Communicated on 16 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 52783/08 Leonid Vladislavovich PETROV against Russia lodged on 25 July 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Leonid Vladislavovich Petrov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1978 and is serving his sentence in Novocheboksarsk. He is represented before the Court by Mr A.V. Glukhov, a lawyer practising in Novocheboksarsk.

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

A. The applicant ’ s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

3 . On 6 October 2006 around 10 p.m. the applicant was apprehended in a street, together with his two friends, by a police patrol , handcuffed and taken to the Moskovskiy d istrict police department of Cheboksary ( Московский РОВД г . Чебоксары ). Three women, who were in a company of the applicant and his friends, witnessed their apprehension. At the police station the applicant was taken to a room on the second floor.

4 . According to the applicant, police officers Ch. and F., who were in a state of alcoholic inebriation, demanded that he confess to a theft and murder. They beat him up, punching him in the hea d, ears, body and legs, until 4 a.m. on 7 October 2006. Th en they allegedly handcuffed 40 ‑ kg weights to the applicant ’ s hands and continued beating him up near an open window. They allegedly threatened to rape the applicant, throw him out of the window and make it look as if the applicant attempted to flee or commit a suicide. The police officers then allegedly threw the applicant out of the window from the second floor.

5 . According to ambulance records, the p olice called the ambulance at 5.42 a.m. on 7 October 2 006. The ambulance arrived at 5.47 a.m. and provided the applicant with first aid. He was diagnosed with closed head injury, brain concussion and injuries of face soft tissues and both feet. He was taken to the Cheboksary ambulance hospital handcuffed in a stretcher.

6 . On 7 October 2006 in the evening the police informed the applicant ’ s mother about the incident. On 8 October 2006 she visited the applicant in the hospital. According to her submissions to the Court, the applicant lied with his left hand shackled to the bed and police officer A. sat by his side. The applicant ’ s chin was bruised, all of his teeth were loose, eyes swollen and left ear swollen and insensitive. He did not hear and could hardly talk. The applicant told his mother that he had been beaten up, with 40 ‑ kg weights shackled to him, and threatened by police officers in order to force him to confess to a theft and murder. He could not remember what had happened next. According to the applicant ’ s mother, the applicant ’ s two friends, apprehended together with him, had also been beaten up by police officers and released in the night with broken jaws and bruises.

7 . According to written submissions of the women, who were with the applicant and his friends and witnessed their apprehension on 6 October 2006, E., Ch. and P., the applicant had no bodily injuries before his arrest.

8 . Shortly after the applicant ’ s and his friends ’ apprehension, E. and Ch. arrived to the Moskovskiy d istrict police department of Cheboksary. They enquired about the applicant and his friends and were told by the on ‑ duty officer, P., that they had not been brough t to the police station. E. and Ch. decided to wait outside the building. While waiting, they met two young men, coming out of the police station, who told them that the applicant and his two friends, as described by E. and Ch., had been taken to the second floor of the police station, and that they had seen blood on the applicant. Then a police officer came out of the police station and told E. and Ch. that the applicant and his two friends would stay at the police station until morning. E. and Ch. left. Around 5 a.m. on 7 October 2006 E. received a phone call from the applicant ’ s two friends, who told her that they all had been beaten up by police officers, and that the applicant ’ s jaw had been broken and he had been taken to the hospital.

9 . According to P., who visited the applicant in the hospital on 7 October 2006, the applicant was shackled to the bed, his both legs were broken, he had multiple bodily injuries and bruises, his both eyes were bruised , one eye and one ear swollen, his teeth were loose and he could not talk.

10 . The applicant submitted his photographs taken at the hospital. On these photographs he is shackled to the bed.

11 . O n 10 October 2006 at 1 .10 p.m. the investigation department of the Moskovskiy d istrict police department of Cheboksary issued the first arrest record, according to which the applicant ( who was still in hospital ) was arrested at 1 p.m. on suspicion of having committed a theft and murder. On 11 October 2006 the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary dismissed the investigator ’ s request to place the applicant on remand on the grounds that the applicant was hospitalised and, due to multiple injuries, could not participate in the hearing personally. On 13 October 2006 at 2.15 p.m. the Moskovskiy district prosecutor ’ s office of Cheboksary issued the second arrest record, according to which the applicant (while still in hospital) was arrested at 2.10 p.m. on suspicion of having committed a theft and murder. On 13 October 2006 he was given access to a lawyer . On the same day the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary exten ded his arrest for 72 hours until 16 October 2006 . On 16 October 2006 his detention on remand was ordered by court. On 16 October 2006 the applicant was transferred from the hospital to the Cheboksary pre ‑ trial detention facility.

