CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juin 2017

.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 } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sEAD2FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   Communicated on 16 June 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 29120/06 Yuriy Pavlovich MININ against Russia and 4 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A.     The circumstances of the cases The applicants are all Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Between 2004 and 2015 the applicants were arrested by different law ‑ enforcement authorities, and, except in Mr Grotuzis’ case (application no. 66227/10), prosecuted for and subsequently convicted of different types of criminal offences. In all cases the police officers used physical force and/or special means (handcuffs) during the applicants’ arrest. According to the applicants, the force used was excessive because they did not resist the arrest. The applicants’ injuries of different types and severity are confirmed by medical certificates drawn up shortly after their respective arrests or releases. Mr Minin (application no. 29120/06), Mr Yeroshenko (application no.   2378/08) and Mr Grotuzis (application no. 66227/10) alleged in addition that their beatings continued once in police custody. All applicants complained about their ill-treatment to the domestic authorities. The latter refused to institute criminal proceedings in all cases, except in Mr Minin’s case (application no. 29120/06), in which the criminal investigation was opened. The applicants’ personal details as well as other relevant information about the circumstances of their respective arrests and their attempts to complain about ill-treatment at domestic level are summarised in the Appendix. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     The Police Act Sections 18-20 of the Police Act 2011 (Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7   February 2011) provide that -     a police officer may use physical force, special means or a weapon during an arrest, -     a police officer shall ensure that a person injured receives first aid, -     where the physical force used results in the damage to health, and where special means or a weapon are used, a police officer shall submit a report about the use of physical force, special means or a weapon to his supervisor within twenty-four hours. The Police Act 1991 (Federal Law no. 1026-I of 18 April 1991) and respective by-laws contained similar provisions. 2.     Other by-laws The Instruction on the police officers’ execution of their obligations and rights in the police departments of the Ministry of the Interior after the persons are taken to the police custody (approved by the order no. 389 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation on 30 April 2012) provides that -     a police officer on duty in the police custody shall inform his superior about all the cases when a person arrested and taken to the police custody has visible wounds, injuries or is in a state that requires urgent medical intervention; -     a police officer shall call an ambulance or take a person to a nearby hospital; -     a police officer shall find out the reasons and circumstances of the injuries sustained by the person concerned. In case the person concerned reports about violent actions that resulted in his injuries then the police officer shall receive a criminal complaint from the person, if not, then he shall draw up a reasoned report and register it in the Register of the criminal complaints. The instruction repeated the rules that were in force before its adoption. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about the excessive force used in the course of their arrests and about the lack of an effective investigation in this respect. Mr Minin (application no. 29120/06), Mr Yeroshenko (application no. 2378/08) and Mr Grotuzis (application no.   66227/10) in addition complain that the ill-treatment continued after their arrests. All the applicants also complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal. COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Regard being had to the medical certificates submitted by the applicants (for more details see the Appendix), were they subjected to ill ‑ treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of police in the course of their arrest? 1.     As regards the Government’s burden of proof (a)     have the domestic authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation on how the applicants’ injuries   were caused (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR   1999 ‑ V, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII)? In particular, -     did the police officers report to their supervisor about the use of physical force or/and special means during the arrest (see Shamardakov v. Russia , no. 13810/04, § 133, 30 April 2015)? -     if so, did the reports provide detailed explanation about the circumstances of the applicants’ arrest, including the use of force against them (see Türkan v. Turkey , no. 33086/04, § 48, 18 September 2008)? -     does the Russian legislation and/or regulatory framework provide for an obligation to take an apprehended person without delay before a medical professional, notably with a view of recording the injuries sustained by an apprehended person prior or during the arrest? -     if so, was this obligation complied with in the present cases ( Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 34445/04, § 65, 11 January 2007)?   The Government are invited to produce documentary evidence, including the reports drawn up by police officers about the circumstances of the applicants’ arrests and the medical evidence. 2.     As regards the necessity and the proportionality of the force used (b)     was the recourse to physical force made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct (see Rizvanov   v.   Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06, §   49, 17   April 2012)? In particular, -     did the State agents plan the arrest operations in advance? -     did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia , no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII; Grigoryev v. Russia , no. 22663/06, §   83, 23 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia , no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013, Minikayev v. Russia , no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?   2.     Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in the course of their arrest as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, §   131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§   125-40, 24 July 2014)? In particular, in cases in which the applicants’ arrests were carried out by masked officers, did they display visibly some anonymous signs allowing their identification and questioning in the event of challenges to the manner in which the operation was conducted (see Hristovi v. Bulgaria , no. 42697/05, § 92, 11 October 2011, and Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   51284/09, § 73, 30 September 2014)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Applications nos. 29120/06, 2378/08 and 66227/10   1.     Were the applicants subjected to ill ‑ treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of police after their arrest? 2.     Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment after their arrest as required by Article 3 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality represented by Details about arrest, location of the police station, arrest record (if available)   Report drawn up by the police officers about the circumstances of the arrest and the use of force Medical evidence: date of examination, document type (date of the document)   Applicants’ complaints about ill ‑ treatment to the domestic authorities (first complaint, latest refusal to open a criminal case and reasons for refusal, the latest domestic courts’ decision   under Art. 125 CCP and reasoning) Applicants’ trial and appeal courts’ judgments and the results of the examination of their allegations of ill ‑ treatment, if any     29120/06 05/06/2006   Yuriy Pavlovich MININ 11/07/1955   Magnitogorsk   Russian   15/12/2004 (at around 5 a.m.)   Arrest outdoors   Police department Sovestskiy, Kurgan ( ОМ Советский УВД г. Кургана )   15/12/2004 (at 4.05 p.m.) Administrative arrest record drawn up   15/12/2004 Criminal arrest record drawn up     No information   14/01/2005 Forensic medical examination report no. 207   27/10/2005 Forensic medical examination report no. 7923   31/05/2010 Forensic medical examination no. 335 16/12/2004 First complaint to the prosecutor   05/09/2005 Opening of a criminal investigation   19/12/2005 Investigator’s decision to suspend the investigation   (the applicant could have been injured before he was brought to the police station, i.e. during the arrest and his escort to the police station, the applicant tried to run away and resisted the arrest, was armed and shot several times at the police officers, the applicant did not comply with the police officer’s demand to lie down on the ground, thus the police officer tripped the applicant, sat on his back and handcuffed him, no mention about the report on the use of force)   The investigation was ongoing when the applicant lodged his application       25/08/2005 Kurgansk Regional Court   10/03/2006 Supreme Court of Russia   Convicted of attempted robbery, illegal carrying of firearms and making an attempt of a police officer’s life     2378/08 24/12/2007   Sergey Vasilyevich YEROSHENKO 08/10/1961   N. Novgorod   Russian   COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 23/11/2006 (at night)   Arrest outdoors by the police officers of the organised crime unit of the Orenburg Region ( УБОП Оренбургской области )   Police department, Akbulak ( РОВД,   пос. Акбулак )   24/11/2006 (at 8.05 a.m.) Arrest record drawn up     24/11/2006 25/11/2006 Medical certificate   18/12/2006 Medical examination act   05/09/2007 Forensic medical examination report no. 5387 (examination conducted on the basis of the documents) 04/12/2006 First complaint to the prosecutor   15/02/2007 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the applicant could have been injured during his arrest, physical force and handcuffs were used to overcome the applicant’s active resistance, the police officers had justified reasons to assume that the applicant would be armed, the applicant hit the police officer, and then started to fight with him, in the process of the fight the applicant and the police officer hit themselves against a car and fell on the ground, the force used was lawful, no evidence that the applicant was ill-treated in the police department, no mention about the report on the use of force)   10/07/2007 Orenburg Regional Court   (dismissed the applicant’s complaint as his case had already been transferred to the trial court)               24/06/2008 Akbulakskiy District Court   Convicted of extortion   (the police officers’ actions were lawful and justified, thus the refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers was issued)     46231/09 04/08/2009   Oleg Vasilyevich KONOVALOV 25/08/1970   Novotroitsk   Russian   Sergey Ivanovich KIRYUKHIN 20/08/2008 (at around 2.30 ‑ 3 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the police officers in masks of a special unit of the criminal police in masks ( ОМСН КМ УВД Оренбургской области ) during an undercover operation “surveillance”   Police department, Leninskiy district, Orsk ( ОВД по Ленинскому району МО г. Орск )   20/02/2008 (at 6 p.m.) Arrest record drawn up             No information   21/08/2008 Forensic medical examination report no. 3356 (01/09/2008) 10/09/2008 First complaint to the investigative committee   27/11/2009 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the physical force and handcuffs were lawfully used to overcome the applicant’s resistance and his attempts to run away, the applicant was arrested in the course of committing a crime, he was laid down on the ground, his arms were twisted behind his back, he was handcuffed, the police officers had justified reasons to assume that the applicant would be armed and offer armed resistance, the applicant’s injuries are not considered as damage to health, no mention about the report on the use of force)   04/05/2010 Orenburg Regional Court   (the refusal to open a criminal case was delivered by an authorised person, in the course of the inquiry the investigator took all actions necessary for the examination of the applicant’s claim of ill-treatment, the witnesses were questioned, the forensic medical examination report was examined, all the information gathered was duly analysed, assessed and conclusion was made that there had been no corpus delicti in the police officer’s actions during the applicant’s arrest) 17/12/2008 Leninskiy District Court of Orsk of the Orenburg Region   24/02/2009 Orenburg Regional Court   Convicted of illegal storage of the drugs   (the physical force expressed in the applicant being laid down on the ground and his arms being twisted behind his back and handcuffs were lawfully used to overcome the applicant’s resistance and attempt to run away, other recorded injuries except for those typical for the use of handcuffs, applicant’s laying down on the ground and twisting his arms behind his back, were caused in other unclear circumstances, lack of mention in the report on crime of the use of handcuffs does not make the report inadmissible)     66227/10 12/10/2010   Edgars Yanisovich GROTUZIS 15/01/1976   Riga   Russian     28/12/2008 (at 1.30 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the police officers in masks and without masks of the Krasnokutskiy Department of the Federal Drug Control Service in the Saratov Region ( Краснокутский УФСКН по Саратовской области )   Krasnokutskiy Department of the Federal Drug Control Service in the Saratov Region ( Краснокутский УФСКН по Саратовской области )   29/12/2008 (at around 8 p.m.) Released No information 29/12/2008 Photos   29/12/2009 Medical certificate   13/01/2009 Extract from the medical card   13/11/2009 Forensic medical examination report no. 238 (examination conducted on the basis of the documents) 21/01/2009 First complaint to the prosecutor   19/02/2010 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the physical force expressed in the applicant being tripped by the police officer and handcuffs were lawfully used during the applicant’s arrest, as the applicant resisted the arrest and tried to run away, the police officers did not exceed their powers, the fact of the applicant’s beatings in the police department was not confirmed, the applicant’s injuries are not considered as damage to health, no mention about the report on the use of force)       01/09/2010 Saratov Regional Court   (the courts referred to and repeated the reasoning of the refusal to open a criminal case)               No information about ongoing trial     28843/17 15/03/2017   Roman Nikolayevich PENKIN 13/02/1990   Barnaul   Russian   07/09/2013 (at 3.15 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the fourteen police officers of the Police Special Task Unit of the Altay Region ( Отдел милиции особого назначения (ОМОН) ГУ МВД России по Алтайскому краю )   Police department, Biysk, Altay Region ( отдел полиции г.   Бийск, Алтайский край )     No information No information about the date Forensic medical examination report no. 2881 10/10/2013 First complaint to the prosecutor   21/03/2016 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the physical force expressed in the use of wrestling techniques, dragging the applicant out of the car and pushing him on the ground was lawfully and reasonably applied against the applicant taking into account the circumstances of the arrest, that the applicant and his four co ‑ suspects blocked themselves in a car, offered resistance, tried to run away, one of the suspects had an object resembling a gun on his knees, thee injuries sustained did not cause damage to the applicant’s health, no mention about the report on the use of force)   12/01/2017 Altay Regional Court   (the fact that the applicant was injured in the course of the arrest was not disputed, but the police officers used the physical force lawfully and reasonably taking into account the circumstances of the arrest, that the applicant and his four co-suspects blocked themselves in a car, offered resistance, were armed with a gun, tried to run away) 02/09/2015 Biyskiy Town Court of the Altay Region   Convicted of robbery