2008; Sizov v. Russia , no. 33123/08, § 53, 15 March 2011; and Romanova v. Russia , no. 23215/02, §§ 127-133, 11   October 2011)? Did the courts examine relevant evidence in order to establish the existence of those facts (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v.   Russia , no. 15217/07, §§ 125–27, 12   March 2009, and Chumakov v. Russia , no. 41794/04, § 162, 24 April 2012)? Did the courts consider the possibility of applying less intrusive preventive measures to the applicant, such as bail, house arrest, electronic surveillance, personal sureties and so on (see, for example, Pshevecherskiy v. Russia , no. 28957/02, §§ 69-71, 24   May 2007; Tsarkov v. Russia , no. 16854/03, § 70, 16 July 2009; Miminoshvili v. Russia , no. 20197/03, § 92, 28 June 2011; and Fedorenko v. Russia , no.   39602/05, § 71, 20 September 2011; see also the ruling of 22 October 2009 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)? Did the courts have due regard to the changing situation of the defendant and the evolving needs of the proper conduct of the proceedings when extending the detention (see, for example, Aleksanyan v. Russia , no. 46468/06, § 191, 22 December 2008; Sizov v. Russia , cited above; and Sokurenko v. Russia , no.   33619/04, §   87, 10 January 2012)?   8. Did the authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings against the applicant, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the courts assess specific procedural actions which needed to be taken during the investigation and the trial, and the reasons why those actions had not been taken earlier or could not have been taken more promptly (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia , no. 57541/09, §   123, 24 January 2012, and Syngayevskiy v. Russia , no. 17628/03, §§ 82-86, 27   March 2012)?