B. The applicant ’ s injuries

12 . According to the applicant ’ s medical records no. 23778/1191 of the Cheboksary ambulance hospital neuro-chirurgical department, the applicant was diagnosed with concomitant injury; closed head injury; brain concussion; bruises and abrasions of the head soft tissues, left hip and knee joints; fractures of the left heel bone and the right foot; and twist of toes on the right foot.

13 . On the basis of the examination of the applicant ’ s hospital records, ordered by an investigator of the Moskovskiy district prosecutor ’ s office, a forensic medical expert concluded on 14 December 2006 that information contained in the applicant ’ s medical records was undetailed (information on the injuries ’ exact localisation, their number and morphological characteristics was missing) and insufficient to determine the time and sequence of their origin. The expert found it impossible to determine whether the injuries could have originated as a result of the applicant having been punched and kicked or as a result of his having fallen from the height of the second floor. It was stated in the expert ’ s report that the applicant had not appeared for examination, asking to carry it out without his participation.

C. Pre-investigation inquiry into the applicant ’ s allegation s of police ill-treatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty

1. Refusal to open a criminal case

14 . On 11 October 2006 the applicant ’ s mother brought a complaint to the Chuvashia prosecutor ’ s office concerning her son ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment by the police officers and his unlawful deprivation of liberty .

15 . According to the police, the applicant ’ s injuries resulted from his own actions. In attempt to escape, the applicant had allegedly jumped on a table and out of the open window, while Ch. was arranging documents at his desk and F. was going to leave the room. The applicant was allegedly in a state of alcoholic inebriation. No weights had been shackled to him.

16 . The police version was checked, inter alia , by way of interview of police officers Ch. and F. in whose room the incident had happened. They had allegedly waited for an investigator in the applicant ’ s case, P., to interview the applicant who was on a police wanted list. They both denied the alleged ill-treatment. They submitted that the applicant had behaved inadequately, wrangling and brandishing his hands; they had handcuffed him to ensure his safety and avoid self-harm. They noted that the applicant had had criminal record; he had undertaken attempts to abscond from police in the past. Once he had tried to jump out of a window at a police station water closet; that incident had prompted the police to install iron bars on that window. They considered the applicant to be susceptible to suicide.

17 . The ambulance staff, A. and Y., who had provided the applicant with first aid, submitted that they had found the applicant on the asphalt handcuffed, without any weights.

18 . The police officer, A., who was instructed to ensure the applicant ’ s security at the hospital, submitted that the applicant had told him that he had jumped out of the window himself in attempt to abscond. The investigator in the applicant ’ s criminal case, P., provided similar statements.

19 . The room, where the applicant had been held after his apprehension on 6 October 2006, was inspected (which was mentioned for the first time in the refusal t o open a criminal case dated 25 April 2007); no evidence, such as 40-kg weights, or any other signs of the applicant ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment were found.

20 . The Cheboksary inter-district investigation division of the investigation department of the investigation committee at the Chuvashia prosecutor ’ s office ( Чебоксарский межрайонный следственный отдел следственного управления Следственного комитета при прокуратуре Российской Федерации по Чувашской Республике ) refused to open a criminal case into the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment twenty four times, pursuant to Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”), for the lack of elements of crime s under Articles 127, 285 , 286 , 299 and 301 of the Criminal Code in the acts of the police officers. It concluded that the applicant ’ s allegations had not been confirmed.

21 . The relevant decisions were issued on the dates, indicated below, and revoked by higher authorities within the Investigative Committee, as being unsubstantiated or unlawful, and investigators were ordered to rectify deficiencies in the inquiry process and undertake additional measures :

(i) refusal of 21 October 2006; revoked on 5 December 2006;

(ii) refusal of 12 December 2006; revoked on 13 December 2006;

(iii) refusal of 18 December 2006; revoked on 12 February 2007;

(iv) refusal of 17 February 2007; judicial review under Article 125 of the CCrP; revoked on 20 April 2007;

(v) refusal of 25 April 2007; judicial review under Article 125 of the CCrP; revoked on 9 October 2007;

(vi) refusal of 19 October 2007; revoked on 25 October 2007;

(vii) refusal of 6 November 2007; revoked on 22 November 2007;

(viii) refusal of 5 December 2007; revoked on 21 January 2008;

(ix) refusal of 31 January 2008; revoked on 26 February 2008;

