Communicated on 29 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 9759/09 Sergey Nikolayevich KONYAYEV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended)

1. The applicant in the first case is a stateless person. The applicants in the three other cases are Russian nationals. Their personal details are listed in the Appendix.

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

A. Mr Konyayev

1. The applicant ’ s arrest, detention and alleged ill-treatment

3. At around 5 a.m. on 13 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on the street in Ryazan on suspicion of drug trafficking by officers of the police unit for combating organised crime in the Ryazan region ( УБОП при УВД по Рязанской области – “the organised crime unit” ), assisted by officers of the special rapid response unit of the Ryazan region ( СОБÐ ( ОМСН ) УВД Рязанской области – “the rapid response unit” ) .

4. The applicant was taken to the Moskovskiy district police station of Ryazan (“the Moskovskiy police station”), where the (unnamed) police officers physically assaulted him for an hour, forcing him to confess to carrying weapons.

5. He was then taken to the organised crime unit, located at a different address, where police officers N.A. and I.O. physically assaulted him and tortured him with an electric shock device in a gym. Two other (unnamed) police officers of the rapid response unit then continued physically assaulting him, chained his handcuffs to some exercise equipment, pinched his nose and sprayed tear gas into his mouth to force him to confess to robberies and assaults.

6. On the evening of 13 May 2006 the applicant was taken to the Zheleznodorozhniy district police station of Ryazan (“the Zheleznodorozhniy police station”).

7. At 7.40 p.m. on 13 May 2006 investigator A.A. from the Zheleznodorozhniy police station drew up a record of the applicant ’ s arrest for unspecified crimes which was signed by the applicant and the investigator. The record indicates that the applicant was arrested at 7 p.m. that day.

8. At 2 p.m. on 15 May 2006 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Ryazan extended the applicant ’ s detention until 6 p.m. on 16 May 2006.

9. According to the applicant, during his time at Zheleznodorozhniy police station, he was driven to the organised crime unit several more times and subjected to various forms of ill-treatment. This included physical assault, torture with an electric shock device and having a plastic bag placed over his head so that he lost consciousness.

10. On the evening on 15 May 2006 the applicant was physically assaulted again at the Zheleznodorozhniy police station by an unknown police officer, who tried to force him to confess to different unsolved crimes concerning weapons, thefts and drugs.

11. On 16 May 2006 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody. He was placed in a Ryazan pre-trial detention facility (IZ 62/1).

2. The applicant ’ s injuries received as a result of ill-treatment

12. According to records from IZ 62/1 dated 16 May 2006, on his arrival at 4.20 p.m. that day the applicant was examined by a medical assistant (feldsher). He had the following injuries: (i) multiple abrasions covered in brown scabs on his forehead and the back and top of his head; (ii) swelling on the inner surface of the lips; (iii) multiple large purple and blue bruises on his chest, abdomen, left side, forearms and shoulders; (iv) purple and yellow bruises on his knee joints; and (v) abrasions covered in brown scabs on the back of the toes of his left foot.

3. First set of pre-investigation inquiries and refusals to institute criminal proceedings

(a) Investigative committee

13. On 18 May 2006 the material concerning the applicant ’ s injuries was forwarded from the pre-trial detention facility to the Zheleznodorozhniy district prosecutor ’ s office of Ryazan. It was registered on 25 May 2006.

14. On 25 May 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zheleznodorozhniy district prosecutor against the police officers, requesting that they be prosecuted. His complaint was registered that day.

15. On 30 May 2006 the material in both files concerning the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment were joined.

16. On 5 June 2006, 20 December 2006 and 10 June 2008 officials at the prosecutor ’ s office, and later the Zheleznodorozhniy inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee for Ryazan (“the investigative committee”) issued three refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers.

17. The two earlier refusals were overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee on 25 September 2006 and 9 June 2008 respectively, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. The most recent refusal of 10 June 2008 was issued in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) because none of the elements of crimes under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) were present in respect of the police officers ’ actions.

