CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2015

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s6DCE261A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     Communicated on 2 September 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 11693/07 Olga Nikolayevna SAMULEVICH against Russia lodged on 8 March 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Olga Nikolayevna Samulevich, was a Russian national, who was born in 1944 and lived in Novorzhev, the Pskov region. She was represented before the Court by Ms O. Demian, a lawyer of the European Roma Rights Center practising in Budapest, Hungary. The applicant died on 28 April 2007. She was succeeded by her son, Mr Eligraf Samulevich, born in 1974, who informed the Court of the applicant’s death and expressed his wish to pursue the application lodged by his late mother in her stead. Mr   Eligraph Samulevich is represented before the Court by Ms   O. Demian and Ms M. Nosova, a lawyer practicing in Lappeenrant, Finland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was of Roma ethnicity. She was the mother of Mr Roman Samulevich who was born in 1969 and died in 2005. 1.     Background events In 2005 Mr Roman Samulevich, a suspect in a criminal case concerning theft, was under an obligation not to leave his place of residence in Novorzhev. In May 2005 he left for St Petersburg seeking unspecified medical treatment. On   12   May   2005 the Novorzhevskiy district court of the Pskov region (“the district court”) varied the measure of restraint to pre-trial detention for the reason that the applicant had broken the terms of the obligation not to leave Novorzhev. Upon his return home in August 2005, Mr Samulevich was informed by his neighbours that the police had been looking for him. On 3 August 2005 Mr Samulevich reported himself to the local police station and was arrested. It appears that he was placed in the temporary detention facility in Novorzhev. On 5 August 2005 Mr Samulevich was transferred to remand prison no.   1 of Pskov (“the remand prison”). Upon his admission to the remand prison he was examined by a nurse of the remand prison’s medical unit (“the medical unit”) and then placed in “quarantine” cell no. 15. It does not appear that he complained about any injuries. At 8 pm on 5 August 2005 Mr Samulevich called his wife, Ms N., and told her that he “had no problems”. Ms N. then tried to obtain permission to visit her husband in the remand prison but in vain. 2.     Events of 8 August 2005 (a)     Roman Samulevich’s death [1] In the morning Roman Samulevich, together with inmates Mr M., Mr   G. and Mr Ye.Ye., was brought to the medical unit for medical examination. Mr Samulevich complained of insomnia and headaches and was prescribed Aminazine [2] , an anti ‑ psychotic drug. At about 4 pm Mr Samulevich was taken out of cell no. 15 for fingerprinting. As later reported by the remand prison officers who escorted him, he “behaved inadequately, seemed unwell, yelled, did not respond to cautioning”. The nurse of the medical unit, Ms V., allegedly assumed that Roman Samulevich was in a state of alcohol-related psychosis and prescribed him Sibazole, a sedative. Mr   Samulevich’s behaviour did not improve and he was placed in solitary confinement cell no. 11, where he reportedly “broke a window and began stabbing himself with a piece of glass in the regions of the neck, abdomen and shoulders”. The case materials contain no information as to whether the wounds inflicted with the shattered glass, if any, were attended to by a medical professional. At 4.30 pm remand prison officers Mr T., Mr V. and Mr D. handcuffed Mr   Samulevich and placed him in cell no. 8, where he was examined by Dr   K., the head of the medical unit. Dr K. diagnosed Roman Samulevich with alcohol ‑ related psychosis and prescribed sedative injections, which were administered by Ms V. At about 6 pm Roman Samulevich received another sedative injection and was returned to cell no. 11, which had by then been cleaned and searched; Mr Samulevich’s personal belongings had been searched as well. At 6.30 pm remand prison officers took the handcuffs off Mr Samulevich as it appeared that he had calmed down. At 8.05 pm Mr Yu.Ye., one of the duty officers, visited cell no. 11 and observed Roman Samulevich sitting “in an unnatural position” (it remains unclear what the position was). Five minutes later Mr Yu.Ye. again checked cell no. 11; Mr Samulevich remained in the same “unnatural position” and did not react to Mr Yu.Ye.’s summoning. At an unknown time Mr   Yu.Ye. realised that Roman Samulevich was dead and reported the incident to his superiors. It was later established that Mr Samulevich “committed suicide with a piece of synthetic material torn off his bag of personal belongings”. (b)     Subsequent events At 10.35 pm a duty officer of the remand prison reported Mr   Samulevich’s suicide to the prosecutor’s office of Pskov (“the town prosecutor’s office”). Mr K.K., an investigator of the town prosecutor’s office, was assigned to undertake an inquiry into its circumstances. Between 10.55 and 11.45 pm Mr K.K. examined the scene of the incident in the presence of two witnesses, two experts and a duty officer. It was established that Mr Samulevich had hung himself with a strap fastened around his neck; the other end of the strap had been fixed to the bed. The strap appeared to have been detached from a black carrier bag found in the cell. Mr   K.K. reported to the town prosecutor that there had been injuries to Roman Samulevich’s body in the abdomen and neck areas. At some point Mr K.K. ordered a forensic expert examination of Mr   Samulevich’s dead body. Mr M., Mr G. and Mr Ye.Ye. submitted written explanations to the head of the remand prison. According to their submissions, during the first two days of detention Mr Samulevich was calm but as of the morning of 8   August 2005 he became agitated and started talking to himself in Romani; at some point, having begun to yell, he was taken away from cell no.   15. 3.     Inquiries into the circumstances of Roman Samulevich’s death (a)     Internal inquiry On 9 August 2005 the remand prison’s governor ordered an internal inquiry in connection with Roman Samulevich’s death and appointed a commission composed of senior officers of the remand prison to perform it. On the same date Ms N. was informed that her husband had committed suicide by hanging. On 15 August 2005 the internal inquiry was competed. The commission established that the duty officers and medical personnel of the remand prison had acted in accordance with internal regulations. (b)     Pre-investigation inquiry and subsequent challenges of its results On 17 August 2005 Mr K.K. questioned the applicant and Ms N. The applicant submitted that Roman Samulevich had occasionally drunk alcohol but moderately and that he had had no suicidal tendencies. The widow claimed that in the beginning of August 2005 she had presented a judge who had selected a measure of restraint in respect of her husband with a medical certificate confirming that Roman Samulevich had been in need of constant medical supervision. On 18 August 2005 Mr K.K. decided not to open a criminal case against Ms A.K. and Mr Yu.Ye. on account of abuse of powers and refused to open a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Roman Samulevich’s death owing to the lack of an event of a crime. Between 10 and 24 August 2005 a forensic expert of the forensic expert bureau of the Pskov region (“the forensic bureau”) performed a post ‑ mortem expert examination of Roman Samulevich’s dead body. Forensic expert report no. 1301 was drawn on 24 August 2005. It appears that a copy of the report available in the case materials is incomplete; it transpires from the text available that the expert reached the following conclusions. There were numerous wounds, scratches and bruises to Roman Samulevich’s neck, chest, abdomen and upper extremities inflicted ante ‑ mortem. Some of the injuries in question could have been inflicted with a knife, blade or other cutting instrument, while the others could have been a result of blows by blunt hard objects. The cause of death was established as asphyxia by hanging. No traces of alcohol were found in the blood. On 9 September 2005 Dr K. was questioned and submitted that on   8   August 2005 Roman Samulevich had been in a state of alcohol-related psychosis and that by 6 pm on that day the symptoms had subdued thus making it unnecessary to admit Mr Samulevich to hospital or to attach him to the bed. On 12 September 2005 Ms N. complained to the town prosecutor’s office about the refusal of 18 August 2005 to open a criminal investigation into the circumstances of her husband’s death. On 19 September 2005 the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of 18 August 2005 having found the pre-investigation inquiry undertaken to be incomplete and insufficient. He pointed out that the persons interviewed had not confirmed the version that Mr Samulevich had cut himself with the shattered glass and ordered to carry out an additional inquiry. Mr S., an investigator of the prosecutor’s office, was assigned the case. On 24 September 2005 Mr S. delivered another decision refusing to open a criminal investigation owing to the lack of an event of a crime. The decision relied heavily on the findings of the internal inquiry; it appears that no additional investigative measures had been taken between 19 and 24   September   2005. On 25 November 2005 the town prosecutor quashed the decision of 24   September 2005 for the reason that eye-witnesses had not been questioned and ordered another additional inquiry. On 2 December 2005 Mr S. again refused to open a criminal investigation. The decision reproduced that of 24 September 2005 verbatim, save for an additional paragraph that described the scene of the incident