Communicated on 10 January 2020

Published on 27 January 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 21997/11 Aleksandr Anatolyevich DEGTYAREV against Russia lodged on 2 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Degtyarev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1988 and is serving a life sentence in Kharp Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous Region. He is represented before the Court by Ms I. Klimina , a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Novgorod.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 22 December 2008 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having committed a murder. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.

On 15 June 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty of multiple crimes, including several counts of murder and robbery, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 14 October 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld, in substance, the applicant ’ s conviction on appeal.

According to the applicant, following his arrest, the police officers subjected him to torture to make him confess. He was repeatedly beaten up and tortured by electrocution. As a result, he confessed to A. ’ s murder.

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the remand prison where he was repeatedly beaten up by the inmates. Acting on the orders from the police, they hit him with plastic bottles filled with water, threatened to rape him, burnt his body with cigarettes and did not let him sleep in order to make him confess.

On 8 April 2009 police officers S. and T. beat the applicant up again making him dismiss his lawyer. The applicant complied. Then police officer S. interrogated him and made him confess to several murders.

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 7 where the inmates beat him up and tortured him by electrocution to make him sign several confession statements.

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the trial court that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by police officers.

On 11 March 2010 the regional prosecutor ’ s office asked the investigative committee to conduct an inquiry into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment.

Investigator Ye. questioned the applicant who provided a detailed account of the events and police officers who had taken part in the applicant ’ s arrest and questioning. All of them denied having ill-treated the applicant and claimed that the applicant had confessed to all the crimes voluntarily.

On 19 March 2010 Ye. refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment dismissing them as unsubstantiated.

It appears that the decision of 19 March 2010 was quashed and Ye . conducted a new inquiry.

On 18 August 2010 Ye. refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment reproducing verbatim the text of the earlier decision and adding the reference to the applicant ’ s conviction.

On 10 May and 16 November 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod and the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court respectively upheld the investigator ’ s decision of 18 August 2010.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about ill-treatment in custody and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Fartushin v. Russia , no. 38887/09 , § § 36-46, 8 October 2015 )?

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see, for example, Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09 , 2 4 July 2014 ), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities, which refused to open a criminal investigation in response to the applicant ’ s complaint about ill-treatment in custody, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

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?