Communicated on 3 September 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 65225/11 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich CHUBRYNIN against Russia lodged on 3 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Chubrynin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1982 and lived before his arrest in the town of Bolokhovo (Tula Region) .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 12 March 2011 at 3.50 a.m. the applicant was arrested by the police in Tula. He was dragged out of a car and brought to the Police Department of the Tula Region. He offered no resistance and did not try to escape. At the Department, his jacket was pulled up on his head and he was beaten up by unidentified police officers. He received numerous blows on his face, neck and back. Hot water was poured on his back. He was asked to admit his involvement in drug dealing but he denied that. During the beatings, the police officers allegedly planted four sachets in his pockets. The sachets were then seized by them. A personal inspection report ( протокол личного досмотр а ) of the applicant was drawn up in this regard at 4.30 a.m. A subsequent chemical examination revealed that the sachets contained 5.31 g of a mixed substance containing amphetamine (a psychotropic substance ).

Still on 12 March 2011, at 7 p.m., the applicant was brought to the investigator, Ms G., for questioning. Two hours later, at 9 p.m ., she drew up the protocol of his arrest. It appears that the applicant was then placed in a temporary isolation ward (“IVS”) a t the Police Department

On 15 March 2011 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ ‑ 71/1 of Tula, where he was examined by a health-care officer who recorded the following injuries: “hematoma of the upper left eyelid, traumatic lesion ( ушиб ) of the cervical spine, traumatic lesion of the lumbar spine”. He stated that the injuries had originated in the ill-treatment at the Police Department.

On an unspecified date the administration of the remand prison reported the incident to the competent authorities.

On 16 April 2011 Mr V., an investigator of the Tula Investigative Division of the Investigative Committee, issued a decision refusing to open a criminal case. According to the decision, the applicant stated that his injuries had been caused by the police officers during his arrest but he had no complaints in respect of that. His testimony was confirmed by the statements of the police officers involved in the arrest and the attesting witnesses thereto.

According to the applicant, he was not questioned by the investigator and did not make such statements. Because of his fears of the police officers responsible for the beating who had access to him in the remand prison during investigation, he did not make any complaints at that stage of the proceedings.

On an unspecified date the applicant was committed for trial before the Proletarskiy District Court of Tula (the District Court) . During the trial he repeatedly raised the issue of his alleged ill-treatment at the Police Department on 13 March 2011. He also complained about the absence of any documents in respect of his detention between 3.50 a.m. and 9 p.m.

Mr S., Mr T. and Mr Gond., the police officers, testified before the court that they arrested the applicant as a drug dealer on the basis of operative information . None of the police officers used any violence against the applicant . He attempted to escape but was stopped. His injuries could be inflicted by his apprehension. The attesting witnesses, Mr Grish . and Mr Gor ., confirmed their testimony.

The investigator, Ms G., stated that the applicant had no visible injuries or complaints when she questioned him in connection with his criminal case on 13 March 2011.

The witnesses Ms I. and Ms M. stated that they, along with the applicant, were in the car when he was arrested and were also taken to the Regional Police Department for questioning. They did not mention his attempt to escape. Ms I added that, being in the Department and waiting in the corridor for questioning, she had heard noise of beating and groans.

On 7 June 2011 the District Court convicted the applicant of illegal possession of the psychotropic substance at an especially large scale and sentenced him to five years ’ imprisonment. In the judgment, the court examined the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment by the police and found them unsubstantiated.

On 3 August 2011 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The appeal court also rejected the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment, referring to the results of the inquiry carried out by the prosecution authorities and findings of the District Court.

B. Relevant domestic law and international material

1. Medical examination before placement in detention

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter “the CPT”) has developed standards relating to the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. In its opinion, a medical examination, together with the right of access to a lawyer and the right to inform a third party of the fact of detention, constitute fundamental safeguards against the ill-treatment of detained persons which should apply from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, regardless of how it may be described under the legal system concerne d (apprehension, arrest, etc.) ( see the 2nd General Report of the European Committee for Prevention of Torture, CPT/ Inf /E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2013 , § 36) .

