Communicated on 2 September 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 25393/07 Viktor Ivanovich SKRYTNIK against Russia lodged on 24 April 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Viktor Ivanovich Skrytnik , is a Russian national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Krasnodar .

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

A. The fight of 28 October 2002 and the applicant ’ s conviction

The applicant and his family lived in a flat located in a communal residence hall.

According to the applicant, on 28 October 2002 he met his neighbour, Mr Yu.T ., in the residence hall ’ s lift. The two men exchanged a few heated remarks; at some point Mr Yu.T . unexpectedly hit the applicant in the face and kicked him with a knee in the hip. The applicant responded with a blow in self-defence. Mr Yu.T . ran out of the lift. While the applicant having stepped out of the lift was approaching his flat, he saw Mr A.K. and Mr V.T., other residents of the communal residence hall. Mr V.T. grabbed and held the applicant while Mr Yu.T . inflicted several blows on him, in particular, in the nose and in the right eye area. Mr A.K. in his turn also inflicted several blows to the applicant ’ s face. The applicant briefly lost consciousness; when he regained his senses, he washed the blood off his face.

Shortly after the fight Mr Yu.T . reported to Mr K.K., a local police officer, that the applicant had threatened him with a knife. Mr K.K. then questioned the applicant in connection with the incident in the lift and brought him to a police station, where the applicant spent five hours, from 5 to 10 pm.

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 119 of the Russian Criminal Code (“threat with murder”) on account of the threats to Mr Yu.T. ’ s life.

On 4 April 2003 the justice of the peace of circuit no. 39 of the Karasunskiy area of Krasnodar (“the justice of the peace”) convicted the applicant of threat with murder and pronounced a conditionally suspended sentence of one year imprisonment. The Sovetskiy district court of Krasnodar (“the district court”) upheld the conviction on appeal on 26 May 2003.

B. Injuries inflicted on the applicant and ensuing proceedings

On 30 October 2002 the applicant underwent a forensic medical expert examination. The expect report recorded a subconjunctival hemorrhage on the right eye, a bruise on the upper lip and bruises and scratches on the face; the injuries were considered not to have caused any damage to the health . An ophthalmologist ’ s consultation was recommended.

Shortly after the applicant ’ s eyesight gravely deteriorated. On 28 November 2002 he was admitted to hospital on account of post-traumatic retinopathy in the right eye. He was discharged from hospital on 10 January 2003.

On 29 January 2003 the applicant requested the justice of the peace to open a private prosecution case against Mr Yu.T . on account of the beatings of 28 October 2002. On an unspecified date a private prosecution case was opened under Article 116 of the Criminal Code (“battery”).

On 31 March 2003 the applicant was recognised as a category III disabled person on account of his retinopathy.

On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant requested the justice of the peace to order a forensic expert examination to establish the degree of the damage to his health caused by the injuries inflicted on him on 28 October 2002. It appears that his motion was not granted.

On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant requested the justice of the peace to suspend the proceedings against Mr Yu.T . under Article 116 of the Criminal Code owing to the applicant ’ s admission to hospital. In the end of October 2004 he requested to resume the proceedings.

It appears that on an unspecified date the scope of the private prosecution case under Article 116 of the Criminal Code was widened to include Mr V.T. and Mr A.K. as culprits.

On 10 November 2004, as well as on 7 April and 9 August 2005 the applicant repeatedly requested the district court and the justice of the peace to order a forensic expert examination to establish the degree of the damage to his health.

On 25 October 2005 the justice of the peace ordered a forensic expert examination of the applicant to establish whether there had been a causal link between the injuries inflicted on 28 October 2002 and the applicant ’ s retinopathy.

Between 14 November and 8 December 2005 experts of the Krasnodar regional forensic expert bureau carried out the applicant ’ s examination. The experts established that on 28 October 2002 the applicant had sustained grave bodily harm as a result of blows to his right eye socket area.

On 24 January 2006 the justice of the peace terminated the private prosecution proceedings against Mr Yu.T ., Mr V.T. and Mr A.K. under Article 116 of the Criminal Code for the reason that, owing to the serious nature of the applicant ’ s injuries, the actions of the suspects were to be qualified under Article 111 of the Criminal Code (“infliction of grave bodily injuries”), which constituted a public prosecution criminal offence, and forwarded the case materials to the prosecutor ’ s office.

On 10 April 2006 an investigator of the Karasunskiy district department of the interior (“UVD”) instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Yu.T ., Mr V.T. and Mr A.K. under Article 111 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code (“infliction of grave bodily injuries by a group of persons”).

On 10 October 2007 the investigator of the UVD terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr Yu.T ., Mr V.T. and Mr A.K. for the lack of an event of a crime in their actions and suspended the investigation into the infliction of grave bodily injuries on the applicant for a failure to identify a suspect. The applicant challenged the decision of 10 October 2007 before a court.

On 28 January 2008 the district court declared the decision of 10 October 2007 unlawful for the reason that the investigator had failed to question a number of witnesses and to organise witnesses ’ confrontation and ordered that the omissions in question be remedied.

On 8 February 2008 the criminal proceedings related to infliction of grave bodily injuries on the applicant were resumed.

Between 31 March and 10 April 2008 the Krasnodar regional forensic expert bureau carried out an expert examination of the case materials related to the applicant ’ s injuries and established that the applicant had sustained grave bodily injuries possibly inflicted on 28 October 2002.

On 27 April 2008 the investigator of the UVD again terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr Yu.T ., Mr V.T. and Mr A.K. The investigation into the infliction of the grave injuries on the applicant by an unidentified suspect was suspended.

On 24 July 2008 the decision of 27 April 2008 in the part related to suspension of the investigation was quashed.

On 15 August 2008 the district court examined the applicant ’ s complaint about the termination of the proceedings against Mr Yu.T ., Mr V.T. and Mr A.K. and declared the relevant part of the decision of 27 April 2008 unlawful for the reason that the investigator had not complied with the district court ’ s instructions given in its decision of 28 January 2008.

On 1 November 2008 the investigator of the UVD refused to accede to the applicant ’ s request to carry our certain investigative measures.

On 28 November 2008 the district court declared upon the applicant ’ s request the investigator ’ s refusal of 1 November 2008 unlawful. On the same date the district court delivered a ruling observing that the investigator of the UVD had failed to comply with its decisions of 28 January and 15 August 2008 and ordering that he notify the district court of measures taken to remedy the defects in the investigation within a month.

On 27 December 2008 the investigator of the UVD suspended the investigation into the infliction of grave injuries on the applicant for a failure to identify a suspect.

On 1 June 2009 the head of the UVD quashed the investigator ’ s decision of 27 December 2008 and ordered to take certain investigative measures.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains in essence under Article 3 of the Convention that the domestic authorities have failed to carry out an adequate investigation into his ill-treatment by private parties .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the domestic authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by private individuals, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see, with further references, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia , no. 32704/04 , § § 99 ‑ 104, 17 December 2009 )?

The parties are requested to submit an update of factual and/or legal developments in the investigation concerning infliction of grave bodily injuries on the applicant after 1 June 2009, if any.