CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE9DB0247 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s5303B780 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .s143C0E0F { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#c6c6c6 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }     Communicated on 21 October 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5513/13 T. against Russia lodged on 15 January 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr T., is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment 3.     At around 5   p.m. on 16 December 2007 the applicant was apprehended on the street by a policeman and driven to the police station. According to the applicant, seven officers were present at the police station and they were smoking and swearing. When the applicant asked why he had been apprehended, the policemen responded in an offensive manner, without giving any explanation. The applicant then made two telephone calls, one to his father and one to his lawyer. During the talk with his lawyer, the policemen allegedly started snatching the applicant’s phone out of his hand and applied physical force to him. The policemen allegedly punched the applicant in the back, pushed him down to the floor and handcuffed him. They allegedly kicked the applicant several times in his head, legs and back. 4.     At around 9 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Sovetskiy district police department of Tomsk ( Советский РОВД г. Томска ), where he was allegedly detained overnight in a cell. 5.     At around 2 p.m. on 17 December 2007 the applicant was taken to the Justice of the Peace of Tomsk for an examination of the administrative case against him (for further details see paragraph 20 below). The applicant was apparently released after the hearing. B.     The applicant’s injuries 6.     On 17 December 2007 the investigating authorities, following the applicant’s complaint of alleged ill-treatment by police officers, ordered that he have a forensic medical examination. The applicant did not provide a copy of the relevant order. 7.     According to forensic medical examination report no. 8001, issued on 18 December 2007, the applicant had the following physical injuries: (i)   linear abrasions on the left wrist; (ii)   abrasions on both arms, on the neck (right side) and collarbone (right side); (iii)   a bruise with an abrasion on the left forearm; (iv)   bruises and abrasions on the face; and (v)   bruises on the neck and the scalp. The applicant did not provide a copy of the relevant forensic medical expert report. 8.     According to medical record no. 8072, issued on 19   December 2007, the applicant also had an examination at Tomsk hospital no. 1, where the on ‑ duty doctor diagnosed him with concussion and contusion of the soft tissues of the head. The doctor recommended that the applicant see a neurologist. 9.     On 19 December 2007, the neurologist confirmed concussion and prescribed some treatment for the applicant. 10.     On 29 December 2007, the applicant was examined by a urologist, who diagnosed him with contusion of both kidneys and post-traumatic pyelonephritis, and prescribed treatment. C.     Refusals to open a criminal case 11.     On 17 December 2007 the applicant brought his complaint against the police officers alleging ill-treatment at the police station to the Tomsk investigation authorities. 12.     On the dates specified below, officials at the investigation unit issued five refusals to open criminal proceedings against police officers G., A., P., Kh., L., Sh., and O., pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, due to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code on abuse of powers. These refusals were systematically revoked by the higher authority within the Investigation Committee for being unsubstantiated or unlawful, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries, rectify certain deficiencies in the inquiry process and/or undertake additional measures:   No. issued on: revoked on: (i) 27 December 2007 5 March 2008 (ii) 24 March 2008 25 June 2009 (iii) 6 July 2009 16 November 2010 (iv) 26 November 2010 15 February 2012 (v) 1 April 2013 [no information]   13.     The police officers denied ill-treating the applicant. They submitted that he had been apprehended in a public place in a state of alcoholic inebriation. After a body search and seizure of his mobile telephone, the applicant allegedly started behaving aggressively, requesting that the policemen give back his telephone. He allegedly started grabbing the policemen’s uniforms. To prevent the applicant from further wrongful acts, the policemen had to apply physical force and use special devices, in this case handcuffs, on the applicant. 14.     The policemen confirmed the absence of any physical injuries on the applicant’s face before the incident at the police station. They explained that the physical injuries recorded in the applicant’s forensic medical examination report could have been inflicted during the applicant’s handcuffing and as a result of him hitting the floor. 15.     D., who had seen the applicant in a sauna shortly before his apprehension by the police officers, also confirmed the absence of any physical injuries on the applicant before his apprehension. She further submitted that at around 10.20 a.m. on 17   December 2007 she had received a telephone call from the applicant, who told her about his apprehension, without giving details. At 4 p.m. the applicant told her about his beatings by the police officers. D. further submitted that the applicant had had an abrasion on his cheek after the incident at the police station. 16.     