Communicated on 6 April 2017

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos 21840/13 and 22271/13 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich KRAMARENKO against Russia and Aleksandr Ivanovich KRAMARENKO and Others against Russia lodged on 15 March 2013 and 9 February 2013 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Voronezh. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

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

The first and the fourth applicants are brothers of K. who was sought by police as a murder suspect. The second applicant is the father of K. The third applicant is one of K. ’ s sisters, who was thirteen years old at the relevant time.

A. Events of 9 and 10 October 2011

On 9 October 2011 K. stabbed S. thirty-four times and tried to escape. When Z. wanted to stop him, K. stabbed him too and fled. Both S. and Z. died. On the same day at about 3 p.m. police looking for K. came to the house shared by his father ’ s (the second applicant) and K. ’ s families. They kept the second, third and fourth applicants at their house until evening. At about 9 p.m. police took the second and fourth applicants to police station no. 6. Police treated the two men as murder suspects while taking their fingerprints, threatened and insulted them, took away their mobile phones and refused them contacting their relatives or a lawyer. On the next day, 10 October 2011, at about 9 a.m. police transferred them to another police station where the two applicants had been handcuffed to a wall until 5 p.m. They had no food or water for about thirty hours.

On 10 October 2011 police brought the third applicant with her step-mother to police station no. 6, but questioned her alone about the address of the first applicant. One police officer threatened to take her to a forest and rape and kill there. After that the third applicant gave the address of the first applicant. Policemen took her in a car with them and brought to the first applicant ’ s house. After the girl indicated to the police officers the first applicant, they brought her back to the police station and released.

At about 11.55 a.m. three police officers arrested the first applicant who had been going to his work at a bar. They took away his mobile phone, handcuffed him and brought him to a garage located in the yard of police station no. 6. Policemen put the first applicant on the ground with his face down and asked him about the whereabouts of his brother. Someone wrapped wires around his fingers. Then a person said “Hold him”, his legs were pressed down to the floor and the first applicant felt an electric shock. A policeman again asked about his brother ’ s whereabouts and then the first applicant received a stronger electric shock. Because of the shock his muscles contracted and he urinated. The policemen started laughing as they had made bets about that. After two more electric shocks the first applicant began pleading to stop as he suffered from asthma and was afraid he would not survive more electric shocks. The policemen took the first applicant back to the bar where he worked. Using his phone they told K. to come to that bar. While waiting for K. a policeman held the first applicant at the gunpoint. When K. appeared, the policemen arrested him and released the first applicant.

B. Pre-investigation inquiries into the applicants ’ complaints

1. The second, third and fourth applicants

On 10 and 25 November 2011 the applicants were questioned as witnesses in K. ’ s criminal case. During the questioning they complained about their ill-treatment and unlawful detention on 9 and 10 October 2011. The authorities took no actions upon their complaints.

In February and March 2012 the applicants brought several complaints about their ill-treatment and unlawful detention on 9 and 10 October 2011. A pre-investigation inquiry was initiated upon their complaint.

On 7 March 2012 the investigator took explanations from two police officers who confirmed that on 9 and 10 October 2011 the first and fourth applicants had been taken to the police station, but denied any alleged ill ‑ treatment. The investigator further talked to the fourth applicant who confirmed his version of events. On the same day the investigator decided not to open a criminal case upon the applicants ’ complaints. The decision relied on the officers ’ explanations and lack of any medical documents showing injuries on the first or fourth applicant.

On 30 March 2012 the above decision not to open a criminal case was quashed. The investigator was instructed to take an explanation from the third applicant and to join certain documents to the inquiry file.

On 10 April 2012 the investigator took an explanation from the third applicant who confirmed her description of the events. The investigator also joined to the inquiry file a certificate dated 11 April 2011 showing that the first and fourth applicants had not been entered into the registry of persons brought to the police station. On 16 April 2012 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case. The decision relied on the same evidence with the addition of the third applicant ’ s account and the certificate from the police station ’ s registry.

The applicants complained about the decisions not to open a criminal case of 7 March and 16 April 2012 before a court.

On 24 May 2012 the decision of 16 April 2012 was quashed as unfounded and the investigator was instructed to question few other persons.

On 13 June 2012 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh closed the proceedings about the decisions not to open a criminal case of 7 March and 16 April 2012 on the ground that those decisions had been already quashed. On 2 August 2012 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. The applicants did not attend the appeal hearing and apparently received a copy of the appeal court decision after 28 September 2012.

On 25 June 2012 the applicants asked to study the materials of the pre-investigation inquiry upon their complaints. On 28 June 2012 police refused them access to the materials on the ground that documents of pre-investigation inquiries were not public information. On 26 October 2012 the District Court and on 27 November 2012 the Regional Court acting on appeal refused to examine the applicants ’ complaint about denial of access to the inquiry file.

2. The first applicant

On 11 October 2011 the first applicant went to the Voronezh town hospital for medical assistance saying he had received an electric shock. He was offered in-patient examination and treatment, but refused and returned home.