18. Police officer A.S. from the organised crime unit stated in an explanation that on 13 May 2006 eight officers from the rapid response unit had carried out the applicant ’ s arrest. As the applicant and three other individuals were armed and refused to come out of their car, physical force (unspecified “sambo” wrestling techniques) and special devices (handcuffs) were used on them. A.S. could not remember whether those arrested had any injuries. According to him, they were then taken to the Moskovskiy police station.

19. Police officers of the rapid response unit (T.D., M.A., O.S., K.D., K.A. and Ch.D.) stated that they had carried out the applicant ’ s arrest at around 6 a.m. on 13 May 2006. They arrested four individuals (including the applicant), who all resisted arrest. They used physical force and special devices (handcuffs).

20. Police officer P.V. from the organised crime unit stated that, after the applicant ’ s arrest in the early hours of 13 May 2006, he had searched him in the presence of attesting witnesses. He denied subjecting him to any physical or verbal abuse.

21. Police officers R.A. and B.A. of the Moskovskiy police denied subjecting the applicant to any ill-treatment.

22. Investigator A.A. from the Zheleznodorozhniy police station stated in an (undated) explanation that the applicant had been arrested in the early hours of 13 May 2006 by police officers of the organised crime unit. During his arrest the applicant resisted, and physical force was used on him. A.A. did not know whether the applicant had been subjected to any ill ‑ treatment by the police officers of the Zheleznodorozhniy police station. At 7 p.m. on 13 May 2006 the applicant was taken to his room. A.A. arrested him on suspicion of organised robbery pursuant to Article 91 of the CCrP. A.A. denied subjecting the applicant to any physical or psychological pressure.

23. In its most recent refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers dated 10 June 2008, the investigative committee briefly concluded that the applicant ’ s injuries had resulted from the use of force and special devices (handcuffs) by police officers of the rapid response unit during the applicant ’ s arrest, as the applicant had resisted arrest.

(b) Judicial review of the investigators ’ decisions under Article 125 of the CCrP

24. Relying on Article 125 of the CCrP, the applicant appealed against two of the refusals to open a criminal case against the police officers to the courts, namely those of 20 December 2006 and 10 June 2008.

25. On 10 June 2008 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Ryazan ruled that the applicant ’ s appeal against the refusal of 20 December 2006 should not be examined, and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that on 9 June 2008 the investigative committee had already revoked the refusal.

26. On 16 December 2008 the same court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the refusal of 10 June 2008, holding that it was lawful and well-grounded. In particular, the court noted that the applicant ’ s arguments concerning his alleged ill-treatment in police custody from 13 to 15 May 2006 had been examined during his criminal trial and on appeal and dismissed as unconfirmed. On 5 February 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court fully endorsed that decision on appeal.

4. Second set of pre-investigation inquiries and refusals to institute criminal proceedings

27. On 26 May 2006 a copy of the applicant ’ s complaint of ill-treatment was forwarded to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor ’ s office of Ryazan (“the Sovetskiy prosecutor ’ s office”) for a separate inquiry in relation to the police officers of the organised crime unit.

28. On 2 June 2006 and 24 February 2009 respectively, in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (1) of the CCrP, officials at the Sovetskiy prosecutor ’ s office and Moskovskiy inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee for Ryazan issued refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers as none of the elements of crimes under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) were present in respect of their actions. On 25 December 2008 the first refusal was overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee as unsubstantiated, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out an additional inquiry.

29. In its most recent refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers dated 24 February 2009, the investigative committee briefly noted the outcome of the applicant ’ s criminal case and concluded that there was no objective information showing that any crimes had been committed against the applicant by the police officers.

5. Third set of pre-investigation inquiries and refusals to institute criminal proceedings

(a) Investigative committee

30. In December 2006 and May 2008 respectively the applicant lodged two more complaints with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the investigative committee against the police officers, investigators and other State officials, requesting that they be prosecuted for unlawful arrest, detention and abuse of power in connection with the events of 13 to 16 May 2006 and his criminal case.

31. On 16 January 2007, 12 April 2007 and 26 May 2008, officials at the Zheleznodorozhniy prosecutor ’ s office and the Zheleznodorozhniy inter ‑ district investigation unit of the investigative committee for Ryazan issued three refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers.

