Lexploria

Communicated on 24 September 2020 Published on 12 October 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 55708/10 Vadim Gennadyevich DAVYDOV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. All of the applicants submitted that their attempts to initiate criminal investigation in connection with the incidents or otherwise bring the events to the attention of the authorities proved futile.

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 aspect of Article 3 is contained in Appendix no. 1. The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants ’ complaints is reflected in Appendix no. 2.

The table of cases:

No.

Application number

Introduction date

Name of the applicants / date of birth

/ place of residence

1.

55708/10

31/08/2010

Vadim Gennadyevich DAVYDOV

8/08/1970

Chelyabinsk, the Chelyabinsk Region

2.

13448/11

12/01/2011

Andrey Vladimirovich CHUMACHENKO

30/10/1964

Grozny, the Chechen Republic

3.

16254/11

17/02/2011

Sergey Anatolyevich KUZNETSOV

4/12/1977

Astrakhan, the Astrakhan Region

4.

23435/12

11/04/2012

Stanislav Yevgenyevich DERKACHEV

10/01/1970

Moscow

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody or being in contact with State officials, have the applicants been subjected to 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; Gorshchuk v. Russia , no. 31316/09, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia , no. 4722/09, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia , no. 38887/09, 8 October 2015; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia , no. 2281/06, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia , no. 52783/08, 11 October 2016 )?

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 Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V ; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015 )?

2. Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under A rticle 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014), having regard to:

(a) the investigating authorities ’ refusals to open criminal cases and investigate the applicants ’ allegations of ill-treatment by the State officials, and the overruling of those refusals as unlawful and unsubstantiated by higher investigative authorities or courts, and

(b) the investigating authorities ’ inability to implement full investigative measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, before and/or after amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by Federal Law no. 23-FZ of 4 March 2013 , for example, confrontations, identification parades, searches, and so forth?

3. As regards case no. 23435/12, ha ving regard to the findings of the domestic courts, can it be said that the authorities have discharged their procedural obligation to assess the need and proportionality of the use of force by the bailiffs in respect of the applicant?

No

Application No. and Title

APPENDIX No. 1

Article 3 - Substantive aspect

ARREST

ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT

EVIDENCE

Date

Time

Facts

Region Town Street

Entity

Date

Time

Location

Alleged Facts

Perpetrator(s)

Date

Doc Type

Authority

Description of Injuries

1.

55708/10

Davydov v. Russia

24/11/2009

Chelyabinsk Region

n/a

27/08/2010

At 9.20 a.m.

IZ-74/1,

Chelyabinsk

During a morning check-up in a remand prison, the applicant and the officers had a verbal fight which resulted in the officers beating the applicant on his head and right shoulder

Prison guards M. and F.

06/09/2010

Report of prison paramedic

IZ-74/1,

Chelyabinsk

A hematoma on the applicant ’ s right shoulder

2.

13448/11

Chumachenko v. Russia

4/6/2009

Noginsk , Moscow Region

Department o f the Interior of Noginsk

4/06/2009, around 19.00

Department o f the Interior of Noginsk

Heavy beatings

Police officers

4/06/2009

11/06/2009

16/06/2009

Medical report

Report

Expert examination

Noginsk Central Hospital

Head of Emergency Department of IZ-50/1 of Noginsk

Noginsk Forensic Bureau

Multiple bruises of higher limbs and chest, lower limbs, face, neck and damage to kidneys

At a waist area on the left side a choppy bruise of indefinite shape, sized 9 to 4 cm, blue to green colour ... on the right side a bruise ... sized 4 to 10,5 cm ... a horizontal scratch sized 3 to 0,3 cm, with dark brown crust, in the area of the right forearm ... a bruise sized 3 to 2 cm, on the right shoulder a bruise sized 14 to 11 cm, a bruise 7 to 5,5 cm, on the right elbow a bruise of 12,5 to 8 cm, on the belly, a bruise sized 2 to 1,5 cm, on the left elbow a bruise sized 2 to 1,5 cm, on the knee surface a series of bruises sized 8 to 4 cm, scratches on both shins sized 3 to 1 cm and 7 to 3 cm, on the right shoulder a bruise sized 6 to 2 cm.

3.

16254/11

Kuznetsov v. Russia

14/01/2006

Astrakhan Region

Irrelevant

19/08/2008

At 11.30 a.m.

Leninskiy District Court of Astrakhan

After a hearing the applicant and a convoy officer had a verbal fight. The officer twisted the applicant ’ s arms, kicked and punched him on his body

Convoy officer A.

19/08/2008

Medical card

IZ-30/1, Astrakhan

An abrasion on the right side of the applicant ’ s body

4.

23435/12

Derkachev v. Russia

n/a

4/08/2011

A house of the applicant ’ s son BD at the town of Dmitrov , the Moscow Region

The bailiffs arrived at the house of the applicant ’ s son with a view to enforcing a court judgment. Apparently a fight broke out as a result of which the applicant sustained multiple light injuries

Bailiffs S, G and D

8/08/2011

Report of forensic examination

Dmitrov Bureau of Forensic Examination

Bruises on the back, the right forearm, scratches of the right lower third part of the right forearm and the outside surface of the left elbow

Circular scratch ... on the right forearm could be formed as a result of the use of handcuffs

No

Application No. and Title

APPENDIX No. 2

Article 3 - Procedural aspect

DOMESTIC COMPLAINT AND THE GOVERNMENT REACTION

Date of Complaint

Authority

Type of Reaction

Date(s)

Procedural Outcome

1.

55708/10

Davydov v. Russia

31/08/2010

Investigation Committee

Refusal

08/10/2010

According to the refusal, the applicant disobeyed orders of prison guards and was placed in cell for two hours. He was not beaten or ill-treated. He refused to undergo medical examination on the day of the alleged ill-treatment. A hematoma was inflicted “in circumstances not related to the incident of 27/08/2010”.

On 17/11/2010 the Kalininskiy District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the refusal. On 01/02/2011 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court endorsed the court decision.

2.

13448/11

Chumachenko v. Russia

17/06/2009

Prosecutor ’ s Office of Noginsk of the Moscow Region

Refusal

17/06/2009, 27/06/2009

The domestic courts refused the applicant ’ s complaints about ill-treatment at first instance on 13/04/2010, on appeal on 01/06/2010

3.

16254/11

Kuznetsov v. Russia

20/08/2008

Prosecution office

Refusal

26/09/2008

06/11/2008

21/05/2009

02/07/2009

On 02/07/2009 a latest refusal to open a criminal case was issued. The applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded. The applicant ’ s appeals to the domestic courts were unsuccessful. On 17/09/2010 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed his complaint. On 20/01/2011 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the decision.

4.

23435/12

Derkachev v. Russia

8/8/2011

Dmitrov Town Court

Refusal

8/09/2011 Dmitrov Town Court

10/11/2011 Moscow Regional Court

The domestic courts did not analyse the need to use physical force or whether the use of force was proportionate.

Menu

DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

LEXI