Communicated on 14 January 2020

Published on 3 February 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 1223/12 Yuliya Ivanovna DOKUKINA and Alina Aleksandrovna DOKUKINA against Russia lodged on 19 December 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the arrest of Mr D. by the police on 9 May 2010 in Lipetsk, in the course of which both applicants – D. ’ s wife and D. ’ s daughter, who was four years old at the time – sustained injuries (medically certified bruises to both legs, and bruises to the face and right leg, respectively). Police officers tried to take D. ’ s wife to a police station as well. She was then requested to kneel before the police officers in exchange of them “allowing” her to stay with her daughter. No criminal proceedings were instituted against the police officers (the investigating authority ’ s most recent decision was upheld by the Lipetsk Regional Court on 21 June 2011).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did Ms A.A. Dokukina ’ s exposure to the arrest operation against her parents and the manner in which she was treated by the officers who carried out the arrest operation which allegedly resulted in her sustaining injuries, amount to inhuman and/or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria , no. 34529/10, §§ 131-34 and 137, ECHR 2013 ( extracts ) )?

2. In particular, did the police, in deciding on and carrying out the arrest operation, take her presence at the scene of the arrest into consideration – and, if not, should they have done so – in order to exclude or minimise any harm to her health and well-being?

3. Did the respondent State have in place legal and administrative framework, in particular any instructions or guidelines for police officers, aimed at ensuring the protection of children from physical violence and psychological traumatism during police operations?

4. Did the domestic law provide for the possibility to draw up a record of an administrative offence allegedly committed by her father on the spot instead of taking him to the police station?

5. Was the use of force against her father, who allegedly did not resist his arrest, justified?

6. Has Ms Yu.I . Dokukina been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Was the use of force against her, which allegedly resulted in her sustaining injuries, justified? Were the police officers ’ alleged attempts to arrest her and take her to the police station lawful and justified? Was it possible to draw up a record of an administrative offence allegedly committed by her on the spot?

7. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and/or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities, which decided not to institute criminal proceedings, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, § 136, 24 July 2014, and, more recently, Samesov v. Russia , no. 57269/14, § 51, 20 November 2018 )?

8. The Government are invited to submit the materials of the inquiries into the applicants ’ complaints and the administrative proceedings .