European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF ISHEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 39619/09 and 9 others - see appended list)

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

4 February 2020

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ishevskiy and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Alena Poláčková, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 14 January 2020,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in ten applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr M. Galperin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  Notice of the applications was given to the Government.

4.  The Government did not object to the examination of the applications by a Committee.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  Between 2008 and 2017, the applicants were arrested on suspicion of having committed criminal and administrative offences in different regions of Russia. They alleged, among other things, that they had been ill-treated by the police.

6.  The relevant facts in respect of each application are set out below.

A.    Ishevskiy v. Russia, no. 39619/09

1.    The events of 3 June 2008

7.  On 3 June 2008 at 7.55 a.m. police officers of the Kominternovsky District Department of the Interior of Voronezh (уголовный розыск Коминтерновского РОВД г. Воронеж) apprehended the applicant on suspicion of a murder and took him to the police unit. According to the applicant, the officers punched and kicked him in the stomach, chest and hands, forcing him to confess. The applicant’s arrest record was drawn up on 3 June 2008 at 8.00 p.m.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

8.  On 18 June 2008 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment to an investigator.

9.  On 27 June 2008 the investigator issued a refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of evidence of crime.

10.  On 3 July 2008 the applicant underwent a forensic examination. According to the forensic medical report, he had a bruise on the front surface of his stomach, a bruise on the chest, and a wound on his left hand, inflicted by a hard blunt object between one and three days before the examination.

11.  Between 1 October 2008 and 15 June 2010 the investigator issued eleven decisions refusing to open a criminal case. The investigator found the applicant’s allegations unfounded, referring mainly to the explanations of police officers who had denied the use of force. The applicant challenged the refusals before the courts, but his appeals were dismissed as unfounded. Subsequently, all decisions, apart from the decision of 15 June 2010, were quashed by the investigator’s superior as unsubstantiated.

12.  On 19 June 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Court complaining about his unrecorded detention on 3 June 2008.

13.  On unspecified date the applicant challenged the latest refusal of 15 June 2010 before the Kominternovsky District Court. On 8 September 2010 the court dismissed his complaint as unfounded. On 28 October 2010 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

14.  On 11 April 2011 the applicant supplemented his application at the Court with a complaint about the ill-treatment.

B.     Sultanov v. Russia, no. 25437/11

1.    The events of 3 September 2009

15.  On 3 September 2009 officers of Police Department no. 47 in St. Petersburg (отдел милиции № 47 г. Санкт-Петербург) arrested the applicant on suspicion of an aggravated robbery and took him to the police station. According to the applicant, at the police station the officers punched and kicked him, subjected him to electric shocks forcing him to confess.

16.  According to the medical certificate of 4 September 2009 issued at the emergency station of City Hospital no. 109, the applicant had scars on his neck and hands, abrasions on his right shin and his back, his hematoma of the left eye.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

17.  On 2 March 2010 the applicant complained to an investigator about the ill-treatment.

18.  On 31 March 2010 the investigator issued a refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of evidence of crime. On 6 July 2010 the decision was quashed by the superior investigator as unreasoned.

19.  On 15 July 2010 and 17 September 2010 two decisions not to open a criminal case were issued, which were subsequently quashed by the superior investigator as unsubstantiated. On 24 January 2011 the investigator issued the fourth refusal to open a criminal case, referring mainly to the explanations of the police officers who had denied the use of force. The applicant did not challenge these decisions before the courts.

C.    Meshkov v. Russia, no. 1194/12

1.    The events of 20 September 2010

20.  On 20 September 2010 around 2.00 p.m. police officers of an unspecified unit arrested the applicant on suspicion of a murder and took him to the police station. According to the applicant, he was beaten on his body, and, according to him, his coccyx was broken. The officers poured a bottle of vodka into his mouth.

21.  Later that day the applicant underwent a forensic examination. According to the forensic report, he had abrasions to the back of his left hand, bruising of the subscapular region, abrasions of the left forearm, and bruising on the left knee-joint. According to the expert, the injuries resulted from at least three blows within two days before the examination.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

22.  On 18 November 2010 the applicant complained to the investigator about police ill-treatment.

23.  On 28 November 2010 the investigator issued the first refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of evidence of crime.

24.  On 29 December 2010 the applicant underwent another forensic examination, according to which the fracture of his tailbone remained unconfirmed.