The Regulations of 31 December 1999 on health-care provision in IVS establishments (which entered into for ce by virtue of joint order no. 1115/475 of the Ministry of Interior and the Health Ministry) provide that all detainees must be seen by a health- care staff member within twenty ‑ four hours of their arrival (§ 9). If no medical staff are availabl e, a duty officer will screen the detainee for health problems and injuries upon arrival at the IVS. The results of the screening will be recorded in a medical register (§ 10). The internal regulations for remand prisons, endorsed by the Ministry of Justice (by virtue of o rder no. 189 of 14 October 2005) also provide for a medical check o f newly arrived prisoners (§ 16 ).

Paragraph 32 of the Instructions for Police Station Duty Officers, which entered into force on 1 April 2009 by virtue of order no. 248 of the Ministry of the Interior, stipulate that if an arrested person has any visible injuries when he or she is brought to the police station, they must be recorded and reported to a superior officer. Explanations as to their origin must be taken from the person concerned, who must be provided with medical assistance, if necessary. Injuries resulting from an act of violence must be recorded in a crime incident register.

2 . Recording of deprivation of liberty

The Instructions for police station duty officers of 1 April 2009 provide that newly arrived arrestees shall be recorded in the police station ’ s logbook of persons brought to it ( книга учета доставленных лиц ) ( § 6.4) . The logbook contains the following information: name and surname of the arrestee, his/her date of birth and place of residence , the name of the police officer who brought him/her to the police station and the reason thereof as well as the date and exact time of the arrival at the station and his/her release/transfer (Attachment 2 to the Instructions).

Article 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation ( CCrP ) provides that after a suspect is brought to the police station the record of his/her arrest shall be drawn up within three hours. The arrest record must include the date, time, place, grounds and reasons for the arrest. It should be signed by the suspect and the person who made the arrest. The record shall contain a note that the procedural rights under the CCrP had been explained to the suspect.

3. CPT Report on Russia

The CPT ’ s report on its visit to Russia from 21 May to 4 June 2012 ( CPT/ Inf (2013) 42 of 17 December 2013 ) conta ined the following observations (references omitted):

“ ... 2. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment

21. In Moscow and Saint Petersburg , most of the detained persons interviewed had no complaints about the manner in which they were treated by law enforcement officials. However, the delegation did receive some allegations of recent physical ill-treatment by members of law enforcement agencies in both cities. The ill-treatment alleged (consisting mainly of punches, kicks and baton blows) was mostly said to have occurred at the time of apprehension by plainclothes operational officers, after the apprehended persons had been brought under control... In certain cases, the alleged ill-treatment was said to have been inflicted at the time of the initial interviews by operational officers, with the purpose of extracting a confession or obtaining other information. In one such instance, which concerns Moscow North-Eastern Administrative District, the severity of the ill-treatment alleged was such that it could be considered as amounting to torture (i.e. extensive beating and asphyxiation with a plastic bag).

...

24. In all the regions visited , mention was also made of threats of being physically ill-treated or executed (the absence of recording of their detention being emphasised to the persons concerned), of being placed in a cell with prisoners referred to as “roosters” or of repercussions for family members (including possible ill-treatment).

...

27. In its report on the previous periodic visit in 2008, the CPT indicated that, if police ill-treatment remained unchallenged, it could easily become an almost accepted feature of operating police practice. The Committee again stressed the importance of driving change from the top.

A little less than four years later, notwithstanding the recent efforts to reform Internal Affairs structures, the frequency and consistency of the allegations received by the CPT ’ s delegation during the 2012 visit suggest that methods of severe ill-treatment/torture continue to be used on a frequent basis by police and other law enforcement officials , in particular outside Moscow city and Saint Petersb urg...”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was ill-treated by the police.

Under Article 5 he complains about unlawful arrest and detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. With reference to the applicant ’ s account of events of 12 March 2011, has he been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the police, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Has the investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment been thorough and effective?

The Government are requested to produce information concerning his medical condition on admission to the Police Department and materials of the investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment. In particular they are requested to produce documents related to the opening and closure of the investigation, witness testimonies, medical and other relevant documents.

2 . Did the applicant ’ s detention at the Police Department on 12 March 2011 comply with a procedure prescribed by law, as required by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? Was the applicant subjected to unacknowledged detention? Reference is made to the belated drawing up of the record of the applicant ’ s arrest.

The Government are requested to produce the record of the applicant ’ s arrest ( протокол задержания ), information from the Police Department ’ s logbook of arrested persons (книга учета доставленных лиц) in respect of the applicant, and other relevant documents.