CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   26955/20 Ildar Khatipovich ZARIPOV against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 October 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention relating to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20   November 2018).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Factual information Medical evidence of ill-treatment Date of first complaint Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP Appeal decision Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law     26955/20* 07/04/2020 Ildar Khatipovich ZARIPOV 1987     On 22/11/2018 the applicant was arrested in Ukhta on the suspicion of a drug-related crime and subjected to punches by four arresting police officers before being taken to the temporary detention centre (the IVS) at the Ukhta police station. On 23/11/2018 report of the IVS: abrasion on the lips, abrasions on the fingers of the right hand. Forensic expert report (based on the applicant’s medical records) of 25/03/2019 by the Ukhta Forensics Bureau: consequences of an old head trauma (unconfirmed). On 23/11/2018 complaint lodged/Between 09/01/2019 and 30/10/2019 the Ukhta investigative committee issued five refusals to open a criminal case having stated that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted by hitting his head against his own knees and biting hard on the lips and/or that the use of force and handcuffing had been justified by the applicant’s behaviour. Each of the refusals, except for the last one, of 30/10/2019 was overruled by the investigators’ superiors as deficient. The applicant appealed against the last refusal to open a criminal case/On 26/11/2019 the Ukhta Town Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in a summary formula/On 17/01/2020 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld that decision on appeal.       30334/21* 11/05/2021 Georgiy Sergeyevich GRACHEV 2001 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi Early in the morning on 23/01/2021 the applicant participated in an unauthorised public rally in support of Navalnyy in Moscow, during which officers from the Russian Guards Service hit him several times with batons on the head and torso. At 04.23 p.m. on the same day, the applicant was hospitalised. Medical assessment report of 23/01/2021 issued by the Sklifosovskiy medical emergency institute in Moscow: compound wound of the head, injury of the left elbow. Photo of the applicant with the head in blood, while standing among servicemen and the rally participants. On 15/04/2021 the applicant complained to the Tverskoy Investigative Committee in Moscow/By a letter of 27/04/2021, the authorities replied that since the rally was not duly authorised, the servicemen actions were lawful, and refused to conduct any inquiry into the matter. The applicant appealed against the authorities’ inaction to the Tverskoy District Court/On 30/11/2021 the court dismissed the complaint/On 06/06/2022 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision, having noted that the use of physical force was lawful and that in any case, on 26/04/2021, the applicant’s complaint had been transferred to the Russian Guard Service for further examination. Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.00   p.m. on 02/02/2021 to 03/02/2021, hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/09/2021and 09/02/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based,   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies –   1) 23/01/2021, Moscow, rally to support Mr A. Navalnyy, article   20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB   20,000, final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/09/2021,   2) 02/02/2021, Moscow, rally to support Mr A. Navalnyy, article   20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10   days, final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/02/2021     1576/22* 18/12/2021 Anatoliy Viktorovich KALASHNIKOV 1972 Natalya Viktorovna Yastrebova Rostov-on-Don At 00.30 a.m. on 15/05/2021 the applicant was detained by the Border Control Service of the FSB in Rostov-on-Don on suspicion of smuggling tobacco goods. He was subjected to beatings on various parts of the torso and electrocuted with a stun gun with the aim of extracting information. The Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court in Rostov-on-Do convicted him of an administrative infraction and sentenced to 5 days of detention. Expert examination report No. 14 of 28/05/2021 by the 111th Main Centre of Forensics of the Ministry of Defence on the examination carried out on 20/05/2021: multiple focal epithelialized spots on the outer surface of the thumb with a transition to the lower third of the forearm, spots on the left lumbar region, haemorrhage on the right forearm, two bruises on the right forearm. The injuries occurred 4 ‑ 10 days before the examination. On 20/05/2021 complaint to the 314th military investigations department/On 31/05/2021 and 05/07/2021 refusals to open a criminal case as no crime had taken place: the investigator had interviewed the applicant, who had maintained his allegations and the implicated officers, who had either denied using any physical force (one officer) or stated that the force had been used due to the applicant’s resistance (three officers). No assessment of necessity or proportionality of the use of force was made. On 15/10/2021 the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Military Court rejected the applicant’s appeal contesting the last refusal/On 10/12/2021 the Southern Military Circuit Court upheld that decision. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in relation to the complaints of ill-treatment     31736/22 15/06/2022 Vadim Nikolayevich ZABOLOTSKIKH 1973 Olga Aleksandrovna Sadovskaya Nizhniy Novgorod On 21/04/2021 the applicant was subjected to shoving, tasing and kicks by police officers at a demonstration in support of Navalnyy in St   Petersburg. Medical examination certificate of 23/04/2021 by St   Petersburg clinical hospital No. 27: contusion of the lumbar spine, contusion of the chin. Forensic examination of 27/04/2021 by St   Petersburg clinical hospital No. 48: abrasion to the chin and outer surface of the left shoulder. Areas of pinpoint hypermia on the inner surface of the right thigh. The injuries were sustained as a result of, inter alia, tasing, in the circumstances described by the applicant. On 30/04/2021 the applicant lodged an ill-treatment complaint with the Admiralteyskiy department of the investigative committee in St Petersburg/On 04/05/2021 the complaint was transferred to the Admiralteyskiy police department, which refused to register it for the lack of evidence of a crime.   