(x) refusal of 7 March 2008; revoked on 12 March 2008;

(xi) refusal of 17 March 2008; revoked on 18 March 2008;

(xii) refusal of 28 March 2008; revoked on 7 April 2008;

(xiii) refusal of 8 April 2008; revoked on 21 April 2008;

(xiv) refusal of 21 April 2008; revoked on 12 May 2008;

(xv) refusal of 22 May 2008; revoked on 5 June 2008;

(xvi) refusal of 16 June 2008; revoked on 16 June 2008;

(xvii) refusal of 26 June 2008; revoked on 3 July 2008;

(xviii) refusal of 15 July 2008; revoked on 15 July 2008;

(xix) refusal of 25 July 2008; revoked on an unspecified date;

(xx) refusal of 7 August 2008; revoked on an unspecified date;

(xxi) refusal of 26 September 2008; revoked on an unspecified date;

(xxii) refusal of 9 October 2008; revoked on an unspecified date;

(xxiii) refusal of 27 October 2008; revoked on an unspecified date;

(xxiv) refusal of 2 December 2008; upheld by court as a result of a review under Article 125 of the CCrP.

22. In its last refusal to open a criminal case into the applicant ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment , issued on 2 December 2008, the Investigative Committee concluded that: (i) the applicant ’ s allegations of physical violence against him had not been confirmed; (ii) the applicant had jumped out of the window from the second floor himself, for personal reasons; (iii) his handcuffing at the police station and subsequent shackling to the bed at the hospital was necessary to prevent another attempt of escape from police, as he had already undertaken such attempts in the past.

23. As to the applicant ’ s allegations concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty, including his apprehension, detention at the police station and subsequent shackling to the bed at the hospital, the Investigative Committee noted, inter alia , that: (i) the applicant ’ s apprehension, taking to the police station and detention there on 6 and 7 October 2006 had been based on lawful grounds related to the applicant ’ s criminal prosecution; (ii) his detention at the police station for five hours was necessary for taking operative measures in relation to him; (iii) the applicant had been taken to the hospital due to his falling out of the window and the resultant injuries; (iv) he had been shackled to the bed at the hospital for the prevention of a new attempt of escape; and (v) the measures undertaken by the police officers between 6 and 11 October 2006 had not entailed a material breach of the applicant ’ s rights and lawful interests.

2. Judicial review of the investigating authority ’ s decisions

24 . Seve ral refusals, dated 17 February and 25 April 2007, and 2 December 2009, were reviewed by domestic courts pursuant to Article 125 of the CCrP. The applicant ’ s complaints concerning the two former refusals were allowed; the courts found that they were unlawful and lacked reasons ( decisions of 6 March and 13 September 2007, Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary ; the former decision upheld on appeal on 12 April 2007 by the Supreme Court of Chuvashia ). These refusals were then revoked by the higher authorities within the Investigative Committee.

25 . On 17 September 2009 the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the last refusal to open a criminal case of 2 December 2008. On 22 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Chuvashia quashed this decision on appeal and remitted the case to the first instance court for a new examination. In particular, the court noted that not all of the applicant ’ s arguments had been addressed.

26 . On 3 November 2009 the first-instance court re-examined and dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal , finding that the investigati ng authorities had rectified all deficiencies indicated by the higher investigati ng authorities and the courts, conducted all necessary investigati ve measures , and rendered a reasoned decision . On 10 December 2009 the higher court upheld this decision on appeal.

D. Disciplinary proceedings against police officers

27 . On 21 October 2006 the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Chuvashia held police officers Ch. and F. liable for leaving the applicant without sufficient supervision and security, in a room with an open window. Disciplinary measures were imposed on the police officers in the form of a serious reprimand ( строгий выговор ).

E. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

28 . On 8 February 2007 the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary convicted the applicant of theft, murder and gun possession, and sentenced him to imprisonment. According to the applicant ’ s representative, the applicant did not raise the complaint about his alleged ill-treatment in those proceedings.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers at the Moskovskiy d istrict police department of Cheboksary. He further complains under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 that the State failed to conduct an effective investigation into those events.

