Communicated on 2 May 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 11327/10 Aleksandr Fedorovich TARAN against Russia lodged on 19 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Fedorovich Taran , is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Stavropol. He is represented before the Court by Mr V.V. Savin , a lawyer practising in Stavropol.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is an Old Believer and has a beard, as required by his faith.

1. First cycle of criminal proceedings

The applicant was accused of several counts of murder, attempted murder and the unlawful use and storage of firearms.

On 4 June 2009 he was acquitted by a jury before the Stavropol Regional Court.

On 3 September 2009 the Russian Supreme Court set aside the judgment on the ground of irregularities in the jury selection. The case was returned to the first-instance court for fresh examination.

2. Decision to remand the applicant in custody

On 20 October 2009 the applicant was remanded in custody. The decision stated, in particular:

“... the applicant is accused of particularly grave offences, might flee from the courts, influence witnesses and victims and otherwise obstruct the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, in the court ’ s opinion, this measure is necessary to ensure enforcement of the possible sentence. There is no information ... that [the applicant] cannot be remanded in custody for medical reasons. The defence ’ s argument that the prosecutor advanced no other reasons for remanding [the applicant] in custody apart from the gravity of charges against him ... may not be taken into consideration as a ground to refuse the application of this preventive measure.”

On 15 December 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the decision to remand him in custody and upheld the reasoning of the first-instance court.

3. Second cycle of criminal proceedings and shaving of the applicant

At a hearing on 28 October 2009 before the Stavropol Regional Court, the prosecution moved to present the jury a photograph of the applicant without a beard, arguing that his beard created a positive image of the applicant in the jury ’ s mind. The court dismissed the move as an attempt to influence the jury.

However, when the applicant was delivered to temporary detention facility no. IZ-26/1 in the Stavropol Region (“facility no. IZ-26/1”) where he was being held, the remand prison officers forcibly shaved him. According to the applicant, three prison officers took him out of his cell and asked him to shave. As he refused, they handcuffed him and forcibly shaved off his beard.

At a hearing on 9 November 2009 the applicant ’ s representative complained to the court about the fact that the applicant had been shaved. He argued that that action had been directly linked to the prosecution ’ s move to show the jury a photograph of the applicant without a beard, which had been previously dismissed by the court, and that it thus constituted an attempt to influence the jury. The presiding judge stated that the court would check what had happened. According to the applicant, no check was ever conducted.

The applicant and his representative also complained to the Ombudsman, the Stavropol inter-district prosecutor ’ s office and the Stavropol Region Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences.

On 6 November 2009 the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Stavropol inter-district prosecutor ’ s office.

On 30 November 2009 the Stavropol Region Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences informed the applicant ’ s representative that the complaint had been examined and that no irregularities in the actions of the prison officers had been found.

On 1 December 2009 the Stavropol inter-district prosecutor ’ s office informed the applicant ’ s representative that his complaints to the prosecutor ’ s office and the Ombudsman had been examined and that the actions of the prison officers had been found lawful. It was stated in the letter, in particular, that the applicant had been held at facility no. IZ-26/1 since 20 October 2009 and had received a number of reprimands from the remand prison ’ s officers and medical staff concerning his untidy appearance. He was asked to have a haircut and shave off his beard, but he did not react. On 27 October 2009 (according to the applicant, this is a misprint and the actual date is 29 October 2009), during a sanitary inspection, he was again asked to have a haircut, but he refused. The head of the bathing facilities then cut the applicant ’ s hair using hair clippers. Neither physical force nor special tools were used on the applicant. As the applicant was held in a cell with other people, his failure to comply with the rules on personal hygiene might have contributed to the emergence of disease. Furthermore, the applicant never stated in the remand prison that he practised a religion.

On 9 December 2009 the Stavropol Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 23 years ’ imprisonment after the jury found him guilty by seven votes to five.

On 16 March 2010 the Russian Supreme Court upheld the judgment, removing a reference to a previous conviction.

On 25 March 2010 the applicant ’ s representative questioned Mr A., the applicant ’ s cellmate. According to Mr A., he had been held in cell no. 68 of facility no. IZ-26/1 since 17 February 2009, and that later that year the applicant had been placed in the same cell. The applicant always had a broad, thick beard and stated that his ancestors were Old Believers. At the end of October 2009 three prison officers took the applicant out of the cell. He was absent for between an hour and an hour and a half. When the applicant returned he had no beard, his head had also been shaved and he looked subdued. He said that the three officers had asked him to shave and that when he had refused they had handcuffed him and forcibly shaved him. The applicant was very upset and kept saying that it was incompatible with his religion. He had afterwards started growing his beard again. In response to a question from the applicant ’ s representative about whether the prison officers had been aware of the applicant ’ s religious convictions, Mr A. stated that he could not be sure, but did not think that the applicant had ever hid them.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that his beard, which he wore in compliance with the requirements of his faith, was forcibly shaved off by prison officers. He relies on Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the decision of 20 October 2009 to remand him in custody lacked sufficient reasoning.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the decision of 20 October 2009 to remand the applicant in custody compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide the Court with copies of the decisions concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention prior to 20 October 2009.

2. Having regard to the applicant ’ s being shaved by prison officers at temporary detention facility no. IZ-26/1 in the Stavropol Region:

(a) Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

(b) Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the practice of wearing a beard a manifestation of the applicant ’ s freedom of religion within the meaning of this provision? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2?