Communicated on 11 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50942/08 Aleksey Aleksandrovich IVANOV against Russia lodged on 14 August 2008

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1 . On 14 October 2007 police officers of the Department of the Interior in Krasnoyarsk arrested the applicant on suspicion of murder. He was taken to the police station where, according to the applicant, officers kicked and punched him, forcing him to confess to murder.

2 . On 15 October 2007 the applicant signed a confession statement.

3 . On 16 October 2007 the applicant underwent a forensic examination. According to medical report no. 9101, the applicant had chest contusion, numerous bruises and abrasions on his hands, chest and left cheek, inflicted between one and four days before the examination.

4 . Between 1 November 2007 and 1 September 2008 the investigation authorities issued five refusals to open a criminal case into the alleged police ill-treatment for lack of evidence of crime. Four decisions were quashed.

5 . The applicant challenged the latest decision of 1 September 2008 before the Tsentralnyy District Court. On 3 December 2008 the District Court dismissed his complaint as unfounded. On 3 February 2009 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the District Court decision on appeal.

6 . Meanwhile, on 1 September 2008 the Tsentralnyy District Court convicted the applicant of having committed murder. It relied on his confession statement of 15 October 2007 and dismissed his complaint that he had signed the confession as a result of his beatings by police officers.

7 . On 23 October 2008 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. ( a) Having regard to the injuries found on the applicant after the time spent by him in State custody, has the applicant been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Razzakov v. Russia , no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015, and Leonid Petrov v. Russia , no. 52783/08, 11 October 2016 )?

( b) Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant ’ s injuries were caused (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015 )?

( c) Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the confession statement of 15 October 2007 made by the applicant during the investigation served as the ground for his conviction (see Turbylev v. Russia , no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015) ?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?