Communicated on 3 June 2019

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 8187/08 and 8600/09 Murat Ismailovich SHAVAYEV against Russia and Safar Dayfurovich LAYPANOV against Russia lodged on 24 December 2007 and 6 February 2009 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant in the first case, Mr Murat Ismailovich Shavayev , is a Russian national, who was born in 1975 and is detained in Kharp . He is represented before the Court by the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative, an NGO, based in the Netherlands.

The applicant in the second case, Mr Safar Dayfurovich Laypanov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Karachayevsk . He is not legally represented before the Court.

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

A. The circumstances of the case

The circumstances of the applicants ’ respective arrests by different law ‑ enforcement agencies, their allegations of the ill-treatment as well as other developments in their cases are summarised in the Appendix.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For the relevant provisions of domestic law, see Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014), and Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48-52, 14 November 2013).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated by the law-enforcement officers and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect .

Referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the criminal proceedings against them were unfair as the conviction was based on their confession statements obtained under duress .

Mr Lyapanov complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention between 17 and 18 March 2005.

Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complain that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention .

COmmon QUESTIONS

1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants in police custody, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Articles 3 and 13 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)?

2. 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 v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII , and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 et seq. , ECHR 2015)?

3. Was the recourse to physical force made strictly necessary by the applicants ’ own conduct (see Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06 , § 49, 17 April 2012)? In particular,

- did the State agents plan the arrest operations in advance?

- did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia , no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII; Grigoryev v. Russia , no. 22663/06, § 83, 23 October 2012 ; Davitidze v. Russia , no. 8810/05 , § 90, 30 May 2013 ; and Minikayev v. Russia , no. 630/08 , §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?

4. 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)?

5. Have the applicants had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

6. In the determination of criminal charges against the applicants, did they have a fair trial as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that the applicants ’ confession statements allegedly obtained under duress served as the ground for their conviction?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION

Application no. 8600/09

Was the applicant deprived of his liberty, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If such detention took place, was it compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1 – 5 of the Convention?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Place of residence

Application no.

Date of introduction Represented by

Details about arrest, location of the police station,

arrest record

(if available)

Medical evidence:

date of examination,

document type

(date of the document)

Applicants ’ complaints about ill treatment to the domestic authorities (first complaint, latest refusal to open a criminal case and reasons for refusal,

the latest domestic courts ’ decision under Art. 125 CCP and reasoning)

Applicants ’ trial and appeal courts ’ judgments and the results of the examination of their allegations of ill ‑ treatment, if any

Other complaints

Murat Ismailovich SHAVAYEV

17/02/1975

Kharp

8187/08

24/12/2007

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE

Arrested on 07/05/2005 at 10 a.m. in Nalchik, Kabardino -Balkar Republic, by the Anti-Organised Crime Regional Department (“ РУБОП ” ) officers, taken to FSB in Cherkessk, Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic

Arrest record drawn up on 08/05/2005 at 5. 10 p.m.

Signed statement of surrender on 08/05/2005 at 14.12 p.m.

Forensic medical examination act no. 431 of 17/05/2005

(convoy officers were present)

(abrasions on his wrist joints, in the neck area, upper left shoulder inflicted by hard blunt objects within 1-2 and 4-5 days of examination)

First complaint of 26/07/2005

First refusal of 27/10/2005

(the applicant ’ s allegations were unsubstantiated)

07/11/2005

Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed complaint

(the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment were examined during his trial)

12/03/2005

Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal

Moscow City Court convicted on 02/02/2007

Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on 30/08/2007

Article 6 § 1

Use of confession obtained under duress

Article 13

No effective remedy in respect of the complaint under Article 3

Safar Dayfurovich LAYPANOV

29/10/1968

Karachayevsk

8600/09

06/02/2009

Arrested on 17/03/2006 at 10 p.m. by UBOP officers in Karachayevsk

Arrest record drawn up on 18/03/2006 at 1.30 p.m.

On 17-18/03/2006 and 02/05/2006 confessed during the interview as a suspect and accused

Forensic medical examination act no. 179 of 19/03/2006

(abrasions on the head, bruises on the face inflicted by hard blunt objects within 1-2 days before the examination)

IVS medical note of 31/03/2006

(hematomas on the left shoulder, on his face and head, a recent scar)

Extract from IZ medical card of 02/05/2006

(contusion of the chest, contused wound on his forehead, bruises on his upper limbs)

First complaint of 23/03/2006

First refusal of 06/04/2006

(the applicant tried to abscond)

Latest (2 nd ) refusal of 25/11/2006

22/04/2009

Cherkesskiy City Court declared the latest refusal unlawful and unfounded

Supreme Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic convicted on 18/07/2008

Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on 23/10/2008

Article 5

Unrecorded detention

Article 6 § 1

Use of confession obtained under duress

Article 13

No effective remedy in respect of the complaint under Article 3