On 12 October 2011 the first applicant went to the Voronezh Regional Bureau of forensic-medical examinations to record his injuries. Expert Kh . recorded that the first applicant had small bruises on his fingers, hands and left shoulder. He noted the first applicant ’ s explanation of the bruises ’ origin, but did not make any assessment of it.

On 2 November 2011 the first applicant complained about his unlawful detention and ill-treatment on 10 October 2011. A pre-investigation inquiry was initiated upon his complaint.

On 3 November 2011 the investigator took explanations from five policemen involved in the arrest of K. They denied the first applicant ’ s allegations. In particular, officer P. stated that they had suspected K. of the murder of two people and, as he had been on the run, they had come to wait for him next to his brother ’ s home. When the first applicant had left the house, policemen approached him, presented their documents and asked about his brother ’ s whereabouts and where he himself had been going. The applicant allegedly had begun to run away in reply to those questions, so policemen had had to catch and subdue him and had handcuffed him. According to P., when the first applicant calmed down, the policemen removed the handcuffs and had a private conversation with him. During that conversation the first applicant had allegedly confirmed that he had been communicating with K. by telephone messages and that K. had been hiding at a computer club. P. further stated that the first applicant had suggested helping police to find that club, so they had driven with him through the town. Then the first applicant had allegedly sent K. a message promising him some money and suggested meeting at the bar where he worked. They had returned to the bar and had arrested K. when he had appeared. The first applicant had remained at the bar to continue working. Officers M., S., B. and Mesch . repeated the same version of events.

On 9 November 2011 the investigator talked to officer V. responsible for technical equipment of police station no. 6. The latter denied ever having given the keys to the garage to any other police officer or having seen the first applicant in the garage on 10 October 2011. On the same date the investigator was informed that the video record of police station no. 6 for the date of 10 October 2011 had been destroyed after a twenty-one days ’ period of storage.

On 11 November 2011 the first applicant underwent another forensic-medical examination. Expert Kh . considered that the bruises on the first applicant ’ s body could have been caused on 10 October 2011, but found no injuries indicative of electric shock.

On 11, 14 and 15 November 2011 the investigator took explanations from three more policemen who denied that the first applicant had ever been brought to police station no. 6 or its yard.

On an unspecified date the investigator inspected the garage of police station no. 6, finding no traces of fight, blood or other body fluids or any relevant objects.

On 28 November 2011 the investigator refused to open a criminal case based on the first applicant ’ s complaint. The decision relied on the statements of policemen, the garage inspection and medical documents. In particular, the investigator concluded that expert Kh . had not found any bruises indicative of electric shock on the first applicant. On 20 January 2012 the decision of 28 November 2011 was quashed as premature and unfounded. The investigator was instructed to question again expert Kh ., two police officers and take other necessary investigative actions. On 23 January 2012 the investigator re-interrogated expert Kh . The expert confirmed his opinion that the first applicant had had no injuries indicative of electric shock.

On 29 January 2012 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case. The decision essentially reproduced the previous one with the addition of expert Kh . ’ s latest statement.

On 20 March 2012 the first applicant ’ s lawyer interviewed two witnesses who had talked to the first applicant after the events of 10 October 2011. Witness M. allegedly saw the first applicant a week later and recognised (he was an engineer) the traces of electrodes on his fingers. Witness K. recalled that on 10 October 2011 the first applicant had complained that police had tortured him with electric shocks to establish the whereabouts of his brother.

On 23 March 2012 the first applicant complained about the refusal to open a criminal case before a court. He argued, in particular, that the investigator had never identified or questioned any neighbours who could have seen his arrest; had not questioned M. and K. interviewed by his lawyer; had ignored information that one of the implicated policemen had been accused of having applied electric shocks in five other cases.

On 3 October 2012 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh found the refusal to open a criminal case lawful. On 15 November 2012 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal. The courts did not address the questions raised by the first applicant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention about their ill-treatment. In particular, the first applicant complains about his ill-treatment by electric shock. The second and fourth applicants complain that during their detention on 9 and 10 October 2011 they were not provided with food or water; that they were handcuffed, could not properly rest and were subjected to mental pressure. The third applicant complains that the policemen subjected her to mental pressure by threats of murder and rape.

The applicants complain under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention that the investigation of their ill-treatment was ineffective as the authorities had refused to perform an investigation upon their complaints and only carried out pre-investigation inquiries; the witnesses questioned within the framework of such inquiries had not been under an oath; the applicants were not granted victim status and, consequently, were refused access to any materials of the inquiries.

The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention about their unlawful detention on 9 and/or 10 October 2011.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], § 131, no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present cases by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 9 and 10 October 2011 fall within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of this provision?

Was the applicants ’ detention during the period between 9 and 10 October 2011 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?

Appendix

List of the applicants

Application no. 21840/13

Application no 22271/13