The applicant’s father, T.I., submitted that he had received a telephone call from his son at around 6 p.m. on 16 December 2007. The applicant informed him about his apprehension by the policemen. When T.I. called the applicant back after a few minutes, the applicant did not respond. Shortly afterwards, T.I. arrived at the police station. He saw his son sitting on a bench in handcuffs, with dirty clothes, an abrasion in the area of his left eyebrow, swelling on the back of his head, and a bruised lower lip. The applicant told his father that the policemen had seized his mobile telephone and beat him up. According to T.I., the applicant was behaving calmly and did not shout or use offensive language to the policemen. 17.     In its most recent refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers, dated 1 April 2013, the investigation unit noted that the applicant had resisted the policemen’s lawful demands. It also concluded that all of the physical injuries had been inflicted during the lawful application of physical force and use of special devices by the policemen. D.     Article 125 reviews of the refusals to open a criminal case 18.     The applicant’s appeals against the refusals to open a criminal case against the police officers were systematically dismissed by the domestic courts on the grounds that the refusals had been overruled by the investigative authority and that additional inquiries had been ordered. 19.     In particular, the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk terminated the proceedings in relation to the applicant’s appeals four times: on 13   March 2008, 29   June   2009, 16 November 2010, and 15   February 2013. E.     Administrative proceedings against the applicant 20.     On 17 December 2007 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no.   1 of the Sovetskiy District of Tomsk examined materials in the administrative case against the applicant for disorderly conduct in a public place and returned them to the Sovetskiy district police department of Tomsk because they were incomplete and the administrative offence record had not been prepared correctly. 21.     The applicant did not provide further documents concerning his administrative case. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 that the State failed to conduct an effective investigation into those incidents and that he had no effective domestic remedy.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to:   (a)     the injuries found on the applicant after he was held at the police station, and (b)     the medical documents concerning the applicant’s physical injuries,   has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v.   France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; and, among many other authorities, Polonskiy v. Russia , no.   30033/05, §§ 122-23, 19   March 2009; Gladyshev v. Russia , no.   2807/04, § 57, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v.   Russia , no.   20212/05, §§   53 ‑ 54, 56, 17 January 2012; A.A. v. Russia , no.   49097/08, §§   75, 77 and 80-81, 17 January 2012; Yudina v.   Russia , no.   52327/08, §§   67-68, 10 July 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia , no. 22867/05, §§   49-50, 30   October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia , no. 27610/05, §§ 53-55, 11   December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia , no. 12102/05, §§ 60-61, 4 April 2013; Nasakin v.   Russia , no.   22735/05, §§ 52-53, 18 July 2013; Aleksandr   Novoselov v.   Russia , no.   33954/05, §§ 61-62, 28 November 2013; and Velikanov v.   Russia , no.   4124/08, § 51, 30 January 2014)?   2.     What was the investigative authorities’ explanation, in their most recent decision on the applicant’s complaint, as to how his injuries   had been caused? Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Selmouni , cited above, § 87, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII)?   3.     Having regard to:   (a)     the investigative committee’s refusals to open a criminal case and investigate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police,   (b)     the overruling of those refusals by the committee’s higher authority based on incomplete pre ‑ investigation inquiries, and   (c)     the investigative committee’s inability to carry out measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, for example confrontations, identification parades, searches, was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§   125-40, 24 July 2014)?   4.     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?   5.     The Government are invited to submit documents containing the following information   in respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody:   (a)     the time of his arrival and how long he was held at the police station and/or cells for administrative offenders at the police station;   (b)     the applicant’s injuries and/or his state of health, as recorded in the places listed in paragraph (a) above;   (c)     the forensic medical expert’s conclusions about the applicant’s injuries (including report no. 8001, issued on 18 December 2007), the investigator’s decision ordering a forensic medical examination of the applicant, and an explanation by the applicant and police officers as to the origin of the injuries, on the basis of which the expert’s opinion was sought;   (d)     a summary of the information from the above list (paragraphs (a) to (c)).   6.     As regards the inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill ‑ treatment, the Government are invited to submit:   (a)     a numbered list of all decisions by the investigating authorities in chronological order (name of the relevant authority, date, grounds for the refusal to open a criminal case, namely Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and, in relation to each decision, the relevant decision to revoke it or set it aside (with the name of the authority, date, and reason for the revocation or setting aside);   (b)     a numbered list of all court decisions on the applicant’s appeals against the investigators’ decisions in chronological order (court, date and outcome);   (c)     copies of the above decisions by the investigating authorities and the courts in the same order.   7.     In addition, the Government are invited to submit all case materials and records in relation to the applicant’s administrative case.