32. The two earlier refusals were overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee on an unspecified date and 14 May 2008 respectively, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. The most recent refusal of 26 May 2008 was issued in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, because none of the elements of crimes under Articles 285, 286 and 301 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers and unlawful arrest and detention respectively) were present in respect of the police officers ’ actions, as the applicant ’ s allegations had not been confirmed in the course of the inquiry.

(b) Judicial review of the investigators ’ decisions under Article 125 of the CCrP

33. Under Article 125 of the CCrP, the applicant appealed against all three of the refusals mentioned above .

34. On 2 April 2007 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Ryazan examined the applicant ’ s appeal against the refusal of 16 January 2007 and concluded that it had been unlawful and unsubstantiated because not all of the applicant ’ s arguments had been examined concerning, in particular, his allegedly unlawful arrest and detention. The investigation authority was ordered to rectify those deficiencies. It appears that the refusal was subsequently overruled by the investigative committee, and an additional inquiry was ordered.

35. On 14 May 2008 the same court ruled that the applicant ’ s appeal against the investigator ’ s refusal of 12 April 2007 should not be examined, and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that on 14 May 2008 the investigative committee had already overruled it.

36. On 10 December 2008 the court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, holding that the refusal of 26 May 2008 was lawful and well-grounded. It also endorsed the findings of the trial and appellate courts in the applicant ’ s criminal case. On 22 January 2009 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.

6. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

37. On 28 April 2008 the Ryazan Regional Court convicted the applicant of organised banditry, illegal possession of firearms and armed robbery, and sentenced him to fifteen years ’ imprisonment and a RUB 200,000 fine.

38. At trial, the applicant complained that the investigative measures carried out during the preliminary investigation of his criminal case had been unlawful, and that he had been coerced into making a confession.

39. The trial court briefly dismissed the applicant ’ s allegations as unconfirmed. It referred mainly to the results of the pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment, which had resulted in the (subsequently overruled) refusal of 20 December 2006 to open a criminal case against the police officers.

40. On 7 August 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia briefly upheld that judgment on appeal, finding the conclusions of the trial court duly reasoned.

B. Mr Meshengov

1. The applicant ’ s arrest, detention and alleged ill-treatment in police custody

41. At around 9 a.m. on 8 April 2007 the applicant was arrested by traffic police officers in Ussuriysk, a city in Primorskiy Kray. He was taken to the Ussuriysk police station ( УВД г . Уссурийска Приморского края ) and held in a temporary detention cell overnight. On 9 April 2007 three police officers of the criminal investigation unit at the Sverdlovskiy district police station of Irkutsk ( ОУÐ УВД по Свердловскому району г . Иркутска – “the Sverdlovskiy police station” ) handcuffed and bound the applicant with scotch tape, searched him, seized his personal documents and took him to Irkutsk by aeroplane.

42. At around 11 p.m. on 9 April 2007 the applicant was taken to the Sverdlovskiy police station and placed in a room on the third floor, where seven police officers were waiting. They unbound him, shackled him to a chair and physically assaulted him during the night of 9 April 2007. They placed a gas mask over his head and closed off the air flow, and he lost consciousness two times. Each time he lost consciousness the police officers poured cold water over him and he regained consciousness. Three police officers sat on his back. One police officer kicked him in the chest. The police officers were drinking. They then forced him to sign some papers. He refused. The police officers continued physically assaulting him, punching him in his ears. They then took him to a temporary detention cell and threw him on the floor. After an hour they took him in handcuffs back to the room on the third floor, pushed him to the floor, placed a gas mask over his head and gave him electric shocks. He lost consciousness again. When he regained consciousness, the police officers requested him to sign all the papers put in front of him. The applicant agreed to sign them on the condition that the police officers stopped torturing and physically assaulting him. After an hour and a half the applicant was taken to a different room, where he signed (unspecified) papers that were given to him.

43. At 12.30 a.m. on 10 April 2007 investigator M.A. from the Sverdlovskiy district prosecutor ’ s office of Irkutsk drew up a record of the applicant ’ s arrest for murder which was signed by the applicant in the absence of a lawyer. The record indicates that the applicant was arrested at 10 p.m. on 9 April 2007 and placed in an Irkutsk temporary detention facility (IVS).

