Communicated on 27 June 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no 79947/12 Madina Gadzhimuratovna SATYBALOVA and Others against Russia lodged on 10 December 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are:

(1) Ms Madina Satybalova , who was born in 1961;

(2) Ms Luiza Satybalova , who was born in 1968; and

(3) Ms Taisa Nartayeva , who was born in 1940.

The applicants are Russian nationals. The first applicant lives in Khasavyurt and the other applicants in Aksay , the Khasavyurt district, Dagestan. They are the sister, wife and mother of Mr Marat Satybalov , who was born in 1974 and died in 2010.

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

A. Mr Satybalov ’ s ill-treatment by the police and death

1. Detention

On 2 May 2010 Marat Satybalov and his six friends were driving to the countryside for a picnic in two cars. On the way there, Mr Satybalov and his friends Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. stopped at a pharmacy in Dylym to get painkillers for Mr M. Ch . ’ s toothache.

Mr M.Ch. went inside the pharmacy while the two other men waited in the car. The salesperson thought that he looked suspicious with his long beard and called the police.

After Mr M.Ch. left the pharmacy, a UAZ-type vehicle with police officers was already waiting on the street. The policemen, who were from the investigative-operational group ( СОГ ) of the Kazbekovskiy district police station (“the ROVD”), got out and searched him at gunpoint. They then approached the passengers in the car, grabbed Mr M.G. and forced him out.

The commander of the officers, officer A.S., then dragged Mr Satybalov out of the car by the beard and hit him on the head with the butt of his machine gun.

The police officers then subjected Mr Satybalov , Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. to beatings, hitting them with the butts of their machine guns and kicking them. They took them to the ROVD but did not tell them the reasons for their detention.

2. Ill-treatment

At the ROVD the three men were taken to the station courtyard and subjected to severe beatings. They were punched, kicked and hit with the butts of machine guns. They were then taken inside and asked why they had beards.

Officer A.S. continuously pulled Mr Satybalov by the beard, beat him and asked him why he had a beard. He videoed the three men on his mobile telephone whilst making disparaging comments about them. Mr Satybalov , Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. were then asked where they had been heading and the reasons for their trip, and were subjected to further beatings in the courtyard.

Meanwhile, the second car with the other four men had arrived at the police station to look for their friends. They were also taken into the courtyard and subjected to beatings. A relative of one of the four men, a law-enforcement officer, then arrived at the police station. He spoke with the police officers and the four men from the second car were released. Mr Satybalov , Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. were taken to a cell on the premises.

The cell where the three men were held overnight was cold. They were not provided with any medical assistance, food or drink.

At about 10 a.m. on 3 May 2010 Mr Satybalov , Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. were taken to the Kazbekovskiy District Court and ordered to pay administrative fines of 500 roubles (about 12 euros) for failing to comply with police orders. They were not provided with any documents concerning their detention at the police station or the court proceedings.

Mr Satybalov , Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. were then released.

3. Subsequent events

At about 3 p.m. on 3 May 2010 Mr M.Ch. and Mr M.G. took Mr Satybalov , who was unable to walk, to Khasavyurt Hospital where he underwent an X-ray. The doctor said that there were no fractures, gave him a painkiller and sent him home.

The three men then carried Mr Satybalov home. The applicants noticed that all of them had been injured and Mr Satybalov had been injured particularly badly: he could not stand up, his entire body and head were covered in hematomas, abrasions and bruises and part of his beard had been pulled out. He could not breathe normally.

Mr Satybalov remained at home and on 4 and 5 May 2010 his health worsened.

In the early morning of 6 May 2010 the applicants and their relatives took Mr Satybalov to Khasavyurt Hospital where he immediately underwent emergency surgery. According to the doctors, he had lost a lot of blood owing to haemorrhages following the beatings.

At about 5 p.m. on 6 May 2010 the doctors performed further emergency surgery and informed the applicants that Mr Satybalov was in a critical condition owing to punctured lungs, broken ribs and damage to his heart and arteries. They said that his kidneys had been severely damaged by physical injury and had stopped functioning. On 7 May 2010 Mr Satybalov died in hospital.

On 7 May 2010 about 600 residents of the Kazbekovskiy district blocked the “Rostov-Baku” motorway in the vicinity of Uzun-Otar settlement to demand the prosecution of the policemen responsible for Mr Satybalov ’ s death. The Dagestan Minister of the Interior, Mr A. Magomedov , arrived at the scene and promised that all the police officers involved, including A.S., would be prosecuted.

The incident received wide coverage in the local press and on online media.

In support of their submissions before the Court the applicants furnished their statements, a copy of Mr Satybalov ’ s medical records and copies of several articles written in connection with the incident.

