FIRST SECTION

Application no. 23625/06 Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich ZARUBINSKIY against Russia and 6 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. 23625/06 Zarubinskiy v. Russia

3. On 3 April 2000 between 12 noon and 1 p.m. the applicant and his acquaintance Mr Sh. were apprehended in front of his apartment by three police officers Mr K., Mr G., and Mr Ya. The police officers without identifying themselves handcuffed the applicant and informed him that he is arrested on suspicion of distribution of pornographic materials. The applicant and Mr Sh. were shown a videocassette and requested to identify it, however they were not able to do so. The applicant requested a defense counsel to be present.

4. The police officers ordered the applicant to provide them with the keys to his apartment in order to do a search, but he refused. Two of the policemen approached the applicant and rapidly lifted his arms (handcuffed behind his back) causing him to fall on his knees from the sharp pain. The keys were taken from the applicant ’ s pocket and Mr G. entered the apartment.

5. The applicant was taken to the stairwell, where an investigator Mr Gr. and police officer Mr M. seized his identity papers and the wallet. They also informed the applicant that he is suspected of distribution of pornographic materials. He was once again requested to identify a videocassette, however he was not able to do so.

6. While being taken out of the building the applicant requested the policeman Mr Ya. to loosen the handcuffs because the tight lock caused pain and blueness to his hands. In response Mr Ya. hit the applicant ’ s hands causing the handcuffs to lock tighter.

7. The applicant and Mr Sh. Were taken to Kuzminki Police Department of Moscow, where they were placed in separate interrogation rooms. The applicant was advised by police officers to write a confession; however he refused and requested a lawyer to be present.

8. After approximately half an hour the applicant with his hands cuffed in the front was taken to another room, where four policemen were present. These policemen unexpectedly attacked him and started beating the screaming applicant with hands and feet demanding confession. Apart from hands and feet the applicant was beaten with a truncheon on his head through a fur hat put on him.

9. When the beatings were stropped the investigator wrote himself the applicant ’ s alleged confession and made the applicant sign each page. The applicant requested medical assistance, but was threatened with beating on the genital area.

10. Subsequently, the applicant and Mr Sh. were taken by policemen Mr M. and Mr Ya. to the hospital, where the latter procured a medical certificate recording slight swelling on the shank. Mr Ya. informed the applicant that he would be prosecuted for resisting a police officer. The applicant was not attended by a doctor.

11. Later the applicant was brought back to his apartment where a search was conducted by the policemen Mr G. and Mr K. in presence of two witnesses. The applicant raised his clothes to attract attention of the witnesses to his injuries. After the search was finished he was taken to the Kuzminki Police Department of Moscow in the late evening.

12. During the night the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention facility IVS Kuzminki where his injuries were discovered by the officer on duty. On 4 and 7 April 2000 the administration of the temporary detention facility ordered medical examinations of the applicant in Traumatology Department of the Diagnostic Centre No. 3 of Moscow. He was diagnosed with contusion of the soft tissues of the back and closed fracture of the ninth left rib.

13. The applicant alleges that the investigator Mr Gr. did not inform anyone, including supervising prosecutor, about his detention in the termporary facility. After the prosecutor was informed of the detention by the applicant ’ s relative, the applicant was transferred to unspecified pre ‑ trial detention facility on 13 April 2000.

14. In 15 April 2000 the applicant once again visited the traumatology department and after radiography was diagnosed with contusion of the chest, pain in the chest, spreading haematomas, and possible sternum fracture.

15. In summer 2000 the pre-trial investigation of the applicant ’ s actions was terminated, because he was absolved of criminal responsibility under the general amnesty.

16. On unspecified date the applicant complained to the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Yugo-Vostochniy Administrative District of Moscow about the ill-treatment by police.

17. On 26 July 2000 he was notified by the deputy prosecutor of Yugo¬Vostochniy Administrative District of Moscow that criminal investigation against the policemen was initiated.