44. On 11 April 2007 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Irkutsk remanded the applicant in custody. On the same day the applicant was placed in a pre-trial detention facility in Irkutsk (IZ 38/1/2).

2. The applicant ’ s injuries received as a result of ill-treatment

45. On 11 April 2007 investigator P. ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant in connection with the criminal case against him. According to report no. 4046 completed on 11 April 2007 by the Irkutsk Regional Forensic Medical Bureau , he was examined that day. The applicant explained to the expert that on 8 April 2007 he had sustained handcuff injuries during his arrest, and that he had not sought medical help. The applicant had the following injuries: (i) ten irregularly shaped bruises measuring between 9 x 7 cm and 3 x 2 cm on his chest, left shoulder, left iliac bone, both forearms, elbows, right of the lower spine and outside of the left ear, which had been caused by hard, blunt objects with a limited surface area; and (ii) eleven abrasions in stripe-like shapes measuring between 3 x 0.2 cm and 1 x 0.2 cm on his right wrist and wrist joints, which had been caused by hard objects with an explicitly limited surface area approximately two days before the examination.

46. According to records from IZ 38/1/2, on arrival on 11 April 2007 the applicant was examined and had (i) a contusion of the right elbow joint; (ii) abrasions on both wrist joints; and (iii) abrasions on the right wrist.

3. Pre-investigation inquiry and refusal to institute criminal proceedings

47. According to the applicant, on his arrival at the pre-trial detention facility on 12 April 2007 he lodged a complaint with the prosecutor ’ s office for the Irkutsk region requesting that the police officers be prosecuted for their unlawful conduct.

48. On 12 March 2008, almost a year later, an investigator of the investigative committee for the Irkutsk region carried out a pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant ’ s injuries. The investigator briefly noted that the injuries on his wrists had been caused as a result of the justified use of handcuffs, referring to Article 14 of the Police Act, which states that handcuffs may be used to suppress resistance and escort arrested individuals to a police station safely. In relation to the remainder of the applicant ’ s injuries, the investigator noted that he had not brought a complaint against those responsible under Article 116 § 1 of the Criminal Code (physical assault ), and issued a refusal to open a criminal case pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (5) of the CCrP on those grounds.

49. It appears that on 12 March, 23 April and 17 August 2009 three more refusals to open a criminal case were issued in relation to the applicant ’ s complaint of ill-treatment pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP, as none of the elements of a crime under Article 116 § 1 of the Criminal Code (physical assault ) were present .

50. On 12 April 2011 the higher authority within the investigative committee for the Irkutsk region overruled the most recent refusal to open a criminal case of 17 August 2009 as unsubstantiated and unlawful, and ordered an additional inquiry. It pointed out the need to interview the applicant, identify the police officers he had resisted during his arrest, interview those police officers and assess their actions under Articles 286 § 3 and 302 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers and forced extraction of confession respectively) .

4. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

51. On 24 June 2008 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, theft and other offences and sentenced him to nineteen years ’ imprisonment.

52. At his trial, the applicant pleaded guilty in part. He alleged that unlawful investigation techniques and violence had been used to force him to confess to the crimes. In particular, he stated that when he had been taken to the Sverdlovskiy district police station, a gas mask had been placed over his head and he had been given electric shocks to extract a confession. According to the applicant, he had been questioned all night long, had lost consciousness, and had been ready to sign any papers. His hands had been injured by handcuffs.

53. The trial court dismissed the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, briefly noting that he had not indicated who had allegedly used violence against him, and had also stated that violence had been used against him after he had given his statements about the crimes, for unknown reasons.

54. On 11 December 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia partly modified this judgment on appeal and sentenced the applicant to eighteen years ’ and six months ’ imprisonment. The appellate court noted the refusal to open a criminal case of 12 March 2008 and in essence upheld the trial court ’ s findings concerning the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment.

