TOPAL v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
Doc ref: 61504/10 • ECHR ID: 001-205613
Document date: September 28, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 6
Communicated on 28 September 2020 Published on 19 October 2020
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 61504/10 Olga Zakharovna TOPAL and Natalya Savelyevna TOPAL against Russia and 4 others – see appended list
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Applicants Ms Olga and Natalya Topal (no. 61504/10), Ms Radchenko (no. 60246/11) and Ms Shaposhnikova (no. 9247/15) complain under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that their relatives were ill-treated and killed by State officials while in custody and that there was no effective investigation in that regard.
Mr I.Z. and Mr Krysyuk complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents.
The relevant details regarding the applicants’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices. The information regarding the alleged breach of the substantive aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention is contained in Appendix No. 1. The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants’ complaints is reflected in Appendix No. 2.
Mr Krysyuk also complains under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention that his correspondence with the Court was inspected by the staff of the temporary detention facility, in particular, that the Registry’s letter of 5 September 2012 addressed to the applicant had been opened and stamped. His complaints to the courts were dismissed as unfounded.
Table of cases:
No.
Case name
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Diseased person in respect of whom the applicant complains
Affiliation with the applicant
Represented by
1.Topal v. Russia 61504/10
19/10/2010
Olga Zakharovna TOPAL
1956Chishinau
Moldovan
Natalya Savelyevna TOPAL
1984Kazakliya
Moldovan
Mr Sergey TOPAL
The applicants’ son and brother
Grigor AVETISYAN
2.Radchenko v. Russia
60246/11
21/09/2011
Marina Rudolfovna RADCHENKO
Chelyabinsk
Russian
Mr Andrey RADCHENKO
The applicant’s husband
Nadezhda Viktorovna YERMOLAYEVA
3.I.Z. v. Russia
62510/12
20/09/2012
I.Z.
Moscow
Russian
-
Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO
4.Krysyuk v. Russia 75186/11
04/03/2013
Aleksandr Viktorovich KRYSYUK
1971Sharypovo
Russian
-
-
5.Shaposhnikova v. Russia 9247/15
12/02/2015
Yelena Sergeyevna SHAPOSHNIKOVA
1976Kovernino
Russian
Mr Evgeniy SHAPOSHNIKOV
The applicant’s husband
Yekaterina VANSLOVA
QUESTIONS
Applications :
Topal v. Russia (no. 61504/10)
Radchenko v. Russia (no. 60246/11)
Shaposhnikova v. Russia (no. 9247/15)
1. Have the applicants’ relatives’ (Mr Topal, Mr Radchenko and Mr Shaposhnikov) rights, guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, been violated? In particular, did their deaths result from ill-treatment by State officials?
2. Was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the alleged ill ‑ treatment and death of the applicants’ relatives in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV)?
Applications :
I.Z. v. Russia (no. 62510/12)
Krysyuk v. Russia (no. 75186/11)
1. a) Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody, have the applicants 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 applicants’ injuries were caused (see Salman , cited above, § 100, 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 applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
I.Z. v. Russia (no. 62510/12)
Did the applicant lose his victim status of a violation of Article 3, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint about his ill-treatment on 1 September 2009 by officer K., having regard to the conviction and sentencing of the officer?
Krysyuk v. Russia (no. 75186/11)
Regarding the alleged opening and reading of the applicant’s correspondence with the Court by the authorities of the temporary detention facility “Sharypovo”, was there a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention (see Yefimenko v. Russia , no. 152/04, §§ 161-165, 12 February 2013)?
No
Application No. and Title
APPENDIX No. 1
Articles 2 or 3 - Substantive aspect
ARREST
ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT
EVIDENCE
Date
Time
Facts
Region
Town Location
Entity
Date
Time
Location
Alleged Facts
Alleged perpetrator(s)
Date
Doc Type
Authority
Description of Injuries
1.
61504/10
Topal v. Russia
09/10/2008
Moscow
Police officers of the Department of the Interior of the Taganskiy District in Moscow
Found dead on 09/11/2008
IZ-77/2,
Moscow
Mr Topal was found dead in lavatory. He had multiple cut wounds on his neck and elbow-joints
Unclear
17/12/2008
Forensic medical examination act
Bureau of Forensic Examinations in Moscow
Mr Topal had a cut wound on the left side of his neck measuring 4,8 cm and 0,7 cm in depth; on his left elbow-joint a wound measuring 7 cm and 0,8 cm in depth and a wound measuring 7,3 cm and 0,7 cm in depth on his right elbow-joint. The cut wounds resulted in acute bleeding which caused his death. He also had several cut wounds measuring between 2,5 cm and 7,2 cm on his neck not linked to his death. Mr Topal had a closed blunt injury of his neck caused by a hard blunt object. According to the expert, the neck injury was caused before the cut injuries to his neck and elbows
2.
60246/11
Radchenko v. Russia
03/12/2008
Chelyabinsk Region
Irrelevant
Found dead on 22/12/2009
IK-9,
Chelyabinsk Region
Mr Radchenko’s death was recorded on 22/12/2009 at 2 p.m. due to liver cirrhosis. There were visible injuries on his body
Prison guards
03/02/2011
Court decision
Metallurgi-cheskiy District Court, Chelyabinsk
On the basis of video and photo evidence the court established that there had been “numerous traces of various injuries, and following the autopsy there had been further injuries such as skin slice cuts on a bend of [his left] elbow and under both knee-caps” on Mr Radchenko’s body
3.
62510/12
I.Z. v. Russia
01/09/2009
Moscow
Officers of the Federal Drug Control Service in Moscow
01/09/2009
During the arrest
Beaten and threatened with a gun, kicked in groin
Officer K.
