CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE1C80691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC2D84F49 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 23 October 2014   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 47794/06 and 7285/07 Aleksandr Vasilyevich MATYUSHIN against Russia and Dmitriy Valeryevich KOBLOV against Russia (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS Application no. 47794/06 This application was lodged on 30   October   2006 by Aleksandr Vasilyevich MATYUSHIN, a Russian national, who was born on 30   December   1981 and lives in Ryazan, represented by EHRAC/Memorial, a non-governmental organisation based in Moscow.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers 1.     Events of August 2005 On an unspecified date in August 2005 the applicant came to the Ryazan Oktyabrskiy district police station ( Октябрьский районный отдел внутренних дел г.   Рязани ) to report a theft of his money and personal belongings. The applicant was photographed. Police officers demanded that he should confess to having robbed Ms   M. and misappropriated her mobile phone. The applicant denied his involvement in the robbery and the police officers beat him up. They also forced him to consent to be their informant. On the next day two police officers, one of whom was D., arrived at the applicant’s place of work and took him to the police station. In room no.   2 D. and several other police officers beat the applicant up, threatened him and reiterated their demand to confess to the robbery of Ms M., which the applicant refused to do. 2.     Events of 14   October 2005 On 14   October 2005 the applicant was called by the police. On the same date he arrived at the police station at about 10 a.m. with a Ms   K. In room no.   2 police officer M. again suggested that the applicant should confess to the robbery. The applicant refused and was beaten up by several police officers who punched him on the head and torso. Another police officer, who entered the room later, hit the applicant on the nose with a heavy key ring several times. The applicant’s nose was scratched and bleeding. Thereafter the applicant was placed in another room where he stayed, together with a Mr   Sh., for several hours. At 7 p.m. the applicant was requested to participate in an investigative activity as a witness, after which he was released. B.     The applicant’s injuries On 14   October 2005 the applicant was examined at the Ryazan regional hospital and diagnosed with brain concussion and soft tissue bruises. On the same date he was examined at Ryazan town hospital no.   11 and diagnosed with closed fracture of his nose. C.     Inquiry into the applicant’s allegation of police ill ‑ treatment On 17   October 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the chief federal inspector for the Ryazan Region and sent its copy to the Ryazan Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor and the head of the Ryazan regional police department. In his complaint the applicant gave a detailed description of what had happened at the Ryazan Oktyabrskiy district police station in August 2005 and on 14   October 2005. On 18   October 2005 the applicant lodged a similar complaint with the Ryazan Oktyabrskiy District prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor’s office conducted a pre-investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) and refused to open a criminal case relying on Article 24 § 1 (1) of the CCrP for the lack of the event of a crime. It issued its first refusal on 27   October 2005 and annulled it on 24   November 2005; its second refusal on 5   December 2005, annulled following the applicant’s successful court appeal under Article   125 of the CCrP (the Ryazan Oktyabrskiy District Court’s decision of 27   March 2006, as upheld on appeal on 4   May 2006); its third refusal on 26   May 2006, annulled on 23   August 2006; and its fourth decision on 4   September 2006. In its decisions the prosecutor’s office relied on statements by several police officers who denied having used any violence in respect of the applicant. Two of them, Mr   A. and Mr   U., stated that the applicant had already had an old scratch on his nose when he had arrived at the police station on 14   October 2005. The prosecutor’s office also relied on a statement of a medical expert who had examined the applicant’s medical documents, as well as his photo taken on 14   October 2005, and stated that it had been impossible to conclude whether the applicant’s nose injury had had a traumatic, inflammatory or allergic nature. The prosecutor’s office concluded that the applicant’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment had been unsupported by any objective evidence. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been tortured by police officers at the Ryazan Oktyabrskiy district police station to make him confess to a robbery and that no effective investigation into his complaints was carried out. In respect of the latter complaint he also relies on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article   3. Application no. 7285/07 This application was lodged on 22   December   2006 by Dmitriy Valeryevich KOBLOV, a Russian national, who was born on 3   December   1987 and lives in Murom, Vladimir Region, represented by Mr   V.S. Koblov, his father. A.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers 1.     The applicant’s apprehension and his detention at the sobering-up centre On 23   February 2006 at about 6 p.m. the applicant, who was 18 years old at the time, went out for a walk with his two friends Mr   B. and Mr   Ya. They drank some beer. At about 10 p.m. they were spotted by a police patrol. Police officers pushed the applicant into their car and took him to the Murom sobering-up centre. A medical assistant of the centre examined the applicant and established that he was in a state of alcoholic inebriation of a medium gravity. 2.     Events at the Murom police station On 24   February 2006, at 2 a.m., police officers took the applicant from the sobering-up centre to the Murom police station, where they requested him to sign administrative offence records which he refused to do. Police officers punched him on the face and, when he fell on the floor, kicked him on his head and body and insulted him. Thereafter they placed him in an overcrowded cell where he stayed until his release at 7.30 a.m. His parents met him in the lobby of the police station. They called an ambulance. B.     