CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 January 2021 Published on 15 February 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 59760/11 Valentina Gavrilovna PROSKUROVA against Russia lodged on 6 September 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant by the police officers on 16 and 17   September 2009 with a view to extract confession statements from her, of lack of adequate investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment, as well as of unfairness of criminal proceedings on account of use of the statements obtained under coercion, which resulted in the applicant’s conviction in 2011 by a jury trial for an accomplice in murder and for aggravated theft. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the injuries found on the applicant on 17 and 18   September 2009, after the questioning by the police officers, has the applicant been subjected to torture, on inhuman or degrading treatment on 16 and 17   September 2009, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see, among other recent authorities, Turbylev v.   Russia , no.   4722/09, §§   63 ‑ 66, 6   October 2015, and Olisov and Others v.   Russia , nos.   10825/09 and   2   others, §§   74-79, 2   May 2017)? 2.     Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant’s injuries had been caused (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§   130-31, 24   July 2014; and Turbylev, cited above, §§   63-66)? 3.     Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article   3 of the Convention, having regard to   the investigating authorities’ refusals to open criminal cases and investigate the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the State officials (see Lyapin , cited above, §§   125-40; and Olisov and others , cited above, §§   81 ‑ 82)? In particular: (a)     Did the absence of instituted criminal proceedings prevent investigative measures, which could correspond to the notion of an effective investigation, as required by the Court’s case-law under Article   3 of the Convention (see Lyapin , cited above, §   133, with further references)? (b)     Were persons from whom explanations ( объяснения ) were taken (investigators and a State-appointed counsel) liable for false statements or a refusal to testify ( ibidem , §   105)? (c)     What was the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the applicant’s counsel before the Leninskiy District Court of Samara on 13   January 2011, 21   April 2011, 27   June 2011 (complaints against refusals to open a criminal case)? 4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in the meaning of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention, in the determination of the criminal charge against her, taking into account her allegations that her statements of confession had been extracted under torture (see, among many other authorities, Belugin v.   Russia , no.   2991/06, §   68, 26   November 2019)?   In particular: (a)     Was the applicant’s counsel request that her self-incriminating statements be declared inadmissible subject to a full, independent and comprehensive examination and assessment by the trial court (see Belugin , cited above, §   79)? (b)     Did the applicant have an effective opportunity to challenge the admissibility of her self-incriminating statements and to effectively oppose their use ( ibidem )? 5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article   3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 6.     The respondent Government are invited to submit the following documents: (a)     the applicant’s statements as a witness of 16   September 2009 and of 17   September 2009, as a suspect of 17   September 2009 and as an accused of 24   September 2009; (b)     the decisions of the Leninskiy District Court of Samara taken in relation to the applicant’s counsel complaints of 13   January 2011, 21   April 2011, 27   June 2011 against refusals to open a criminal case lodged with the mentioned court.