C. Mr Tilloyev

1. The applicant ’ s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

55. On 14 or 15 August 2008 the applicant was arrested in Orel on suspicion of assault and rape. According to him, between five and six police officers from the Severniy district police in Orel and the operational search division for the Orel Region ( ОВД по Северному району г . Орла и ОРЧ УВД по Орловской области ) subjected him to ill-treatment to force him to confess to the crimes. The police officers handcuffed the applicant and physically assaulted him, punching and kicking him multiple times in the face, legs and body.

2. The applicant ’ s injuries received as a result of ill-treatment

56. On 15 August 2008 the investigating authorities ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. It began on 15 August 2008 and was completed on 29 August 2008. According to the report (no. 2378/5a) , the applicant explained to the expert that five or six police officers had physically assaulted him, punching and kicking him in the face, legs and body. The applicant had the following injuries: (i) three scratches on his right cheek; (ii) two bruises on his neck; (iii) two bruises on his chest; (iv) two bruises on his back; (v) eleven bruises and an abrasion on his right upper limb; (vi) nine bruises and an abrasion on his left upper limb; (vii) an abrasion on his right lower leg; (viii) an abrasion on his left hip; and (ix) an abrasion on his left buttock.

57. According to the expert, the applicant ’ s injuries had been caused by blunt objects with a limited surface area one to three days before the examination and had not caused any “health damage” to the applicant.

58. The expert did not exclude the possibility that the applicant ’ s bruises on his wrists could have been caused by handcuffs, and also concluded that the applicant had had thirty-four points on his body where force had been used, and had sustained no less than twenty-three blows.

3. Pre-investigation inquiry and refusals to institute criminal proceedings

59. On unspecified dates in 2008 the applicant lodged complaints with the Severniy district prosecutor ’ s office of Orel and the Orel inter-district investigation unit of the investigative committee for the Orel region (“the investigative committee”) against the police officers, requesting that they be prosecuted.

60. On 19 August 2008 the investigative committee received material in relation to the applicant ’ s complaint of ill-treatment.

61. On the dates specified below, an d in accordance with Article 24 § 1 (1) of the CCrP, officials at the investigative committee issued at least three refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers, because none of the elements of a crime under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of powers) were present in respect of their actions. Those refusals were systematically overruled by the higher authority within the investigative committee as premature, unsubstantiated and based on incomplete inquiries, and the investigation authorities were ordered to carry out additional inquiries. The refusals were issued and overruled on the following dates:

Refusal No.

Issued on:

Overruled on:

(i)

19 December 2008

18 February 2009

(ii)

27 February 2009

12 May 2009

(iii)

21 August 2009

6 May 2010

4. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

62. On 16 April 2009 the Zavodskiy District Court of Orel convicted the applicant of physical assaults and rapes involving three women victims, and sentenced him to thirteen years and five months ’ imprisonment.

63. At trial, the applicant denied his guilt and complained about the police ill-treatment. The trial court acknowledged the appearance of injuries on him as they had been recorded by the expert, but noted that that could not serve as evidence of his innocence in relation to the crimes which had been committed. The trial court also noted that a pre-investigation inquiry had been pending with respect to his alleged ill-treatment, and that an examination of that issue fell outside the scope of the applicant ’ s criminal case.

64. On 9 June 2009 the Orel Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s arguments regarding ill-treatment by the police, upholding the trial court ’ s conclusions.

D. Mr Gabbazov

1. The applicant ’ s arrest, detention and alleged ill-treatment in police custody

65. At around 8.10 p.m. on 16 June 2007 the applicant, who lived in social housing, was arrested at his home in Dolgoprudniy on suspicion of robbery. He was taken to the criminal investigation unit of the Kotlovka district police department for the South-west Administrative Circuit of Moscow ( ОУÐ ОВД по району Котловка ЮЗАО г . Москвы ) .

66. On the night of 16 June 2007 the applicant was insulted and physically assaulted by police officers A.A. and M., who requested that he confess to the crime. He lost consciousness several times. The applicant continued to be physically assaulted in the presence of investigator A.I. from the South-west Administrative Circuit police, who threatened him with imprisonment. The applicant refused to sign any confession statements.

67. At 7.20 a.m. on 17 June 2007 investigator A.I. drew up a record of the applicant ’ s arrest for robbery, which was signed by the applicant in the absence of a lawyer. The record indicates that the applicant was arrested at 7.20 a.m. that day.

68. At 11.05 a.m. the applicant was placed in a South ‑ west Administrative Circuit temporary detention facility (IVS).

69. On 18 June 2007 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody.

70. On 21 June 2007 the applicant was placed in a Moscow pre ‑ trial detention facility (IZ-77/2).

2. The applicant ’ s injuries received as a result of ill-treatment

71. On 17 June 2007 the applicant was examined by a doctor of Moscow Town Hospital no. 33 at the request of the on-duty officer of the Kotlovka district police station. According to the applicant ’ s hospital records, he had (i) bluish bruises on his face, chest, back and both legs measuring between 6 x 6 cm and 3 x 6 cm; and (ii) an abrasion on his back measuring 1.5 x 6 cm. He was diagnosed with multiple contusions and abrasions on his head, chest and upper limbs.

72. According to records from IZ-77/2, on arrival on 21 June 2007 the applicant had multiple contusions and abrasions on his head, chest and upper limbs.

3. Pre-investigation inquiry and refusal to institute criminal proceedings

(a) Investigative committee

73. On 13 August 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint of ill-treatment with the internal security department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Moscow, allegedly as soon as he had stopped fearing for his life.

74. During the two years which followed, investigators of the Zyuzinskiy district investigation unit of the investigative committee for Moscow carried out a pre-investigation inquiry and issued refusals to open a criminal case (dated 14 September 2007, 24 February 2008 and 2 May 2009) pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (1) or (2) of the CCrP, either because there was no evidence that a crime had been committed or because none of the elements of a crime under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code ( abuse of powers with use of violence) were present in respect of the actions of police officers A.A. and M.. In doing so they relied on the police officers ’ and investigator A.I. ’ s explanations denying any wrongdoing.

75. According to explanations by police officers received during the pre ‑ investigation inquiry, on 16 June 2007 they took the applicant – who according to operative information had committed a robbery – to the police station, where an “explanation” was received from him concerning the crime, without any physical or psychological pressure being exerted on him. They also denied using any “special devices” on him.

76. All the investigators ’ decisions refusing to open a criminal case, except for the most recent decision of 2 May 2009, were overruled by the investigators ’ superiors. On 15 January 2008 the investigator ’ s refusal of 14 September 2007 was overruled on the grounds that it had been premature and based on an incomplete inquiry, as it did not contain an explanation of the applicant ’ s injuries. On 23 April 2009 the investigator ’ s refusal of 24 February 2008 was overruled as premature. It was noted, inter alia , that the investigator had not examined the criminal case material against the applicant or assessed his actions under Article 306 (perjury) of the Criminal Code.

77. The investigator ’ s conclusions in the most recent refusal to open a criminal case dated 2 May 2009 were generally similar to the previous decisions. It also stated that the applicant had been convicted of several crimes and had been sentenced to eight years ’ imprisonment, and that the police officers had acted in accordance with their duties.

(b) Judicial review of the investigators ’ decisions under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

78. The applicant appealed against the investigator ’ s most recent decision. On 24 November 2010 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed that appeal, holding that the decision was lawful and well ‑ grounded. On 6 June 2011 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and fully endorsed the first ‑ instance court ’ s decision.

4. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

79. On 11 December 2007 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant of robbery and banditry, and sentenced him to eight years ’ imprisonment.

80. At trial, the applicant stated that on 16 June 2007 he had been arrested, driven to a police station and physically assaulted by police officers . The trial court dismissed the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment by the police. It relied mainly on the investigator ’ s refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers (subsequently overruled), also noting there was no objective information showing that physical violence had been used against the applicant.

81. On 27 February 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment on appeal, holding that the applicant ’ s allegations that unlawful investigative techniques had been used had not been confirmed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill ‑ treatment by the police and that the State failed to conduct an effective investigation into those incidents. They also complain under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 3, that they had no effective domestic remedy at their disposal.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in police custody on suspicion of having committed criminal offences, have the applicants been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; and, among recent authorities, Razzakov v. Russia , no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015, and Gorshchuk v. Russia , no. 31316/09, 6 October 2015 )?

If the response is negative, the Government are invited to discharge their burden of proof to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the applicants (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015).

2. Having regard to:

(a) the investigation authorities ’ refusals to open criminal cases and investigate the applicants ’ allegations of ill-treatment by the police, and the overruling of those refusals as unlawful and unsubstantiated by higher investigation authorities or courts, and;

(b) the investigation authorities ’ inability to implement full investigative measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, for example, confrontations, identification parades, searches, and so forth;

did the authorities carry out effective investigations, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?

3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

4. The Government are invited to submit a detailed hour-by-hour report on what happened to the applicants during the time spent by them in police custody, from the moment of their actual arrest ( фактическое задержание ) until the moment of their placement in a detention facility based on a court order for their remand in custody ( содержание под стражей ), including information on the reasons and legal grounds for the applicants ’ detention, all operative, administrative and investigative measures carried out during that period of time, as supported by relevant documents to be enclosed with the report. In particular, documents containing the following information are to be submitted:

(a) where applicable, the time of the applicants ’ arrival and the length of time they spent in police stations (police station records concerning persons brought to and leaving police stations, and so forth), cells for administrative offenders at police stations, temporary detention facilities (IVS), pre ‑ trial detention (SIZO-type) facilities, medical facilities (ambulances, accident and emergency departments, hospitals and forensic medical examination clinics);

(b) the applicants ’ injuries and/or state of health, as recorded in the places listed in sub-paragraph (a) above (certificates of medical examinations on arrival at the IVS and SIZO, records of medical facilities, and so forth);

(c) the forensic medical experts ’ conclusions about the applicants ’ injuries, the investigators ’ decisions to order forensic medical examinations of the applicants and explanations by them and the police officers in question as to the origin of the injuries which formed the basis of the experts ’ assessments;

(d) records of the operative, administrative and investigative measures carried out with the applicants ’ participation during the above periods of time (records of arrest, questioning, searches, and so forth);

(e) court decisions ordering the applicants ’ detention, records of the relevant court hearing, a court ruling on the applicants ’ complaint of ill ‑ treatment in police custody, and any relevant higher court decisions.

5. As regards the pre-investigation inquiry into the applicants ’ alleged ill ‑ treatment, the Government are invited to submit:

(a) a numbered list (in chronological order) of all decisions by the investigating authorities, including the name of the relevant authority, the date of the decision, the grounds for the refusal to open a criminal case under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in relation to each decision, the corresponding decision which overruled it or set it aside (with the name of the authority, date and reason for overruling or setting aside the initial decision);

(b) a numbered list (in chronological order) of all court decisions at both levels of jurisdiction on the applicants ’ challenges of the investigators ’ decisions, to include the name of the court which made the decision and the date and outcome;

(c) copies of the above-mentioned decisions by the investigating authorities and the courts, in chronological order.

6. In respect of Mr Gabbazov, having regard to: the applicant ’ s complaint about his alleged ill ‑ treatment in police custody, allegedly raised during the court proceedings concerning his detention (on 18 June 2007); and the presence of visible signs of injuries on his face and body, did the judge undertake actions provided for by law? In particular, did he bring the attention of the competent authorities to the applicant ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment (see Zayev v. Russia , no. 36552/05, §§ 60-63, 72, 112-14, 16 April 2015)? The Government are invited to submit transcripts of the hearings concerning the applicant ’ s detention (dated 18 June 2007). The Government are further invited to comment on the same aspects with respect to three other cases and provide all relevant documents.

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

D ate of birth

P lace of residence

Represented by

9759/09

31/12/2008

Sergey Nikolayevich KONYAYEV

06/07/1969

Ryazan

Dmitriy Aleksandrovich YERSHOV, a lawyer practising in Ryazan

30261/09

01/04/2009

Yevgeniy Valeryevich MESHENGOV

10/02/1976

Irkutsk

-

2120/10

09/12/2009

Aleksandr Olegovich TILLOYEV

25/02/1963

Orel

Andrey Nikolayevich ROSLOV, a lawyer practising in Orel

16831/10

21/02/2010

Azat Gusmanovich GABBAZOV

01/08/1979

Ulyanovsk

-