Communicated on 27 April 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 4336/06 Aydyn Shukyur Ogly MANSUROV against Russia lodged on 8 December 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aydyn Shukyur Ogly Mansurov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Almetyevsk , Republic of Tatarstan , Russia.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Alleged torture on 26 May 2005

According to the authorities, in the night from 25 to 26 May 2005 the applicant and his alleged accomplice, Ko ., broke into a private flat and committed armed robbery in the presence of three victims. The applicant was then arrested by officers Kash . and Plo . on suspicion of armed robbery and was taken to Ustinovskiy police station in Izhevsk.

At 3 a.m. the applicant was subjected to a body search in the presence of two attesting witnesses. Officer P. compiled the record, which describes the applicant ’ s clothes and belongings, and states that the applicant “made no statements or suggestions: [signature]”. The record contains no information about any injuries. According to the applicant, the signature next to the above statement is not his signature; no body search was actually carried out.

According to the applicant, in the police station officers Sh. and Ku. ill ‑ treated him, causing him head and facial injuries, a nose injury and the loss of several teeth.

It appears from the certificate issued at 4 a.m. on 26 May 2005 by hospital no. 7 that the applicant had bruises on his eyebrow, eye, chin, ear and other parts of his face; a brain contusion was not confirmed by a neurosurgeon.

On 27 May 2005 the applicant was admitted to the hospital of prison no. 8. His injuries were described as follows: bruises on the upper part of his head, left eyebrow, left eye; three grazes on the upper part of the head and two cuts in the eye area; bruises on the chin.

On 27 May 2005 the Ustinovskiy District Court, Izhevsk authorised the applicant ’ s detention pending investigation.

At a later point the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital and remained there until 22 or 24 June 2005 when he was taken to detention centre no. 18/1.

On an unspecified date the applicant complained of torture in the police station. Investigator Petrov of the Ustinovskiy prosecutor ’ s office carried out a pre-investigation inquiry in relation to the alleged abuse of power by public officials (Article 286 of the Criminal Code). On an unspecified date the investigator ordered an examination of the applicant by a forensic medical expert. On 4 July 2005 the expert issued a report. The officers had stated that the applicant had already had injuries at the moment of his arrest; he had sustained them at the hands of his accomplice and “unspecified people” outside the building where the armed robbery had taken place.

On 15 October 2005 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers Sh. and Ku. The investigator concluded that the applicant had sustained injuries after he had left the flat; the injuries had been inflicted by his accomplice and then, after leaving the building, by unspecified people in the street; during or following the applicant ’ s arrest no injuries had been inflicted by the police officers. The investigator noted that in the police station the applicant had been informed of his rights and had been interviewed in the presence of Put., a lawyer; neither of them had made any complaint or request relating to a possible infliction of injuries by officers Sh. and Ku.

On 9 December 2005 the deputy district prosecutor annulled this refusal for unspecified reasons and ordered further enquiries.

In the resumed pre-investigation inquiry, the investigator interviewed the arresting officer Kash ., who affirmed that the applicant had tried to run away and thus had had to be apprehended by force. The investigator also interviewed one of the robbery victims, who stated that her relatives had tried to apprehend the applicant and had thus used physical force against him; the police had then arrived but had not applied any force against the applicant. In his testimony O. (the victim ’ s next of kin) corroborated her statement.

It also appears that the applicant was interviewed (in relation to the pre-investigation inquiry or the ongoing criminal investigation) and stated that after leaving the flat Ko . had hit him; the victims ’ relatives had had no time to inflict any injuries on him because of the arrival of the police.

On 19 December 2005 the investigator issued a new refusal to prosecute. The investigator concluded that it could not be excluded that the injuries had been sustained prior to the arrival of the police.

In March 2006 judge Kh . (who had issued the trial judgment of 22 February 2006, see section “Criminal proceedings against the applicant” below) upheld the above refusal on judicial review.

The applicant lodged another application for judicial review of the above refusal to prosecute. On 6 December 2007 the Ustinovskiy District Court, Izhevsk refused to deal with this application. On 12 February 2008 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.

2. Alleged torture on 28 June 2005

In the meantime, on 28 June 2005 the applicant was taken to the organised crime unit and was allegedly ill-treated again. Allegedly, three officers forced him to make a confession in relation to other robberies, beat him on different parts of his body and squeezed his right hand thumb between the door and the frame. Allegedly, the officers used coarse language in relation to his Azeri origin; they threatened him with rape, made (or threatened to make) him strip naked and videoed him. Apparently, no lawyer was present on this day.

The applicant was then returned to the remand centre. It appears that he was examined by the on-duty officer, who, however, recorded no injuries.

On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the alleged torture.

On an unspecified date investigator Platonov of the Industrialniy prosecutor ’ s office was assigned to carry out a pre-investigation inquiry into the complaint.

On an unspecified date the investigator ordered an examination of the applicant by a forensic medical expert.

