European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MONAKHOV AND SILVERSTOV v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 19560/16 and 33300/16)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

1 December 2022

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

In the case of Monakhov and Silverstov v. Russia,

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

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Ioannis Ktistakis,
          Andreas Zünd, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia 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 given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the inhuman or degrading treatment and the authorities’ failure to investigate the matter.

THE LAW

I.        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 of the Convention

6.  The applicants complained of ill-treatment by police officers during dispersal of public assemblies and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

7.  Despite the medical and other evidence furnished by the applicants, the authorities refused to open a criminal case into the matter relying on the statements of the implicated police officer and without either assessing the proportionality of the use of force in question or providing an alternative explanation of the injuries’ cause (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, § 69, 13 October 2020). To this end, the Court reiterates that the authorities’ refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment is indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129 and 132-36, 24 July 2014).

8.  Given that the Government’s submission before the Court stems from the results of the superficial pre-investigative inquiries, they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. Thus, the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the account of events provided by the applicants (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 83-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 102 04, 12 December 2017). Having regard to the applicants’ injuries, the Court finds that the police subjected them to inhuman and degrading treatment.

9.  The Court finds that the complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under both substantive and procedural limbs. In the light of this finding, it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

10.  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.”

11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

12.  The Court further 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 complaints under Article 3 of the Convention admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention;

3.      Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, under both substantive and procedural limbs, in relation to the applicants’ inhuman or degrading treatment;

4.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                                Darian Pavli

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

                                                                    (torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)