25.  On 3 January 2011 and 26 December 2011 the investigator issued two refusals to open a criminal case, mainly referring to the explanations of police officers that no physical force had been used against him. By a final decision of 21 November 2012 the Penza Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal of 26 December 2011 as unfounded.

3.    Proceedings related to the applicant’s detention on remand

26.  On 22 September 2010 the Zemetchinskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, which was extended until the date of his subsequent conviction on 20 June 2011.

D.    Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 47771/12

1.    The events of 3 July 2011

27.  On 3 July 2011 around 3.30 p.m. officers of Police Department no. 14 in Kazan (отдел полиции № 14 «Дебрышки») arrested the applicant on suspicion of a murder and took him to the police station. According to the applicant, he was held there until 6 July 2011 and ill-treated. Forcing him to confess, police officers put a bag and a gas mask on his head, induced an electric current into his groin, beat his back and feet. Eventually, the applicant confessed.

28.  The case file contains no evidence of any injuries on the applicant’s body prior to his arrest.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

29.  On 7 July 2011 the applicant underwent a forensic examination. The expert recorded bruises on the chest, lumbar region, left thigh, left elbow, and hip, which had appeared within 7-10 days before the examination.

30.  On unspecified dates the applicant lodged several complaints with the prosecution office about police ill-treatment. On 6 October 2011 the investigator issued a refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of evidence of crime.

31.  On 22 November 2011 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan convicted the applicant of committing a murder. On 9 February 2012 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. The courts dismissed the applicant’s complaints about ill-treatment as unfounded.

3.    Other relevant information

32.  Between 3 and 6 July 2011 the applicant was detained in Police Department no. 14 in a cell measuring 1,8 x 1,5 sq. m. with no water, proper light or toilet facilities.

E.     Kvasov v. Russia, no. 70713/12

1.    The events of 11-17 November 2009

 

34.  According to the applicant, on 12 November 2009 at 8.30 a.m. at the police department the officers subjected him to electric shocks, placed plastic strips on his mouth and around his legs, handcuffed and beat him, forcing to confess.

35.  On 13 November 2009 the Ramonskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s administrative arrest for five days for the use of obscene language in the public. He was held in a temporary detention facility where, according to the applicant, he was again beaten on 17 November 2009.

36.  According to the medical records of the temporary detention facility of 17 November 2009, the applicant had bruises on lower lid of his right eye, left shoulder, left hip, left knee, abrasions on his left hip, and on both wrists.

37.  According to the medical records of the remand prison of 19 November 2009, he had hematoma around the upper and lower lid of the right eye, an injury on the upper lip, abrasions on both wrists, hematomas on his back, left hip, left knee and numerous punctual skin injuries to his right shoulder.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

38.  On 19 November 2009 the applicant complained to the authorities about police ill-treatment.

39.  Between 15 December 2009 and 27 April 2011 the investigators issued at least eight refusals to open a criminal case. Referring to the explanations of the applicant’s inmates, the investigators concluded that the applicant had self-inflicted the injuries in order to accuse police officers of ill-treatment. All refusals, apart from the last one, were quashed by the superior investigator as incomplete.

40.  On 19 April 2012 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed his complaint against the latest refusal of 27 April 2011 as unfounded. On 14 June 2012 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the decision.

F.     Prudnikov v. Russia, no. 70526/13

1.    The events of 12 May 2012

41.  On 12 May 2012 at 8.20 a.m. officers of the Orel Police Department (УМВД России по Орловской области) apprehended the applicant on a highway on suspicion of having committed a crime and took him to Police Department no. 6 of the Orel Region. According to the applicant, he was punched on the head and body and beaten with a plastic bottle filled with water.

42.  On the same day the applicant confessed. The applicant’s arrest record was drawn up on 12 May 2012 at 11.30 p.m.

43.  On 15 May 2012 the applicant underwent a forensic examination. According to forensic medical report no. 1165/3, which referred to the applicant’s medical notes of 13 May 2012, he had a bruise on his left elbow, and contusion of the chest and head.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

44.  On 11 July 2012 the applicant complained to the investigator about police ill-treatment. Between 21 July 2012 and 17 April 2013 the investigators issued six refusals to open a criminal case mainly based on the explanations of police officers that the applicant had offered resistance during the arrest and the force and handcuffs had been used against him. The officers had submitted relevant reports in that regard. On unspecified dates at least two refusals were quashed by the investigators’ superiors as unsubstantiated. The applicant did not appeal against the remaining decisions to the courts.