On 5 July 2005 the expert issued a report concluding that the applicant had scratches on his arms and legs, and an injured thumb.

On 30 October 2005 the investigator noted that information was required as to whether the applicant had been taken from the detention facility on the relevant dates and, if so, which officers had accompanied him and to which officers. At the same time, the investigator concluded that it was appropriate to close the inquiry and issued a refusal to prosecute.

On 2 November 2005 the prosecutor ’ s office overturned this decision and ordered the reopening of the inquiry.

On 10 November 2005 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings. On 19 December 2005 this refusal was annulled.

On 29 December 2005 the investigator issued a refusal to prosecute. On 10 January 2006 the prosecutor annulled this refusal.

The investigator interviewed the applicant. On an unspecified date the organised crime unit replied that the applicant had not been brought to the unit on 26 June 2005 but, as it turned out, he had been taken there on 28 June 2005.

The investigator interviewed officer Sa., who stated he had had an “informal discussion” with the applicant in relation to his connections to other criminals; no record of the “discussion” had been compiled. No lawyer had been present during it.

The most recent refusal was issued on 14 April 2006.

On 15 May 2006 the Industrialniy District Court upheld the refusal of 14 April 2006. On 18 July 2006 the Regional Court upheld that judgment.

3. Alleged misappropriation of the applicant ’ s belongings

Regarding the alleged misappropriation of the applicant ’ s money and belongings, it appears that on 12 October 2006 investigator Petrov issued a refusal to institute criminal proceedings.

4. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On an unspecified date during the pre-trial proceedings, the applicant made a statement before the investigator averring that he had seen Ko . threatening the victims with a gun; he had tried to go away when several men had come and a fight had started.

On 22 February judge K. of the Ustinovskiy District Court convicted the applicant. In July 2006 the appeal court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.

On 15 November 2006 a court extended the applicant ’ s detention pending the retrial. The applicant lodged a statement of appeal. However, it was never examined.

At the retrial the applicant stated that Ko . had hit him on the back and had run away while two or three men had been apprehending him on his way out of the building; he had not been ill-treated by these men; the injuries had been inflicted later on in the police station.

By a judgment of 15 December 2006 judge Kh . of the Ustinovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to nine years ’ imprisonment. The trial court heard testimony from two victims, referred to a pre-trial statement by the third victim and the applicant ’ s statement to the investigator after his arrest.

On 22 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic upheld the trial judgment.

On 29 December 2007 the same court dismissed the applicant ’ s request for supervisory review of the above court decisions. The court acknowledged that the third victim ’ s pre-trial statement had not been discussed at the trial but concluded that the trial court ’ s reference to it did not offend fairness since the applicant ’ s guilt was amply confirmed by the other victims ’ testimonies at the trial.

The applicant was released on an unspecified date.

The applicant complained that his appeal against the detention order of 15 November 2006 had not been examined. In a letter dated 12 May 2010 the deputy President of the District Court acknowledged that judge Kh . of the District Court withheld the statement of appeal.

5. Conditions of detention

Between 26 May 2005 and 11 December 2007 the applicant was kept in detention centre no. 18/1 in the town of Izhevsk (cells nos. 142, 179, 154, 68, 65, 71, 241, 37, 137, 58, 21, 243 and 215). Allegedly, the applicant had to sleep in shifts with other detainees due to the insufficient number of beds in the cells. For instance, cell no. 142 measured 14 sq. m. and had 8 beds; the applicant was kept there together with fourteen to nineteen other detainees. Cell no. 154 measured 14 sq. m. and had 8 beds; the applicant was kept there together with seventeen other detainees. During the winter of 2005 the window frame in the cell was not glazed, while the temperature outside fell below -40 o C.

The shower facilities were made available once every twenty-five days for five to eight minutes. Other detainees smoked in the cells, which caused the applicant discomfort on account of his asthma. The cells were infested with mice, rats and insects. The toilet was not separated in any way from the main area of the cell and had no flush, causing an unpleasant odour.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges under Article 3 of the Convention that he was tortured by agents of the State on 26 May and 28 June 2005 and that no effective investigations were carried out.

The applicant also complains about the conditions of his detention between May 2005 and December 2007 and the lack of effective remedies in this respect (Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.1. Was the applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment on 25-26 May and 28 June 2005, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to make submissions on, inter alia , the following points:

(a) Was the applicant informed of his rights? If so, when, and what rights was he informed about? What was the applicant ’ s procedural status?

(b) Was he given the possibility of informing a family member, friend, and so forth about his actual location and, if so, when?

(c) Was he given access to a lawyer and, if so, when?

1.2. Were the investigations in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Having regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the respondent Government are requested to submit a copy of the pre-investigation inquiry files in relation to the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment.

2. Were there violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the ap plicant’s detention between May 2005 and December 2007 in detention centre no. 18/1 in Izhevsk (see Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia , no. 41833/04 , §§ 85-91, 27 January 2011) ?