The applicant also complains under Article 5 of the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and held at the police station and subsequently at the hospital, handcuffed and in the presence of a police officer, without a relevant court order, which was issued only on 1 6 October 2006.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to:

(a) the applicant ’ s interview by police officers at the police department about his alleged involvement in crimes, before he was formally recognised as a suspect in criminal proceedings,

(b) the injuries found on the applicant thereafter ,

(c) and the forensic medical expert ’ s conclusions,

has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; Mikheyev v. Russia , no. 77617/01, § § 122- 36, 26 January 2006 ; a nd, among many other authorities, Polonskiy v. Russia , no. 30033/05, § § 122- 23, 19 March 2009; Gladyshev v. Russia , no. 2807/04, § 57, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia , no. 20212/05, §§ 53 ‑ 54, 56, 17 January 2012; A.A. v. Russia , no. 49097/08, § § 75, 77 and 80-81, 17 January 2012; Yudina v. Russia , no. 52327/08, § § 67-68, 10 July 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia , no. 22867/05, §§ 49-50, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia , no. 27610/05, § § 53-55, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia , no. 12102/05, § § 60-61, 4 April 2013; Nasakin v. Russia , no. 22735/05, § § 52-53, 18 July 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia , no. 33954/05, §§ 61 ‑ 62, 28 November 2013; Velikanov v. Russia , no. 4124/08, § 51, 30 January 2014) ?

2. Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicant ’ s injuries were caused (see Selmouni , cited above, § 87 , and Salman v . Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100 , ECHR 2000 ‑ VII )?

3 . Having regard to:

( a ) the investigative committees ’ refusals to open a criminal case and carry out investigation into the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment by the police,

(b) the revocation of those numerous refusals by the investigative committees ’ superiors as based on the incomplete pre ‑ investigation inquir ies,

(c) and the investigative committees ’ inability to carry out the investigative measures within the framework of the pre-investigation inquiries, e.g. confrontations, identification parades, searches,

was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no. 46956/09, §§ 125- 40, 24 July 2014)?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

5 . Was the applicant deprived of his l iberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did his deprivation of liberty between 6 and 16 October 2006 fall within paragraph (c) of this provision? For what reasons two arrest records, in which the applicant was recognised as a suspect in the same criminal proceedings, were issued on 10 and 13 October 2006?

6 . Was the applicant personally examined by a forensic medical expert? If not so, what were the reasons for carrying out a forensic medical examination in his absence? Were any additional forensic medical examinations ordered / conducted to ensure the applicant ’ s personal examination by an expert?

7. The Government are invited to submit documents containing the following information in respect of the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment in police custody:

(a) the time of his arrival and stay at the police department, the medical institutions (ambulance, hospital, forensic medical examination bureau, etc.), the temporary detention facilities (IVS), the pre-trial detention facilities (SIZO), where applicable;

(b) the applicant ’ s injuries and/or his state of health, as recorded in the places listed above in paragraph “a” (including, in particular, but not limited to, the documents concerning the applicant ’ s medical treatment in the Cheboksary hospital between 7 and 16 October 2006, a full copy of his medical records no. 23778/1191 , and all medical documents concerning the applicant ’ s state of health from the pre-trial detention facility, to which he was transferred after his treatment at the hospital) ;

(c) the applicant ’ s self-incriminatory statements or explanations to the police officers in any form, e.g. a “voluntary surrender and confession” ( явка с повинной ), an explanation, etc., if applicable;

(d) the time when the applicant was recognised as suspect in the criminal proceedings, informed of his rights as suspect, inform ed his famil y or other third parties about his detention , and had acce ss to a lawyer;

(e) the forensic medical experts ’ conclusions about the applicant ’ s injuries, investigator ’ s decision ordering the applicant ’ s forensic medical examination , applicant ’ s requests concerning the carrying out of the forensic medical examination in his absence , and explanations by the applicant and the police officers as to the origin of the injuries, on the basis of which the experts ’ opinion w as sought;

(f) the summary of the information from the above list (paragraphs from “a” to “e”) in respect of the applicant.

8. As regards the inquiry into the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment and the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Government are invited to submit:

(a) the numbered list of all decisions by investigating authorities in the applicant ’ s case in chronological order (name of the relevant authority, date, the ground for the refusal to open a criminal case, i.e. Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and – in relation to each decision – the relevant decision to revoke it or set it aside (with the name of the relevant authority, date, and the reason for the revocation or setting aside);

(b) the numbered list of all court decisions on the applicant ’ s appeals against the investigators ’ decisions in chronological order (court, date and outcome);

(c) copies of the refusals to open criminal proceedings of 15 and 25 July, 7 August, 26 September, 9 October and 27 October 2008, and decisions on their revocation , as well as decisions by the courts in the same order;

(d) copies of the judgment of 8 February 2007 of the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary , under which the applicant was convicted of theft, murder and gun possession , and the appeal judgment in relation to it, if any.