45.  The case file contains no copies of the relevant reports. The Government did not submit them.

3.    Proceedings related to the applicant’s detention on remand

46.  On 13 May 2012 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.

47.  On 17 February 2014 the court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for three more months.

4.    The applicant’s trial

48.  On 27 March 2014, relying on confession statements of his co‑defendants, the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court convicted the applicant. On 17 July 2014 the Orel Regional Court upheld the conviction.

G.    Prytkov v. Russia, no. 72165/14

1.    The events of 19 May 2010

49.  On 19 May 2010 at 10 a.m. officers of Police Department no. 2 in Orenburg (оперативно-розыскная часть № 2 уголовного розыска УВД по Оренбургской области) took the applicant from his workplace to the police department. According to the applicant, between 1 and 5.20 p.m. the officers ill-treated him. They tied the applicant to a chair, suffocated him with a plastic bag on his head, hit him in his chest and head, and threatened to rape him and injure his relatives, to force him to confess. The applicant refused and he was released later that day.

50.  According to the medical certificate of 19 May 2010 issued by City Hospital no. 1 in Orenburg, the applicant had a broken jaw and hypertension of the first or second degree. According to the medical history record of 24 May 2010, he had brain concussion, and head and chest injuries.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

51.  On 28 May 2010 the applicant complained to the investigator about police ill-treatment.

52.  Between June 2010 and October 2011 the investigator issued eleven refusals to open a criminal case, referring mainly to the explanations of police officers who had submitted that no physical force had been used against him. The decisions were subsequently quashed as unsubstantiated.

53.  On 16 November 2011 a criminal case was opened. The case was terminated on 16 September 2012. Two more times the case was opened and terminated in 2013 for the absence of the event of crime.

54.  On 9 August 2012 the applicant underwent a forensic examination. According to report no. 4772 based on the applicant’s examination and his medical documents, at the time of the events he had a closed craniocerebral injury, qualified as significant harm to health (вред здоровью средней тяжести).

55.  On 31 May 2013 the investigator issued the latest decision not to open a criminal case containing similar reasoning as before. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to the Promyshlenny District Court against that decision.

56.  On 12 September 2014 the court granted his appeal and remitted the case to the investigator. The further outcome of the proceedings is unclear.

H.    Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 8276/15

1.    The events of 9 October 2010

57.  On 9 October 2010 officers of the Police Department (сотрудники полиции линейного ОВД) of the Novosibirsk Region arrested the applicant at a train station on suspicion of a rape and took him to the police department. According to the applicant, he was punched and kicked for several hours.

58.  According to the applicant’s medical records issued by the Novosibirsk District Hospital on 11 October 2010, he had fractures of his fifth, sixth and seventh left ribs, and the left side pneumothorax. According to the medical records of the Interregional Prison Hospital of 29 October 2010, the applicant had a closed chest injury, bruises, abrasions on the body, face, and limbs, and two-sided pneumothorax.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

59.  On 22 November 2010 the applicant complained about the ill‑treatment to an investigator.

60.  Between 2 December 2010 and 13 February 2014 the investigator issued at least five decisions not to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of police officers who had denied the use of force and that the applicant had fallen two or three days before the arrest and could have broken his ribs. All decisions, apart from the last one, were subsequently quashed as incomplete.

61.  On 31 October 2014 the Pervomayskiy District Court upheld the latest refusal of 13 February 2014. On 24 December 2014 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant received the court decision on 2 February 2015.

I.       Sitdikov v. Russia, no. 50459/16

62.  On 4 December 2013 the applicant was arrested and placed in a temporary detention facility in Nizhnekamsk. According to the medical record (протокол освидетельствования) of 4 December 2013 signed by a doctor and an investigator, the applicant had no injuries.

1.    The events of 12 and 14 December 2013

63.  On 12 December 2013 the applicant was taken to an unknown location, where five or six persons tied his legs, administered electric shocks to his arms, legs and genitalia. He was ill-treated for three or four hours with a view to extracting a confession.

64.  According to the medical record (протокол освидетельствования) of 13 December 2013 signed by a doctor and an investigator, the applicant had injuries on his hands and legs.