in cell no. 11 as observed on 8 August 2005. On 27 March 2006 the applicant challenged the decision of 2   December   2005 before the Pskov town court (“the town court”) on the grounds of its incompleteness. On 5 May 2006 the town court declared the decision of 2 December 2005 unlawful, It observed that “in fact no inquiry [had been] undertaken by Mr   S.” and that Mr S. had not performed any investigative measures. It noted in particular that Mr S. had failed to interview the eye-witnesses and the remand prison’s personnel. The town court ordered that the deficiencies in the inquiry be remedied. The decision entered into force on 15 May 2006. On 22 May 2006 the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of 2   December 2005, ordered an additional pre-investigation inquiry and assigned the case to Mr S. On 26 May 2006 Mr S. again refused to open a criminal investigation. The decision mostly reproduced verbatim those of 24 September and 2   December 2005 except for a brief reference to explanations given by Dr   K. who had stated that Roman Samulevich had suffered from alcohol ‑ related psychosis and four officers of the remand prison who had claimed that on 8   August 2005 Mr Samulevich had behaved “inadequately”. There was also a reference to forensic expert report no. 1301, however, the fact that according to it no traces of alcohol had been found in the deceased’s blood was not mentioned. The applicant’s lawyer challenged the refusal before the town court. On 21 August 2006 the town court declared the decision of 26 May 2006 groundless and therefore unlawful, listing a number of deficiencies in the inquiry to be remedied. On 4 September 2006 the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of 26 May 2006 and assigned the case to another investigator of the prosecutor’s office, Mr A.Ye. On 8 September 2006 Mr A.Ye. refused to open a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Roman Samulevich’s death having found that the deceased had not been driven to suicide by any ill-treatment. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive limb that Roman Samulevich’s death was possibly a result of actions or omissions to act by the personnel of the remand prison; she further claims that the State authorities failed to comply with their positive obligations to protect the life of the detainee and that no meaningful investigation into the circumstances surrounding her son’s death has been carried out in breach of Article 2 of the Convention in its procedural limb. 2.     The applicant further complains under Article 3 of the Convention that prior to his death Roman Samulevich sustained numerous injuries while in the State custody and that there has been no investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. 3.     The applicant also alleges that she had no effective domestic remedies at her disposal in connection with the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Roman Samulevich’s death imputable to the respondent State? Was there a violation of his right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention?   2.     Did the domestic authorities comply with their obligation to protect Roman Samulevich’s right to life (see Slimani v. France , no.   57671/00, §   27, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX (extracts)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see   Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? Have the authorities taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the circumstances in which Roman Samulevich died (see, mutatis mutandis , Kleyn and Aleksandrovich v. Russia , no. 40657/04, §§   56 ‑ 58,   3   May 2012, and Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 133-37, 24   July 2014)?   4.     Was Roman Samulevich subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention prior to his death in custody? Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §   131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), was there an investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities capable of meeting the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?   5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of her grievances under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The parties are invited to submit a detailed update of factual and/or legal developments in the case, if any, that have occurred after 8   September   2006. The Government are invited to submit a copy of all materials related to the pre-investigative inquiry and, if applicable, to a criminal investigation, instituted in connection with Roman Samulevich’s death. [1]     The account of the events below is based on the materials of an internal inquiry carried out by the remand prison’s officers, which was completed on 15   August 2005. [2]     Hereafter medical substances are named in accordance with the classification of drugs adopted in the Russian Federation.