CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sCE32D88E { height:65.15pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s94FF4627 { height:63.3pt } .s87D0C75D { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sC2958733 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s94117A4F { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt }   Communicated on 4 December 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 79720/17 and 10806/18 Ivan Vitalyevich KNYAZEVICH against Russia and Konstantin Vladimirovich LANKIN against Russia   The applicants are Russian nationals living in different regions of the Russian Federation. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the cases Between 2014 and 2017, the applicants were arrested by different law ‑ enforcement authorities, prosecuted for and subsequently convicted of different types of criminal offences. In the case of Mr   Lankin (application no. 10806/18) it follows that after the arrest he gave an explanation to a police officer in which he confessed to the crime. During the interview with an investigator, he repeated his confession statement in the presence of a state appointed lawyer with whom the applicant had not had a prior meeting. The explanation given to a police officer was not used by the court, while the confession statement given in the presence of lawyer served as a basis for his conviction. According to him, he had not had an opportunity to consult a lawyer and the confession statement was obtained under duress. Medical certificates drawn up during the applicants’ police custody demonstrated that they sustained injuries of different types and severity (for more details see the Appendix). The applicants also indicated that they had already been subjected to ill-treatment in the course of their respective arrests. In all cases the applicants’ complaints about the police ill-treatment were rejected on the ground that their injuries were caused to them only in the course of their arrests and in response to their resistance. 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 an injured person receives first aid, -     where the physical force used results in 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 police custody (approved by 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 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. If the person concerned reports 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 Both applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about their ill-treatment by police on account of the excessive force used during the arrest and about further beatings in police custody with a view of extracting confession. They also complain about the lack of an effective investigation in this respect. Mr Lankin (application no. 10806/18) further complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention of a violation of his right to a fair trial on account of the use of his confession obtained under duress and reiterated during his interview as a suspect in the absence of a practical opportunity to consult a lawyer. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody, were the applicants 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 applicants’ 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 and further, ECHR 2015)? 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 medical evidence.   3.     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, and Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§   125-40, 24 July 2014)? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application no. 10806/18   4.     Having regard to the use of evidence in the applicant’s criminal trial, which was allegedly obtained as a result of the applicants’ ill-treatment by police officers, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   5.     Were the applicant’s rights not to incriminate himself and to legal representation respected under Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention, regard being had to his inability to consult a lawyer in person prior or during the interview, and the use of his self-incriminating statements reiterated, in the presence of a lawyer, during his interview as a suspect for the purposes of his conviction?   The Government are invited to produce relevant documents concerning the applicant’s arrest and questioning, the appointment of the lawyers and their presence during the procedural activities. 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   79720/17 16/11/2017 Ivan Vitalyevich KNYAZEVICH 24/03/1986   St Petersburg   Russian 14/02/2014 (around 10.00   p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the officers of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in St Petersburg and Leningrad Region ( ОРЧ (УР) ГУ МВД РФ по Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области )   Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in St Petersburg and Leningrad Region ( ОРЧ (УР) ГУ МВД РФ по Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области )   14/02/2014 Taken to the hospital   17/02/2014 Report about discovery of the elements of crime No information Photos   17/02/2014 Medical card no.   9903   (closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, multiple bruises on the neck and upper limbs, arterial hypertonia) 29/04/2015 First complaint to the St Petersburg City Court   15/03/2016 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the applicant offered active resistance, the use of force was lawful and proportionate in view of the applicant’s professional knowledge and skills as an officer of the criminal investigation department)   25/03/2016 Investigation committee quashed the refusal (the refusal did not contain information as to the person in respect of whom the refusal had been issued)   No information about further developments 18/07/2016 St Petersburg City Court   17/05/2017 Supreme Court of Russia   Convicted of murder and illicit cultivation of plants containing narcotic substances in large scale 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   10806/18 15/02/2018 Konstantin Vladimirovich LANKIN 18/03/1986   Shirokovskiy   Russian   Larisa Valentinovna ALFEROVA 06/04/2016 (at 7.25 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the police officers of the Perm Regional Department of the Federal Drug Control Service ( УФКНС по Пермскому краю )   Perm Regional Department of the Federal Drug Control Service ( УФКНС по Пермскому краю )   (at 10.25 p.m.) Arrest record   07/04/2016 The applicant gave an explanation to a police officer in which he confessed to crimes   (from 1.00 to 2 p.m.) Interview as a suspect (at 1.27 p.m.) Arrival of appointed lawyer Sh. for the applicant’s interview as a suspect   08/04/2016 Access to lawyer B. of his own choosing No information 08/04/2016 IVS register   (bruises on the left elbow, in the ribs area on both sides, on the right shoulder, the forearms)   15/08/2016 Forensic medical examination no. 2404 (based on previous documents: no longer possible to establish the time when and the circumstances in which the injuries were inflicted)   08/06/2016 First complaint to the investigative committee   24/06/2017   Latest refusal to open a criminal case (the applicant offered active resistance to a police officer, both of them fell on the ground, the officers used handcuffs)   13/02/2018 Perm Regional Court   (the domestic courts examined the applicant’s complaint about the ill-treatment in light of the procedural rules, finding no ground for the complaint) 19/06/2017 Sverdlovskiy District Court   16/08/2017 Perm Regional Court   Convicted of illegal trading of psychotropic substances   (the domestic courts found the force used during the arrest reasonable and adequate as the applicant had offered resistance; as to the confession statements, the explanation given to the police was excluded from the body of evidence, the police officers testified in the hearing that they had not exercised any duress in respect of the applicant, and a lawyer had been present during the interview by the investigator, as confirmed by the log verifying visits)