65.  On 14 December 2013 the applicant was again taken to an unknown location and ill-treated with electricity. The applicant confessed to a crime.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

66.  On 3 June 2014 the applicant complained to the investigator about the ill-treatment.

67.  According to the forensic medical report of 23 June 2014, the applicant had skin pigmentation areas on his arms, hands and feet, and several scars on his right leg and foot inflicted between three and six months before the examination.

68.  On 30 June 2014 the investigator issued a refusal to open a criminal case on the grounds that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were refuted by the explanations of police officers. On 3 November 2015 the decision was quashed as premature.

69.  On 27 November 2015 the investigator issued the second refusal to open a criminal case for the same reasons. By the final decision of the Supreme Court of Tatarstan of 22 March 2016, the applicant’s appeal against the refusal was dismissed.

J.      Akayev v. Russia, no. 13701/18

1.    The events of 10 February 2017

70.  On 10 February 2017 around 12.40 p.m. the police arrested the applicant in the Endirey village in Dagestan. According to the applicant, he was taken to the forest nearby where he was beaten, subjected to electric shocks and interrogated. Around 11.20 p.m. the applicant was taken to the investigator’s office in Khasavyurt, where he confessed to a crime.

71.  According to the remand prison medical records of 12 February 2017, the applicant had bruises around his eyes, a bruise on his lower back, and abrasions on the fingers of both hands.

2.    Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

72.  On 14 February 2017 the applicant complained to the investigator about police ill-treatment. On 3 May 2017 the investigator issued a refusal to open a criminal case for the lack evidence of crime. On 8 August 2017 the decision was quashed as incomplete.

73.  On 7 September 2017 the Khasavyurtovskiy District Court convicted the applicant. On 12 December 2017 the Supreme Court of Dagestan upheld the conviction. The courts dismissed his complaints about ill-treatment as unfounded.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

74.  For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 48‑52, 14 November 2013.

75.  Paragraph 16 of 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 (adopted 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.

Similar rules have been in force in respect of the police since 2009.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

76.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II. Preliminary issues

77.  The Court notes that the Government made preliminary objections in three cases, Ishevskiy v. Russia (no. 39619/09), Sultanov v. Russia (no. 25437/11), and Prudnikov v. Russia (no. 70526/13).

A.    Ishevskiy v. Russia, no. 39619/09

78.  The Government argued that the applicant’s application form in which he had complained under Article 3 of the Convention dated 11 April 2011, while the events in questioned had taken place in June 2008. There had been several decisions refusing the opening of a criminal case following the first refusal of 27 June 2008 and the applicant should have begun to doubt the effectiveness of the procedural measures long before he had lodged his complaint with the Court. The applicant, therefore, failed to comply with the six-month time-limit.

79.  The applicant disagreed and maintained his complaint.

80.  The Court observes that the applicant lodged a complaint with the investigative authorities about the ill-treatment about two weeks after the events in question (see paragraph 8 above). During the next two years the authorities issued in total twelve decisions refusing to open a criminal case. The applicant challenged the refusals in courts, but to no avail. The latest court decision in this respect was taken on 28 October 2010 (see paragraph 13 above).

81.  The Court observes that the domestic proceedings regarding the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment lasted for two years and four months and there were no undue gaps between the events and the latest court decision. This being so, it considers that the applicant had no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the investigation. Accordingly, it finds that the six-month period started running from the date of the final decision of 28 October 2010. The Court, therefore, concludes that the applicant complied with the six-month rule and rejects the Government’s objection.

B.     Sultanov v. Russia, no. 25437/11

82.  The Government questioned the date of 2 March 2011 as the date of introduction of the application form.

83.  The Court notes that the latest decision not to open a criminal case was taken on 24 January 2011. On 2 March 2011 the applicant dispatched his first letter to the Court, setting out the pertinent facts and alleging a violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. He lodged the completed application form on 25 July 2011, that is without undue delay. The Court, therefore, accepts the date of the applicant’s first letter as the date of the introduction of the application and rejects the Government’s objection.

C.    Sultanov v. Russia, no. 25437/11 and Prudnikov v. Russia, no. 70526/13

84.  The Government argued that the applicants had not challenged the decisions issued during the preliminary inquiry and thus had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

85.  The applicants disagreed and maintained their complaints.

86.  The Court reiterates that, in principle, a judicial appeal against a decision not to institute criminal proceedings may offer a substantial safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power by the investigating authority, given a court’s power to annul such decisions and indicate the defects to be addressed (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003). In the ordinary course of events an appeal to a court might be regarded as a possible remedy where the prosecution has decided not to investigate the claims.

87.  The Court, however, has strong doubts that this remedy would have been effective in the present cases. It observes that in the case of Mr Sultanov at least four decisions not to open a criminal case had been issued and all decisions, apart from the last one, were quashed by the superior investigator (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above). In the case of Mr Prudnikov at least six refusals had been issued and at least two of them had been quashed by the superior authorities (see paragraph 44 above).

88.  In these circumstances, the Court is not convinced that an appeal to a court would have offered the applicants any redress. It considers, therefore, that such an appeal in the particular circumstances of the present cases would be devoid of any purpose. The Court finds that the applicants were not obliged to pursue that remedy and holds that the Government’s objection should therefore be dismissed (see Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 91, 24 April 2012; Nitsov v. Russia, no. 35389/04, § 41, 3 May 2012; and Nekrasov v. Russia, no. 8049/07, § 78, 17 May 2016).

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 and 13 OF THE CONVENTION

89.  The applicants complained that they had been subjected to ill‑treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. Mr Sultanov, Mr Meshkov, Mr Prytkov and Mr Akayev also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of the Convention provisions read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...”

Article 13

 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”

90.  The Government contested their allegations, maintaining the conclusions of the domestic inquiries. They stated that the inquiries into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment had been thorough and comprehensive.

91.  In respect of Mr Prudnikov, the Government also stated that the police had used physical force against the applicant because he had offered resistance during the arrest and that the officers had drawn up the relevant reports in that regard.

92.  In the case of Mr Mikheyev, the Government argued that the applicant’s injuries could have been caused during one of his epilepsy attacks which had taken place before the arrest.

93.  As to Mr Kvasov, the Government contended that on an unspecified date the applicant had injured himself and that had been confirmed by statements of his inmates.

A.    Admissibility

94.  The Court notes that the complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.

B.     Merits

1.    Credibility of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody and the presumption of fact

95.  The Court observes that all applicants were arrested by the police on suspicion of them having committed various criminal and administrative offences.

96.  After spending different periods of time in police custody the applicants were found to have sustained injuries of various degrees, as recorded by forensic medical experts (see paragraphs 10, 21, 29, 43, 54 and 67 above), the detention facilities and medical institutions (see paragraphs 16, 36, 37, 50, 58, 64 and 71 above).

97.  Having examined the case files and the parties’ submissions, the Court considers that the applicants’ injuries were well-documented and could arguably have resulted from the violence allegedly suffered by the applicants at the hands of the police officers. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants’ accounts of events and to satisfy the Court that the applicants’ allegations of ill‑treatment in police custody were credible.

2.    Whether an effective investigation was carried out into the applicants’ allegations of police ill-treatment

98.  The Court observes that the applicants’ credible allegations of their injuries being the result of police violence were dismissed by the investigating authorities as unfounded based mainly on the statements of police officers denying the applicants’ ill-treatment (see paragraphs 11, 19, 25, 52, 60 and 68 above). The authorities did not take all reasonable steps available to them to secure and examine the evidence and did not make a serious attempt to find out what had happened. Also, it notes that the medical evidence referred to by the applicants remained unexamined.

99.  In addition, as regards the quality of the medical evidence, the Court reiterates that proper medical examinations are essential safeguards against ill-treatment (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 55 and 118, ECHR 2000‑X). In this connection, the Court observes that in some cases the forensic examinations have been conducted with a significant delay after the events or after the applicants had complained about ill‑treatment. Mr Ishevskiy was examined more than two weeks after his complaint and a month after the alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 10 above). Mr Prytkov was examined more than two years after the events (see paragraph 54 above). Three weeks passed between the ill-treatment complaint and the examination of Mr Sitdikov (see paragraph 67 above). By the time when the applicants were examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012).

100.  The Court considers that significant delays such as in these cases made it impracticable for the experts to provide adequate answers to the questions raised by the requesting authority (see Mogilat v. Russia, no. 8461/03, § 64, 13 March 2012).

101.  It is notable that no forensic medical examination at all was carried out in respect of Mr Sultanov, Mr Kvasov, Mr Vasilyev and Mr Akayev.

102.  Furthermore, the Court notes that the investigators based their findings on the results of the pre‑investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 129, 24 July 2014). The Court notes that the investigators issued numerous decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings some of which were annulled as unsubstantiated, incomplete or premature (see paragraphs 11, 19, 39, 44, 52, 60, 68 and 72 above).

103.  The Court reiterates its finding that the mere carrying out of a pre‑investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill‑treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and conduct a proper criminal investigation in which a full range of investigative measures are carried out (Lyapin, cited above, §§ 129 and 132‑36).

104.  The Court has no reason to hold otherwise in the present cases, which involve credible allegations of treatment proscribed by Article 3. It finds that the State has failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations of police violence.

3.    Whether the Government provided explanations capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ versions of events

105.  As regards the Government’s arguments (see paragraphs 91, 92 and 93 above), the Court notes the following.

106.  Explaining Mr Prudnikov’s injuries, the investigating authority referred to the police officers’ reports that they had used force lawfully (see paragraph 44 above). At the outset, the Court notes that the Government failed to submit the reports on which the investigators had relied. The Court further considers that this general explanation lacks the assessment of the acts of the police officers in using force and the actions on the part of the applicant which could have justified the use of force, as well as the assessment whether the use of force was indispensable and not excessive (see Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, § 103, 12 December 2017).

107.  In the case of Mr Mikheyev, the Government contended that his injuries could have been caused during one of his alleged epilepsy attacks. Firstly, the Court notes that it is not supported by any medical evidence that the applicant indeed had suffered from the disease. Secondly, if the applicant had any injuries prior to his arrest, as the Government argued, the police officers were obliged to inform their superior about the injuries on the applicant and find out about the circumstances of the sustained injuries (see paragraph 75 above).

108.  As to the Government’s submission that Mr Kvasov’s injuries had been self-inflicted, the Court notes that this version is supported only by the explanations of the applicant’s inmates who gave them within the pre‑investigation inquiry and were not warned against false testimony.

109.  Given that the Government’s explanations were provided as a result of the superficial domestic inquiries falling short of the requirements of Article 3, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ account of events, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 83-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others, cited above, §§ 102‑04).

4.    Legal classification of the treatment

110.  The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to torture.

111.  Having regard to the applicants’ injuries confirmed by the medical evidence, the Court finds that the police subjected Mr Ishevskiy, Mr Meshkov and Mr Prudnikov to inhuman and degrading treatment.

112.  The Court notes Mr Prytkov’s and Mr Vasilyev’s injuries, in particular, the broken jaw (see paragraph 50 above) and the two-sided pneumothorax (see paragraph 58 above), respectively. It considers that the ill-treatment was inflicted on the applicants with the view of extracting confession statements causing severe physical and mental suffering. The Court concludes that the ill-treatment at issue amounted to torture (see Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, §§ 13 and 77, 16 September 2010, and Chenchevik v. Ukraine, no. 56920/10, § 79, 18 July 2019).

113.  The Court further observes that Mr Sultanov, Mr Mikheyev, Mr Kvasov, Mr Sitdikov and Mr Akayev alleged that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by electric shocks. They had, among other injuries, small abrasions on the shin and back (Mr Sultanov and Mr Mikheyev), the left hip and wrists and numerous punctual skin injuries (Mr Kvasov), skin pigmentation areas on the arms and hands (Mr Sitdikov), abrasions on the fingers of both hands (Mr Akayev).

114.  The Court observes that the procedural defects (see paragraphs 99, 101 and 107 above) during the investigation of the applicants’ ill-treatment made it hard to prove their ill-treatment by electric shock. However, the Court finds that the existence of the applicants’ physical pain and suffering is attested by the medical reports and the applicants’ statements regarding their ill-treatment in the police stations, in particular, with electric shocks, which were not refuted by the Government. The sequence of events also demonstrates that the pain and suffering was inflicted on them intentionally, namely with the view of extracting confessions to having committed crimes (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 53, 2 October 2008, and Lolayev v. Russia, no. 58040/08, § 79, 15 January 2015).

115.  In such circumstances, the Court concludes that, taken as whole and having regard to its purpose and severity, the ill-treatment of Mr Sultanov, Mr Mikheyev, Mr Kvasov, Mr Sitdikov and Mr Akayev amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

5.    Conclusion

116.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all applicants. In the light of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Sultanov, Mr Meshkov, Mr Prytkov and Mr Akayev.