09/09/2009
Medical record
City hospital no. 31 in Moscow
He had blunt injury of his scrotum and a crush of his right testicle
I.Z. stayed at the hospital between 01/09/2009 and 30/10/2009
Between 01/11/2009 and 19/11/2009
IZ-77/2,
Moscow
Beaten on his head and body
Inmate S. allegedly on the instruction of prison guards
26/11/2009
Medical record
City hospital no. 79 in Moscow
Closed craniocerebral injury, abrasions on his face, hematoma on his chest.
I.Z. stayed at the hospital between 26/11/2009 and 09/12/2009
4.
75186/11
Krysyuk v. Russia
01/07/2010
Krasnoyarsk Region
Officers of the Federal Drug Control Service in the Krasnoyarsk Region
01/07/2010
Premises of the Federal Drug Control Service
Beaten, subjected to electric shocks, threatened with further violence in order to extract confession statements
Officers I. and R.
02/07/2010
Forensic medical examination act no. 356
Bureau of Forensic Examinations in the Krasnoyarsk Region
Thermal burn on his left cheekbone caused by an impact of high temperature, including by electric shocks voltage. Abrasions on his chest were caused by a hard blunt object. The injuries were inflicted within 1-3 days before the examination
5.
9247/15
Shaposhnikova v. Russia
05/10/2011
Nizhegorod-skiy Region
Police officers of the Inter-municipal Department of the Interior ( МО МВД «Кавернин-ский» )
Found dead on 6 October 2011
Police station of the Inter-municipal Department of the Interior
Mr Shaposhnikov’s death was recorded at 11 a.m. at the police station. He had hematomas on his eyes and lips.
Police officers
07/10/2011
Forensic medical examination act no. 276
Bureau of Forensic Examinations in the Nizhegorod-skiy Region
Mr Shaposhnikov’s death resulted from a closed craniocerebral injury which caused acute haemorrhage in the frontal lobe of his head. He also had bruises on his right forearm and write wrist. The injuries had been caused within 1-3 days before the death
07/06/2012
Complex forensic medical examination act no. 62- СЛ(доп)
Bureau of Forensic Examinations in the Nizhegorod-skiy Region
The experts noted the same injuries. They also found that the head injury had been caused by at least 6 blows by a hard blunt object and the injuries on his body had been caused by at least 8 blows
No
Application no.
Title
APPENDIX No. 2
Articles 2 and 3 - Procedural aspect
DOMESTIC COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT REACTION
Date of Complaint
Authority
Type of Reaction
Date(s)
Procedural Outcome
1.
61504/10
Topal v. Russia
01/11/2008
06/11/2008
Federal Security Service,
Investigation Committee
Refusals
19/11/2008
26/12/2008
19/01/2009
According to the investigative authorities, Mr Topal committed suicide. Refusal of 19/11/2008 was quashed as incomplete.
On 11/12/2009 the Tverskoy District Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal against the refusal of 26/12/2008 as unfounded.
On 29/03/2010 the Moscow City Court quashed the court decision of 11/12/2009. It noted, among other things, that the authorities had failed to assess the fact that Mr Topal had had a neck injury.
Further outcome is unclear.
2.
60246/11
Radchenko v. Russia
26/12/2009
Investigation Committee
Refusals
28/12/2009
02/09/2010
21/04/2011
On 03/02/2011 the Metallurgicheskiy District Court in Chelyabinsk found the refusal of 02/09/2010 incomplete, noting that the investigators had failed to explain the injuries found on Mr Radchenko’s body.
On 21/04/2011 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, finding that the injuries were of a non-violent nature
3.
62510/12
I.Z. v. Russia
02/09/2009
Investigation Committee
Criminal case opened
06/11/2009
In respect of the applicant’s ill-treatment on 01/09/2009, the Cheremushkinskiy District Court convicted officer K. for the infliction of injuries to the applicant on 30/11/2011. It sentenced K. to one year imprisonment in that regard. On 21/03/2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.
12/02/2010
Investigation Committee
Refusals
At least 17 refusals issued between 15/02/2010 and 01/06/2011
In respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment at IZ-77/2, the investigators found that the injuries had been inflicted by an unidentified person.
On 30/04/2013 the Tverskoy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints against the investigators’ inactions. It follows from the case-file that the applicant learned about the refusals only at the hearing.
On 24/07/2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the court decision.
4.
75186/11
Krysyuk v. Russia
01/07/2010
Investigation Committee
Refusals
At least 18 refusals issued between 26/07/2010
and
01/11/2012
The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during and after the arrest were declared unfounded. All refusals were quashed.
On 14/03/2013 the Sharypovskiy Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the investigator’s inactivity. The applicant did not participate in the hearing. On 29/05/2013 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the decision.
5.
9247/15
Shaposhnikova v. Russia
19/10/2011
Investigation Committee
Refusals
05/11/2011
16/01/2012
26/05/2013
12/12/2013
The investigators found that Mr Shaposhnikov’s injuries had been inflicted by Mr L., his brother-in-law.
On 02/11/2012 the Koverninskiy Disrtict Court discontinued criminal proceedings against Mr L., finding that Mr L. had hit twice Mr Shaposhnikov the day before his death. The court found that Mr L.’s two blows could not have led to Mr Shaposhnikov’s death.
In subsequent refusals the investigators found that Mr Shaposhnikov had been beaten by unidentified persons before he had been taken to the police station.
All refusals were quashed as incomplete.
In the court hearing of 15/09/2014 the applicant learned that the latest refusal had been quashed.