On 30/08/2021 the applicant challenged the authorities’ inaction before the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St Petersburg/ On 05/10/2021 the court refused to examine the complaint for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision amenable to appeal had been issued/On 15/12/2021 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld that decision. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the complaints of ill-treatment.     54964/22 05/11/2022 Yekaterina Konstantinovna KATSUN 1998     The applicant participated in an anti-war protest in Moscow on 06/03/2022; she was arrested at the venue and taken to the Brateyevo police station. She was subjected to ill-treatment by the police there (kicked in the legs several times, hit in the head and hit in the face with a bottle), the police officers also sprayed her face with antiseptic and tore her hair.   On 07/03/2022 and 09/03/2022 medical examinations at Moscow hospital No. 17: contusion of the soft tissue of the nose, contusion and hematomas on the right hip and right shin. Medical examination on 10/03/2022 at Moscow hospital No. 212: contusion of the soft tissues of the head, nose and lower jaw.   On 31/03/2022 the applicant lodged an ill-treatment complaint with the Nagatinskiy investigator’s office / On 29/04/2022 she received a reply from the investigative authorities stating that her complaint had been forwarded to the Police Department of the Southern district of Moscow. On 05/05/2022 the applicant challenged the authorities’ inaction before the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow/ On 26/09/2022 the court examined her complaint and rejected it stating that there were no reasons to believe that a crime had been committed/On 08/11/2022 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment. Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - The applicant was taken to a police station on 06/03/2022 as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot (Article 27.2 § 1 of the CAO) and to achieve the goals set by Art. 27.1 of CAO, e.g., to identify the suspect (Korneyeva v. Russia, no.   72051/17, § 34, 8   October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019). The applicant remained in detention for more than three hours after the offence record had been drawn up without any justification (Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   121 ‑ 22, 10 April 2018): she was detained at 3.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 and released at 11 p.m. on 06/03/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decision was given on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 05/07/2022,   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the first-instance trial two police officers on whose written statements her guilt was based.     26642/23 19/06/2023 Yevgeniy Vladimirovich LASTIN 1983 Mariya Aleksandrovna Zadorozhnaya Nizhniy Novgorod On 30/10/2020 two police officers subjected the applicant to punches and handcuffing during his arrest on suspicion of theft. The incident was recorded on video. On 31/10/2020 medical examination No. 891-5011 by Krasnodar hospital No. 3: contusion and hematomas of both forearms and shins. The information on the results of the examination was reported to the police. Forensic medical examination of the Krasnodar Regional Forensics Bureau no. 5248/2020 of 03/11/2020: haemorrhage in the face, bruises in the torso, upper and lower limbs, abrasions in the upper right limb. The information on the results of the applicant’s examination at the hospital was reported to the police on 31/10/2020/Between 10/12/2020 and 20/11/2021 four refusals by the Krasnodar investigative committee to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. The decision was based on the statements of the implicated officers and did not reflect the contents of the video recording of the incident. On 16/12/2021 the applicant appealed against the last refusal, the one of 20/11/2021, to the Prikubanskiy District Court in Krasnodar/On 13/01/2022 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/On 20/02/2023 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld that decision.       27820/23* 30/06/2023 Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KALUZHSKIKH 1995 Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev Kazan The applicant participated in an anti-war protest in Moscow on 06/03/2022; she was arrested at the venue and taken to the Brateyevo police station. There she was subjected to ill ‑ treatment by four police officers (kicked in the shin, hit in the back of the head, poured water over and struck in the head by the water bottle, hit in the head and punched in the face with the bottle). On 07/03/2022 medical examination by the city hospital No.   218 in Moscow: soft tissue contusions to the head, face and upper right tibia, possible brain concussion. On 08/03/2022 and 11/03/2022 examinations at Medical Diagnostic Centre No. 6 in Moscow: cerebrovascular disease, disorder of the vegetative nervous system, syndrome of vegetative vascular dystonia On 01/04/2022 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nagatinskiy investigator’s office and asked to open an investigation into her alleged ill-treatment. On 29/04/2022 she received a reply dated 13/04/2022 from the head of the investigator’s office stating that her complaint had been forwarded to the Police Department of the Southern district of Moscow. On 06/05/2022 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow challenging the inaction of the investigating authorities/On 13/12/2022 the court examined her complaint and rejected it stating that there were no reasons to believe that a crime had been committed/On 14/03/2023 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision.