Communicated on 20 September 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application s no s . 1361/09 and 6714/09 Vladimir Viktorovich NOVIKOV against Ukraine and Aleksandr Pavlovich VOLKOV against Ukraine lodged on 8 December 2008 and 9 January 2009 respectively

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant in the first case (“the first applicant”), Mr Vladimir Viktorovich Novikov , was born in 1959 and the applicant in the second case (“the second applicant”), Mr Aleksandr Pavlovich Volkov , was born in 1957. They are Ukrainian nationals and reside in Sevastopol.

On 23 March 2006 a Mr P. complained to the police that the applicants had attempted to extort money from him.

On 23 March 2006 the applicants were arrested by the police after leaving a meeting with P. According to the applicants, they were ill-treated by the police during the arrest, even though they did not offer any resistance. The police officers pushed them face down onto the ground and repeatedly hit them. The second applicant was hit with a heavy object on the back of the head and, according to his own statement, he lost consciousness.

On the date of the arrest the police drew up a report concerning their examination of the scene of the incident and two administrative offence reports. The incident report indicated, in particular, that the first applicant had a document signed by P. in his pocket. The offence reports stated that the applicants had disobeyed and resisted the police officers. The applicants added handwritten notes to the reports that they objected to their content.

On 24 March 2006 the applicants were released.

On the same day the forensic medical expert in the case recorded that the second applicant had numerous abrasions on the forehead, crown and back of his head, and on his right cheek and hand. The expert diagnosed concussion and recorded that the applicant complained about being beaten by a group of men the day before.

On 28 March 2006 the forensic medical expert recorded that the first applicant had hematomas and abrasions on his left eyebrow, temple, chin, right hand, chest, both forearms, and left knee. She stated that the applicant ’ s explanation for the injuries, namely that he had been beaten by a group of men the day before, was consistent with the injuries she had observed.

On 30 March 2006 the second applicant, and on an unspecified date the first applicant, asked the prosecutor ’ s office to institute criminal proceedings against the arresting police officers for ill-treatment.

On 31 March 2006 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the first applicant on suspicion of extortion and on 14 April 2006 decided not to institute such proceedings against the second applicant owing to a lack of corpus delicti in his actions.

On 28 April 2006 a prosecutor of the Sevastopol city prosecutor ’ s office (“the SPO”) refused to institute criminal proceedings against the arresting officers for the alleged ill-treatment. The prosecutor found that the police officers had indeed inflicted light injuries on the applicants but that the measures of restraint applied had been proportionate and had been needed to effect an arrest. The prosecutor referred to the statements of the police officers and P., who had stated that the applicants had attempted to run away after the police had attempted to arrest them, but that they had been overpowered and handcuffed.

On 16 May 2006 the Sevastopol Gagarinsky District Court discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicants for lack of corpus delicti in their actions, finding that they had not resisted the police.

On 14 June 2007 the Sevastopol Leninsky District Court quashed the prosecutor ’ s decision of 28 April 2006. It held that the prosecutor had failed to examine whether the first applicant ’ s illness, namely a dysfunction of certain pelvic bones, would have prevented him from running in the way described by the police officers. The court also noted that the prosecutor had failed to examine the role of each individual police officer in the events in question. It also noted that the prosecutor had failed to analyse the evidence of M. and T., who had stated that they had seen the police officers punch and kick the applicants when they were on the ground and had already been overpowered.

On 17 August and 18 January 2007 the SPO again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. On 18 December 2007 and 11 June 2008 respectively the General Prosecutor ’ s Office (“the GPO”) overruled those decisions.

On 9 July 2008 the SPO again refused to institute criminal proceedings. The decision noted, in particular, that the police officers had had lawful grounds to detain the applicants and that they had not used excessive force. According to the applicants, the first applicant learned about that decision on 8 August 2008 and the second applicant on 26 July 2008.

On 10 and 24 December 2008 the SPO wrote to the second and first applicants respectively, saying that there were no reasons to reverse its decision of 9 July 2008.

On 16 March 2011 the police discontinued criminal proceedings against the first applicant on suspicion of extortion for lack of corpus delicti .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were ill-treated during their arrest and that their complaint of ill-treatment was not investigated properly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

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

2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], 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?