IV. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

117.  Mr Mikheyev, Mr Ishevskiy, Mr Prudnikov and Mr Meshkov submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention. These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

A.    Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 47771/12

118.  The applicant complained about inadequate conditions of his detention in Police Department no. 14 between 3 July 2011 and 6 July 2011. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

119.  In the leading case of Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

120.  Having examined all the material submitted to it (see paragraph 32 above), the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate. This complaint, therefore, discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

B.     Ishevskiy v. Russia, no. 39619/09 and Prudnikov v. Russia, no. 70526/13

121.  The applicants complained about their unrecorded detention on 3 June 2008 and 12 May 2012, respectively. They relied on Article 5 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law...”

122.  The Government did not comment.

123.  The Court observes that Mr Ishevskiy was apprehended by the police on 3 June 2008 at 7.55 a.m. and his arrest was recorded on the same day at 8 p.m., that is twelve hours later. Mr Prudnikov was apprehended by the police on 12 May 2012 at 8.20 a.m. His arrest was recorded more than twelve hours later, at 11.30 p.m. These facts are confirmed by the case materials and are not disputed by the Government.

124.  The Court finds that the applicants’ unrecorded detention was a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and was incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 (see Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 54, 8 October 2015).

125.  The Court concludes that there has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ unrecorded detention.

C.    Meshkov v. Russia, no. 1194/12 and Prudnikov v. Russia, no. 70526/13

126.  The applicants complained that their detention on remand had been excessively long and had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

127.  The Government did not comment.

128.  The Court notes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted, in so far as Mr Meshkov is concerned, from the date of his arrest on 20 September 2010 and until the date of his conviction on 20 June 2011. As to Mr Prudnikov, the period to be taken into consideration lasted from the date of his arrest on 12 May 2012 until the date of his conviction on 27 March 2014. It, therefore, lasted for about nine months in respect of Mr Meshkov, and about one year and ten months in respect of Mr Prudnikov.

129.  In the leading case of Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.

130.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the length of the applicants’ detention on remand was excessive.

131.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of both applicants.

V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

132.  Mr Prudnikov complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court had relied on his confession statement obtained under duress in his conviction. In the light of the material in its possession, the Court observes that his confession statement given on 12 May 2012 was not used as evidence against the applicant. The Court, therefore, finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention.

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

133.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A.    Damage, costs and expenses

134.  The amounts claimed by the applicants under the head of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses are indicated in the appended table.

135.  The Court granted legal aid to Mr Meshkov and Mr Vasilyev amounting to 850 euros (EUR) each in compensation for the costs and expenses. Mr Meshkov did not provide any receipts or contracts in support of the remaining part of his claims for costs and expenses.

136.  Mr Kvasov, Mr Prudnikov, Mr Prytkov, Mr Vasilyev submitted receipts and contracts with their representatives in support of their claims for costs and expenses.

137.  Mr Ishevskiy submitted receipts amounting to 2,536 Russian roubles (about EUR 35) in support of his claim.

138.   Mr Akayev did not submit any receipts or documents in support of his claims.

139.  Mr Sultanov, Mr Mikheyev and Mr Sitdikov did not claim compensation under the head of costs and expenses.

140.  The Government submitted that Article 41 should be applied in accordance with the established case-law.

B.     The Court’s assessment

141.  Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations, and make a financial award.

142.  As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

143.  Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts.

C.    Default interest

144.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Decides to join the applications;

2.      Declares the applications admissible and the complaint of Mr Prudnikov under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible as manifestly ill‑founded;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb in that Mr Sultanov, Mr Mikheyev, Mr Kvasov, Mr Prytkov, Mr Vasilyev, Mr Sitdikov and Mr Akayev were subjected to torture in police custody, that Mr Ishevskiy, Mr Meshkov and Mr Prudnikov were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb in respect of all applicants in that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities;

4.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention in respect of Mr Mikheyev;

5.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of unrecorded detention in respect of Mr Ishevskiy and Mr Prudnikov, and on account of excessive length of detention on remand in respect of Mr Meshkov and Mr Prudnikov;

6.      Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Sultanov, Mr Meshkov, Mr Prytkov and Mr Akayev;

7.      Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the amounts indicated in the appended table at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

8.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 February 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

  Stephen Phillips                                                                  Alena Poláčková
       Registrar                                                                              President

APPENDIX