B. Official investigation into the incident

On 8 May 2010 the third applicant complained to the Dagestan prosecutor ’ s office that her son had been ill-treated by the police and had died as a result. She pointed out that she had been told about the circumstances of the incident by her son while he had still been alive. According to him, the commander of the investigative-operational group of the ROVD, officer A.S., had dragged him out of the car by his beard and had hit him on the head with the butt of a machine gun. He and his two friends had then been subjected to beatings before being taken to the police station and then to the station courtyard. Her son had then been questioned about his religious beliefs and his beard, which A.S. had filmed on a telephone. After spending a night in the cell without food, drink or medical assistance, her son had been taken to court and fined for an administrative violation. No paperwork concerning either his detention or the court proceedings had been given to him. He had then been taken home. On 4 and 5 May 2010 his health had deteriorated as he could not walk or speak. His state had worsened because of two ribs which had been broken by officer A.S.; they had damaged an artery which in turn had caused extensive internal bleeding. On 6 May 2010 he had died in the hospital as a result of the beatings carried out by A.S. and his subordinates from the ROVD. The applicant requested that the perpetrators of her son ’ s ill-treatment be prosecuted and she be informed of the steps taken.

On 18 May 2010 the Khasavyurt investigations department of the Dagestan prosecutors ’ office (“the investiga tors”) opened criminal case no. 02222 under Article 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of authority). The applicants were informed on 18 June 2010.

On 4 June 2010 the Dagestan Prosecutor issued orders to the investigators and requested that they take steps to “eliminate the violations of the law that occurred during the investigation”. The nature of the impugned violations was not described in the letter sent to the applicants on 28 June 2010 to inform them of that decision.

On 12 July 2010 the applicants ’ lawyer asked Khasavyurt Hospital to provide a copy of Mr Satybalov ’ s medical records. On 13 July 2010 his request was granted.

On 24 January 2011 the first and second applicants requested that the investigators grant them and the third applicant victim status in the criminal case and inform them of the steps taken to prosecute the ROVD officers. In particular, they asked whether all of the witnesses and victims had been questioned, whether a post mortem of Mr Satybalov ’ s body had been carried out and whether his medical records had been examined. The applicants also requested copies of documents showing the main steps taken by the investigators.

On 13 February 2011 the investigators granted the applicants victim status in the criminal case as requested, but refused the rest of their request. In particular, they stated that access to the contents of the investigation file could only be granted upon completion of the criminal proceedings.

On 5 September 2012 the first applicant again requested that the investigators allow her access to the investigation file and inform her of the steps taken to have the perpetrators prosecuted. In particular, she asked to be informed whether all of the witnesses and victims had been questioned, whether a post mortem of her brother ’ s body had been carried out and whether his medical records had been examined.

On 24 September 2012 the first applicant was informed that she had already been granted victim status in the criminal case. No other information was given.

From the documents submitted it appears that the proceedings are still pending.

C. Relevant domestic law

For a summary of relevant domestic law see Khambulatova v. Russia (no. 33488/04 , §§ 71-74, 3 March 2011).

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of the Convention that their relative Marat Satybalov was subjected to severe beatings by the police officers and died as a result. They further allege that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.

Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the police officers subjected Mr Satybalov to severe ill-treatment and that the authorities failed to investigate the matter.

Under Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants complain that Mr Satybalov ’ s overnight detention at the police station between 2 and 3 May 2010 was unlawful.

Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants allege that they had no effective domestic remedies against the above-mentioned violations.

QUESTIONS

1. Has the right to life, as guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in respect of Marat Satybalov ? Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into his death sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

2. Was Mr Satybalov subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by police officers on 2 and 3 May 2010, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV), have the domestic authorities conducted an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment?

3. Was Mr Satybalov deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention between 2 and 3 May 2010? If so, was that deprivation compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 §§ 1 to 5 of the Convention?

4. T he Government are requested to provide:

(a) a copy of the administrative detention record of 2 or 3 May 2010 issued by the Kazbekovskiy district police station (“the ROVD”);

(b) the relevant detention record from the temporary detention facility ( ИВС ) of 2 and 3 May 2010;

(c) the transcript of the court hearing and the decision of the Kazbekovskiy District Court of 3 May 2010 ordering Mr Satybalov to pay the administrative fine.

5. Have the applicants had at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

6. The parties are required to provide information on the progress of the investigation in case no. 02222 or any other criminal case opened in connection with Mr Satybalov ’ s death.

7. The Government are requested to provide a copy of the entire investigation file in criminal case no. 02222, or any other criminal case opened in connection with Mr Satybalov ’ s death, including the following documents:

(a) the results of the post mortem examination of Mr Satybalov ’ s body;

(b) witness statements given by the eyewitnesses to the incident, including Mr Satybalov ’ s friends with whom he was taken to the ROVD on 2 May 2010 and the police officers who were at the police station on 2 and 3 May 2010;

(c) the Dagestan Prosecutor ’ s orders to the investigators of criminal case no. 02222 issued on 4 June 2010.