The applicant’s injuries The ambulance took the applicant from the police station to the Murom Central Hospital where he was examined and hospitalised until 27   February 2006. On 28   February 2006 the Murom Forensic Medical Bureau carried out the applicant’s examination. According to its report no.   213, the applicant had four abrasions and one bruise on his head, a tooth fracture, two bruises and two abrasions on his shoulders and chest, a bruise in the area of pelvis and two abrasions on his left arm. The medical expert concluded that these injuries had been caused by blunt objects, possibly fists and legs, about four-six days before the examination. These injuries had caused a short-term health disorder for less than six days, and therefore could not be said to have involved any health damage. C.     Administrative proceedings against the applicant The police officers drew up an administrative offence record, according to which on 23   February 2006 at 9.15 p.m. the applicant had appeared in a public place in a state of alcoholic inebriation that had insulted human dignity and public moral, which was an administrative offence punishable under Article   20.21 of the Code of Administrative Offences. They also drew up a record of the applicant’s administrative detention. On 24   February 2006 the police found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence under Article   20.21 of the Code and imposed on him a fine in the amount of 100 Russian roubles. D.     Inquiry into the applicant’s allegation of police ill ‑ treatment On 25   February 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Murom Town prosecutor’s office asking to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers who had beaten him up. The prosecutor’s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the CCrP and refused to open a criminal case relying on Article 24 § 1 (1) of the CCrP for the lack of the event of a crime. Its refusals of 27   March and 12   April 2006 (the applicant’s appeal against the latter decision was dismissed by the Murom Town Court’s decision of 12   October 2006, as upheld by the Vladimir Regional Court on 28   November 2006) were annulled and followed by a refusal of 21   August 2006. The prosecutor’s office found that the police officers had not used any physical force against the applicant and that his injuries could have been inflicted a day before the applicant’s apprehension. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by the Murom police officers and that no effective investigation into his complaints was carried out by the Murom town prosecutor’s office and the Vladimir regional prosecutor’s office, which refused criminal prosecution of the police officers.       QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS   Applications nos. 47794/06, 7285/07:   1.     What were the legal grounds and reasons for the police: (a)     to stop the applicant ( application no.   7285/07 only ) and take him to the police station? (b)     to keep the applicant at the police station for the whole duration of his stay there? The Government are invited to submit information/documents relevant to each of the above acts recording, inter alia, the time frame (from the moment the applicant was stopped by the police until the moment of his release), the place, the State authority and the police officers’ involved, the activities conducted in respect of the applicant, the legal grounds and reasons relied on, the applicant’s procedural status, confessions and/or statements received from him, including the police station records and documents concerning the administrative proceedings against the applicant including any appeal courts’ decisions, if applicable.   2.     Once in the hands of the police: (a)     Was the applicant informed of his rights? If so, when, and what rights was he informed about? (b)     Was he given the possibility of informing his family about his apprehension and his location and, if so, when? (c)     Was he given access to a lawyer and, if so, when? (d)     Was he given access to a doctor and, if so, when and was his medical examination conducted out of the hearing and sight of police officers?   3.     Was the applicant subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the police officers, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   4.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), did the State conduct an investigation in compliance with Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 108-10 and 121, 26   January 2006)? In particular:   (a)     Does the pre-investigation inquiry under Articles 144-45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provide for procedural guarantees and investigative methods capable of establishing the facts of the case and leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible, where there is an arguable claim of ill-treatment under Article   3 of the Convention? Did the domestic authorities’ refusal to bring criminal proceedings and, hence, to conduct a preliminary investigation according to Part   VIII, Articles 150-226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure breach the State’s obligation to conduct an effective, thorough and expeditious investigation?   (b)     Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article   3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V). Did the domestic authorities discharge such a duty?   (c)     Were the police officers, which assisted the investigating authority and carried out operational activities in the course of the pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant’s complaint, independent of the police officers who had allegedly subjected the applicant to ill-treatment?   Application no. 47794/06:   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name, date of birth Represented by Alleged ill-treatment by Applicant’s age at the time of alleged ill-treatment Complaint of police ill-treatment examined by / result Judicial review of refusals to open a criminal case                   47794/06     30/10/2006 Aleksandr Vasilyevich MATYUSHIN 30/12/1981   EHRAC/ Memorial, Moscow Ryazan Oktyabrskiy District OVD 23 years’ old Ryazan Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor’s office / refusal to prosecute police officers - Ryazan Oktyabrskiy District Town Court - Ryazan Regional Court                   7285/07 22/12/2006 Dmitriy Valeryevich KOBLOV 03/12/1987   Valeriy Sergeyevich KOBLOV Murom (Vladimir Region) UVD   18 years’ old Vladimir Murom Town prosecutor’s office / refusal to prosecute police officers - Murom Town Court - Vladimir Regional Court