Communicated on 30 June 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 5659/10 Aleksey Valeryevich REZNIKOV against Russia lodged on 30 December 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksey Valeryevich Reznikov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1985 and is serving a prison term in the Krasnodar Region.

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

In the evening on 2 July 2008 the applicant was arrested by police officers E., N. and A., who wore plain clothes. He was then taken to Tsentralnyy police station in the town of Krasnodar. During his transport the applicant sustained blows to the back of his head and his sides.

In the police station officer E. stroke the applicant on his left cheek. Then this and other officers inflicted numerous blows to the applicant ’ s head. Officer N. hit him on his chest. All this time the applicant remained handcuffed. He then received several blows to his sides and arms. An electroshock was used against him (under his right knee and then to his back, loin and fingers).

Allegedly, the applicant was forced to make a confession in relation to a criminal offence (causing bodily injuries resulting in the victim ’ s death). Allegedly, he was then taken to the crime scene and was told the details of the events.

It appears that the applicant was then taken back to the police station. Allegedly, he had to sleep, being seated in a chair to which he remained handcuffed during the night.

On 3 July 2008 a peace justice sentenced the applicant to ten days of administrative detention for resisting the arrest (Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences).

On 3 July 2008 the applicant made a confession ( явка с повинной ).

At or around 5 p.m. on 3 July 2008 the applicant had an interview with investigator P. It appears that a lawyer was present during the interview.

On 8 July 2008 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, who recorded several injuries on the applicant ’ s body. It appears that the applicant told the expert that he had fallen off his motorcycle five days before. It also appears that police officers were present during this interview.

On 11 July 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Krasnodar Investigations Department, alleging ill-treatment.

By a decision of 14 July 2008 an investigator of this Department refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.

On 16 July 2008 the applicant ’ s mother lodged a complaint with the Tsentralnyy district prosecutor.

On 25 August 2008 the decision of 14 July 2008 was quashed. On the same day, a new refusal to prosecute was issued.

The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal. On 8 October 2008 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar declared it unlawful.

On 3 November 2008 a new refusal was issued. It was annulled on 20 November 2008 by the supervising officer.

On an unspecified date, the applicant was interviewed by the officer who carried out the inquiry into his ill-treatment complaint.

On an unspecified date, the criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial before the District Court.

By judgment of 4 May 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of causing bodily injuries resulting in the victim ’ s death. The applicant was sentenced to nine years ’ imprisonment. The court relied on the applicant ’ s admission made after the arrest and the interview record with the investigator. The court declared this evidence admissible, referring to the testimonies by investigator P. and three arresting officers, who all affirmed that no ill-treatment had been inflicted on the applicant.

On 5 May 2009 an investigator issued a new refusal to prosecute the police officers.

On 15 July 2009 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment against the applicant. The appeal court stated that the applicant had been informed of his right to remain silent; he had then been interviewed in the presence of a lawyer; they had not raised (during the interview) any allegation of ill-treatment.

On 20 July 2009 the supervising officer annulled the refusal of 5 May 2009.

On 22 July 2009 an investigator issued a new refusal to prosecute on account of the absence of a corpus delicti of the crimes under Articles 285 (excessive exercise of power), 286 (abuse of power) and 302 (compulsion to testify) of the Criminal Code.

Following another resumption of the inquiry, on 7 May 2010 an investigator issued a refusal to prosecute under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was tortured in a coercive environment and that there was no effective investigation.

The applicant also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was convicted with reference to his confession obtained under torture.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.1. Was there a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged torture?

In addressing the above question the parties are requested to deal, inter alia , with the following points:

(a) Once in the hands of the authorities:

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

(ii) Was he given the possibility of informing a family member, friend, etc. about his detention and his location and, if so, when?

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

(iv) Was he given access to a doctor and, if so, when and was his medical examination conducted out of the hearing and out of sight of police officers and other non ‑ medical staff?

(b) Where was the applicant held between 2 and 4 July 2008? Was the applicant given access to a lawyer during this period of time (please, submit the relevant documents)?

1.2. Did the applicant ’ s allegations give rise to an effective investigation ? In particular:

(a) When did the authorities become aware or ought to be aware of the presence of injuries on the applicant ’ s body? Did the arresting officers make reports concerning use of force during the applicant ’ s arrest? When did the authorities start a preliminary inquiry ( доследственная проверка )?

(b) Was a forensic medical examination ( судебно-медицинская экспертиза ) carried out in order to establish, inter alia , harm to the applicant ’ s health and the possible origin and time of infliction of his injuries? Was it carried out speedily?

(c) Was the effectiveness of the inquiry undermined in the absence of a decision to initiate criminal proceedings ( возбуждение уголовного дела ) in reply to the applicant ’ s allegations (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09 , §§ 129-140, 2 4 July 2014)?

(d) Was the effectiveness of the inquiry adversely affected by narrowing its scope to the crimes under Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code rather than under its other provision s directly relating to causing bodily harm, for instance?

(e) Which officers from which public authoritie s were involved in the inquiry into the applicant ’ s complaints of ill-treatment? Were they independent of the persons who were allegedly implicated in the applicant ’ s ill ‑ treatment? In particular, was there hierarchical, logistical, organisational or another interdependence between the inquiring authorities, on one hand, and officers E., N. and A. and investigator P., on the other? What operational and other activities did they carry out in the course of the above inquiry?

(f) Did the authorities provide a plausible explanation for the applicant ’ s injuries?

Having regard to Article 38 of the Convention, the respondent Government are requested to submit a copy of the file(s) relating to the preliminary inquiry in relation to the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment; the applicant ’ s confession statement, the interview record of 3 July 2008 and the record of the crime scene inspection.

2. Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the use made of the applicant ’ s confession statement ( явка с повинной ) and his admissions made during the interview and the crime scene inspection on 3 July 2008? Were the applicant ’ s right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination violated in the present case?