CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   351 15.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia (application no. 7178/03).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicants were tortured while in detention; a violation of Article 3 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); and, a failure to comply with Article 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) in that the Government had refused to submit a report requested by the Court.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 10,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Mikhail Vladimirovich Dedovskiy, Alexandr Mikhaylovich Matrosov, Viktor Viktorovich Vidin, Stanislav Lvovich Bukhman, Igor Anatolyevich Kolpakov, Dmitriy Vladimirovich Gorokhov and Aleksey Shamilyevich Pazleev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1969, 1968, 1978, 1974, 1975, 1980 and 1974, respectively.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that, while serving a prison sentence at a correctional colony in Chepets (Russia), they were ill-treated by the Varyag squad, a special unit created to maintain order in detention facilities.   In April 2001 the squad was called into the Chepets correctional colony, allegedly to intimidate detainees who were being encouraged to be subversive by the leader of a criminal gang. The squad had instructions to maintain order by carrying out body searches of the detainees and searches of all quarters within the colony. The whole squad, except for its commander Mr B., wore balaclava helmets and camouflage uniforms with no indication of their rank and were armed with rubber truncheons.   According to the applicants, from 17 to 20 April 2001 the officers of the squad subjected them to repeated strip-searches and beatings with truncheons. The beatings took place indiscriminately: during the wake-up call, when they returned from work, in the canteen while they were eating, in their cells and the punishment ward. Certain applicants were made to squat and waddle to the canteen; others were beaten for replying too quietly to an officer’s request.   The Government acknowledged that a special squad had been in operation at the Chepets colony in April 2001. It submitted more than 60 reports compiled by the squad concerning the use of rubber truncheons against detainees. Four of those reports concerned incidents in which certain of the applicants had been beaten with truncheons: Mr   Dedovskiy for disobeying an order to spread his arms and legs for a body search; Mr   Kolpakov for refusing to give his name during a wake-up call; Mr Gorokhov for not reacting to an order to change his clothes; and, Mr   Pazleev for refusing to leave his cell.   On 9 June 2001 the Perm Regional Prosecutor received 160 complaints of ill-treatment by the colony’s detainees. A criminal investigation was launched the same day. In September 2001 the criminal proceedings in respect of most of the complaints were discontinued on the ground that the investigation had not obtained any “objective information” to confirm the detainees’ allegations. Charges brought against Mr B. and his subordinates for excess of power were also discontinued due to lack of evidence. In that decision, it was notably found that, as the officers wore balaclavas and identical camouflage, they could not be identified and could not therefore have charges brought against them and that Mr B. had not actually beaten anyone himself. In February 2002 Cherdynskiy District Court of the Perm Region acquitted Mr B. of the remaining charge against him of professional misconduct. It found that there were no grounds to consider that he had not exercised appropriate control over the lawfulness of his subordinates’ actions. Perm Regional Court later upheld that judgment, noting that Mr   B. could not, and was not obliged to, control each of his officers’ behaviour.   In the meantime, a special commission, made up of the Perm Regional Ombudsman and the director of the Perm Regional Human Rights Centre, visited the colony and found that there had been violations of the colony’s regulations. In August and September 2001 a special inquiry was also carried out by Mr   Shcherbanenko, Head of Department for supervision of compliance with laws in penitentiary institutions. The applicants claimed that his report criticised, in particular, the pre-trial investigation and the fact that the special squad had used truncheons unlawfully and worn balaclavas.   Despite repeated requests from the European Court, the Russian Government failed to submit a copy of Mr Shcherbanenko’s report. It did submit copies of the applicants’ medical records covering periods in the latter part of 2001 and 2002 to 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 27 January 2003 and declared admissible on 12 October 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoly Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation), the applicants complained that a special squad subjected them to ill-treatment at Chepets correctional colony and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they had no practical and effective access to claim compensation for that ill-treatment. Given the Russian Government’s failure to submit a copy of the Shcherbanenko report, the Court also examined the case under Article 34 (right to individual petition) and Article 38§ 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the alleged ill-treatment   The parties agreed that from 17 to 20 April 2001 the Varyag squad, all wearing balaclavas and identical camouflage except for its commander, Mr   B., had operated in Chepets correctional colony where the applicants were being held.   It was also commonly acknowledged that the squad had used truncheons against the detainees. Reports concerning the use of truncheons had been submitted which referred specifically to four of the applicants. All the applicants had also described in detail where, when and for how long they had been ill-treated and had even identified the colony officials present. Moreover, those claims had not at any point been contested by the Russian Government.   The Court therefore found it to be established to the standard of proof required in Convention proceedings that all the applicants had been subjected to ill-treatment as alleged and that it was “beyond reasonable doubt” that four of the applicants had been hit, at least once, with truncheons.   The Court found that the squad’s use of truncheons had had no basis in law. The Penitentiary Institutions Act permitted rubber truncheons to be used in certain situations such as: curtailing assaults; repressing mass disorder; and, apprehending those who persistently disobeyed or resisted officers. However, there was no evidence that the applicants had attacked officers or other detainees, the beatings had been individual, rather than collective, in nature, and, even though some applicants had allegedly disobeyed or resisted officers’ orders, no attempt had been made to arrest them.   Nor did the Court consider it to have actually been necessary to beat the applicants with truncheons. The Court accepted that the officers might have needed to resort to physical force in order to make Mr Pazleev leave his cell or to search Mr Dedovskiy but found that it had been disproportionate and ineffective to hit them with a truncheon to make them obey. In such a situation, a truncheon blow had been a form of reprisal or corporal punishment. Such a disproportionate response was all the more striking concerning the reported beatings of Mr Kolpakov and Mr   Gorokhov who had simply refused to state their name or change clothes.   The Court therefore concluded that the squad had resorted to deliberate and gratuitous violence and had intended to arouse in the applicants feelings of fear and humiliation, which would break their physical or moral resistance. The purpose of that treatment had been to debase the applicants and drive them into submission. The truncheon blows must have caused them intense mental and physical suffering and, in those circumstances, the Court found that the applicants had been subjected to torture, in violation of Article 3.   Concerning the alleged lack of an effective investigation   The Court reiterated that an investigation into an arguable claim of serious ill-treatment should be prompt, thorough and capable of identification and punishment of those responsible.   However, in the applicants’ case criminal proceedings had only been brought one-and-a-half months after the events in question. No evidence was produced to show that the applicants had been medically examined following those events. The records submitted only referred to subsequent examinations. Indeed, the lack of any “objective” evidence – such as medical reports – had been given as a reason for discontinuing the proceedings in respect of most of the detainees’ complaints.   The Court also considered that, by allowing the squad to cover their faces and not to wear any distinctive signs on their uniforms, the Russian authorities had knowingly made it impossible to have them identified by their victims. That ground was even given as the main reason for discontinuing the criminal proceedings against those officers. Nor had the reports on the use of rubber truncheons specified which officers had used their truncheon. The Court therefore found that the Russian authorities had deliberately created a situation in which any identification of the officers suspected of inflicting ill-treatment had been impossible.   Similarly, the domestic courts hindered any meaningful attempt to bring those responsible to account. There had been glaring contradictions in the findings of the domestic courts on the issue of Mr B.’s responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. The district court acquitted Mr B. because he had exercised appropriate control over the lawfulness of their actions, whereas the Regional Court exonerated him on the ground that he had not been able, or obliged, to control his officers. The Court therefore concluded that the investigation carried out into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment had not been thorough, adequate or efficient, in further violation of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court recalled that, while Russian civil courts in theory had the capacity to make an independent assessment of a case, in practice the weight attached to a preceding criminal inquiry was so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary would be discarded and such a remedy would prove to be only theoretical and illusory. In the applicants’ case the criminal proceedings had been discontinued and, consequently, any other remedy available to the applicants, including a claim for damages, had limited chances of success. The Court therefore concluded that the applicants had not had an effective remedy under domestic law to claim compensation for the ill-treatment they had suffered, in violation of Article 13.   Articles 34 and 38 (a)   The Court noted that, despite repeated requests, the Government had refused to submit a copy of Mr   Shcherbanenko’s report to the Court. The Court considered that the evidence contained in that report was crucial to the establishment of the facts in the case and that the reasons given by the Russian Government for their refusal were inadequate.   Referring to the importance of a Government’s cooperation in Convention proceedings and mindful of the difficulties associated with the establishment of facts in cases of such a nature, the Court found that, in failing to submit the requested report, the Russian Government had failed to meet their obligations under Article 38 § 1.   The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 34 as regards the failure to submit that report.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.