CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 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 } .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 } .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 }   Communicated on 12 July 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 30279/09 Maksim Aleksandrovich BABICHEV against Russia lodged on 14 August 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Maksim Aleksandrovich Babichev, is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Engels. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The applicant’s detention in police custody At around 10 a.m. on 14 November 2008 the applicant was arrested at his flat by two police officers in plain clothes on suspicion of having committed a robbery and brought to the police station no. 3 of Engels, Saratov Region. At 5 p.m. on the same day an arrest record was drawn up. Later on the same day the applicant was taken to a temporary detention facility (IVS) of the Engelsskiy municipal district. On 15 November 2008 the Engelsskiy District Court of the Saratov Region extended the applicant’s arrest till 3 p.m. on 17 November 2008. On 17 November 2008 the District Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. 2.     The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody According to the applicant, between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on 14   November 2008 the police officers who had arrested the applicant had beaten him to force to confess to a number of robberies committed in Engels. The applicant further indicated that in the hall of the police station on the way to one of the rooms the police officers twisted the applicant’s hands behind his back and while leading him along the hall they hit his head against the walls several times. When in the room the police officers put a plastic bag over the applicant’s head, put him on the floor and punched and kicked him all over his body. They took his belt and tied his hands behind his back with it, then they lifted him so tied, thus twisting his hands. 3.     The applicant’s injuries received as a result of ill-treatment On 14 November 2008 the applicant underwent a medical examination at the IVS of the Engelsskiy municipal district. The following injuries on his body were recorded: haematomas on the back sides of the hips, abrasions on the back, oedemas and haematomas of the wrist joints of both hands. On 15 November 2008 the applicant was taken to the traumatology centre of the Bureau of the Forensic Medical Examination of Engels, where at 3.45 p.m. the following injuries were recorded on his body: soft tissue bruises of the back, bruises of the front abdominal wall, soft tissue bruises of the wrist joints of both forearms and back side of the left hip. On the same day the investigator ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination in relation to his complaint of ill-treatment. On 17 November 2008 the applicant’s forensic medical examination was conducted. The expert was asked whether the applicant had any injuries, if so, what their character and degree of damage to health were, how many traumatic actions caused the injuries, and could the injuries have been caused at the time indicated by the applicant, that is between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on 14 November 2008. According to the forensic medical examination report no. 2338 established on the same date the applicant had bruises on the left hip, left forearm, abrasions on the left knee joint and right shoulder-blade which could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects in the course of not less than six traumatic actions three hours before the applicant’s examination in the traumatology centre, that took place from 3.45 p.m. to 4.27 p.m. on 15   November 2008. 4.     The applicant’s self-incriminating statements On 14 November 2008 the applicant signed three confession statements. According to him, he signed those statements as a result of the ill-treatment. Later on the same day the applicant was taken to another room and questioned by the investigator in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer. During the questioning the applicant reiterated his confessions as he was afraid of the possible forthcoming beatings. 5.     Pre-investigation inquiry and refusal to institute criminal proceedings (a)     Investigative bodies On 15 November 2008 the applicant was taken to a judge for extension of his arrest to whom he complained for the first time that he had been beaten up by the police officers. The prosecutor present at the hearing ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination. On 27 November 2008 a refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers was issued by the investigator Mr Martynov A.V. The investigator found that the applicant had no visible injuries at the moment of his arrest on 14 November 2008, that the police officers did not use physical force against the applicant, that the applicant alleged that he had been beaten up between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on 14 November 2008, whereas according to the forensic medical expert the applicant’s injuries were caused between 12.45 p.m. and 3.45 p.m. on 15 November 2008. On 30 January 2009 the refusal was overturned by the investigator’s superior. On 1 February 2009 another refusal to open a criminal case was issued. In addition to the previous findings the police officers of the IVS were questioned. They stated that on 15 November 2008 the applicant had not had visitors and that there had been no noise or unrest in the IVS. The applicant’s neighbours stated that on 14 November 2008 they had not heard any noise from the applicant’s flat. The investigator concluded that the applicant could have injured himself in the IVS. (b)     Judicial review of the investigators’ decisions under Article   125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The applicant appealed against the refusal to open a criminal case of 1   February 2009 to the District Court. On 20 July 2009 the District Court dismissed the complaint, as the applicant had already been convicted. The applicant appealed. On 30 September 2009 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the decision. 6.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 30 January 2009 the applicant was convicted by the District Court on several counts of robbery. At trial the applicant admitted his guilt, stated that he had given the confession statements voluntarily and that no force had been used against him. The applicant did not appeal the conviction. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For a general summary of the relevant domestic law, see Lyapin v.   Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-101, 24 July 2014). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was severely beaten up by the police officers while in police custody on 14   November 2008 and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in this respect.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the injuries found on the applicant after the time spent by him in State custody, has the applicant been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Razzakov v. Russia , no.   57519/09, 5   February 2015; Gorshchuk v. Russia , no. 31316/09, 6   October 2015; Turbylev v.   Russia , no.   4722/09, 6   October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia , no. 38887/09, 8   October 2015; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia , no.   2281/06, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia , no. 52783/08, 11   October 2016)?   2.     Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see Selmouni , v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§   83 et seq., ECHR 2015; and Barabanshchikov v. Russia , no. 36220/02, §§ 41-50, 8   January 2009)?   3.     Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, and Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§   125-40, 24 July 2014)?   4.     The Government are invited to submit documents containing the following information   in respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody and the inquiry into it:   (a)     the time of his arrival and stay at the police department, the temporary detention facility (IVS), the medical institutions (ambulance, traumatology centre, hospital, forensic medical examination bureau, etc.), where applicable;   (b)     the applicant’s injuries and/or his state of health, as recorded in the places listed above in paragraph “a”;   (c)     the investigator’s decision ordering the applicant’s forensic medical examination, and explanations by the applicant and the police officers as to the origin of the injuries, on the basis of which the expert’s opinion was sought;   (d)     the decision of 30 January 2009 by which the refusal to open a criminal case of 27 November 2008 was overturned by the investigator’s hierarchical superior.