CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 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 } .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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 20 October 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8516/08 Sultan Abdul-Khalitovich BARAKHOYEV against Russia lodged on 25 December 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Mr Sultan Abdul-Khalitovich Barakhoyev (the “first applicant”) and Mr Vakha Shamautdinovich Keligov (the “second applicant”), are Russian nationals of Ingush ethnic origin, who were born in   1982 and 1985 respectively and live in Kartsa, Republic of North   Ossetiya ‑ Alaniya. They are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Memorial Human Rights Centre and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre based in Moscow and London respectively. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The applicants’ arrest (abduction) and the alleged ill-treatment of the first applicant On 10   January 2007 at approximately 10:30 p.m. the applicants were walking down the street in their town. They saw a white Lada car which drove up to them and stopped. Two persons in plain clothes got out. One of them was a local police officer Ts. While the applicants were talking to Ts., two more vehicles – an Audi and a Volkswagen drove up. Seven or eight men in plain clothes got out of the cars. They attacked the applicants and pushed the first applicant into one of the cars. The second applicant broke away and escaped. The persons who apprehended the first applicant were law-enforcement officers. They took the first applicant to an office on the third floor of the police station. In the office they punched and kicked him and insulted him shouting that all Ingush should be crushed. From time to time they put a black plastic bag over his head to suffocate him. They took off his shoes and beat him on the heels. When the first applicant lost consciousness, they poured cold water over him to revive him. Then they took him to another office on the first floor. The policemen planted a grenade into the pocket of the first applicant’s jacket. They searched him and “found” the grenade. The first applicant was then interviewed by the investigator. During the questioning, he told the investigator about the arrest (abduction) and planting of the grenade. On 11   January 2007 the first applicant’s parents retained a lawyer to represent him. The lawyer filmed the first applicant’s injuries with her mobile phone. At 9 p.m. the first applicant signed an undertaking not to leave town and was released pending investigation. On 12   January 2007 forensic medical expert Tkh. examined the first applicant. He documented the following injuries: “a bruise near the upper edge of the right shoulder blade measuring 4.5 by 4 cm ...[;] similar bruises on the rear surface of the chest at the level of the sixth to ninth ribs measuring 10 by 8 cm and on the rear surface of the chest at the level of the tenth to eleventh ribs measuring 8 by 6.5 cm; [bruises] near the sixth to eighth vertebrae measuring 8 by 1.5 cm”. The expert concluded that the bruises resulted from the impact of blunt solid objects possibly at the time and in the circumstances indicated by the first applicant. On 16   February 2007 the investigator discontinued criminal proceedings against the first applicant on the charges of illegal possession of a grenade. 2.     Alleged shootings at the applicants’ homes According to the applicants, on 5 and 10   February 2007 unknown persons approached in a BMW car the houses where the families of the first   and second applicants resided and shot at their houses. Then the persons left. 3.     Authorities’ response to the applicants’ complaints On 11   January 2007 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s and federal security security’s offices in respect of the police officers’ actions of 10   January 2007 and the first applicant’s alleged abduction. On 13   January 2007 the first applicant lodged similar complaints. By letter of 29   January 2007 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the second applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. The prosecutor denied that the police had ever tried to arrest or detain the second applicant. According to the letter, it had been the policemen’s intent to arrest the first applicant who had been suspected of keeping firearms and ammunition. On 16   February 2007 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the first applicant’s unlawful arrest and detention at the police station. It appears that the proceedings are still pending. On 23   March 2007 the applicants complained to the prosecutor’s office about the shootings at their places of residence. On an unspecified date the investigator with the local police department refused to open criminal investigation into the second applicant’s allegations on the shooting at his place of residence. On 26   April 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Promyshlenniy District Court of Vladikavkaz about the prosecutor’s failure to investigate their abduction, the police brutality in respect of the first applicant and the shootings at their places of residence. On 18   May 2007 the District Court dismissed their complaints as unsubstantiated. The court noted that the prosecutor’s office had taken necessary steps in response to the complaints. As regards the first applicant’s allegedly unlawful arrest and detention, the court found the complaint premature as the criminal investigation into the matter was still pending. The applicants appealed. On 27   June 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of North   Ossetiya ‑ Alaniya upheld the decision of 18   May 2007 on appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles   2 and 8 of the Convention about the shootings that took place at their respective places of residence on 5 and 10   February 2007. The first applicant complains under Article   3 of the Convention about his ill-treatment in police custody. The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention about the first   applicant’s unlawful arrest and detention and an attempt to arrest the second applicant. The applicants allege a violation of Article   13 of the Convention in respect of their rights set out in Articles   3 and 5 of the Convention. The applicants allege a violation of Article   14 of the Convention in respect of their rights set out in Articles   2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the first applicant been subjected to torture and/or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture and/or inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the first applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article   3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty from 10 to 11   January 2007 fall within paragraph (c) of this provision?   5.     Has the first applicant suffered discrimination on the ground of his ethnic origin, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles   3 and 5?