18. Between July 2000 and January 2006 the criminal investigation of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by police officers was terminated and resumed at least nine times. The decisions to resume investigation were taken by the superior prosecutors or the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow due to failure of the investigators to conduct necessary investigative actions.

19. On 20 January 2006 the investigator of the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Yugo-Vostochniy Administrative District of Moscow issued the decision to terminate criminal investigation of the alleged ill-treatment because the medical evidence and witnesses ’ testimonies did not convincingly demonstrate that the suspected policemen had committed any crime. The applicant complained about the decision to court.

20. On 12 January 2007 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow after review of the criminal case-file dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as unsubstantiated. The lower court ’ s decision was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 28 March 2007.

2. 31231/06 Lyupaev v. Russia

21. The applicant was suspected by investigation authorities of committing together with Mr S. an aggravated robbery facilitated by aggravated murder of two persons.

22. He alleged that on the night of 20-21 June 2001 he was awaken by the sound of breaking window glass and knocks on the door. The persons behind the door identified themselves as policemen. The applicant was ordered to lie down on the floor and his cohabiting partner was ordered to open the door. Upon entry to the apartment the policemen allegedly started beating the applicant.

23. At 1 a.m. on 21 June 2012 the applicant and his partner were brought to Zheleznodorozhniy District Police Department of Yekaterinburg. The applicant alleges that in room 208 of the Department the policemen without giving any explanations handcuffed him and started beating him with hands, feet, truncheons, and shotgun butts. After approximately one hour of beating, the applicant was asked what were his reasons for committing the crimes. The applicant denied the accusations and requested presence of a defence counsel. He claims that subsequently he was beaten once again for the refusal to incriminate himself.

24. In the early morning of 21 June 2001 the policemen brought to the room in which the applicant was kept two unspecified young men to certify a confession. However, the two young men were removed after they noticed that the applicant was beaten and that the policeman Mr A. was drafting the confession himself.

25. On the same day the applicant was provided with a defense counsel, who allegedly noticed the injuries and lodged a formal complaint with the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Zheleznodorozhniy District of Yekaterinburg.

26. Subsequently an attempt was made to transfer the applicant to temporary detention facility Zheleznodorozhniy IVS in Yekaterinburg; however, the staff of the facility refused to accept the transfer without a medical certificate listing the existing injuries. The applicant was taken to the emergency ward of Hospital No. 36 of Yekaterinburg, where a medical certificate was issued. The full text of the certificate read:

“Diagnosis: bruising, tissue hematoma. More complete information is not available.”

27. It appears that afterwards the applicant was transferred to the Zheleznodorozhniy IVS.

28. On 22 June 2001 the applicant felt sick and the ambulance was called. The ambulance records show that he was diagnosed with traumatic brain injury, alcohol in blood, and was taken to Hospital No. 24 of Yekaterinburg. The applicant alleges that after the ambulance crew had left the hospital premises he was immediately taken back to the detention facility. On the same date pre-trial detention of the applicant was ordered by a court.

29. On 23 June 2001 the applicant was transferred to a pre-trial detention facility SIZO No. 1 of Yekaterinburg. During the transfer it was recorded that he had injuries, i.e. bruising of the left thigh and lower leg, which he sustained outside of the pre-trial detention facility.

30. On 17 October 2002 the Sevrdlovsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and murder and sentenced him to twenty years ’ imprisonment. The trial court took note of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, however after inquiry dismissed them as unsubstantiated. Nevertheless it excluded the applicant ’ s confession from the evidence in the criminal case, since the confession was obtained with procedural flaws.

31. On 7 August 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation annulled the conviction and remanded the case to the trial court.

32. On 23 April 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court repeatedly dismissed the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment and convicted him of aggravated robbery and murder. On 27 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation annulled the conviction due to a number of procedural and substantive flaws. The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court used the applicant ’ s confession as evidence, while it was previously excluded from the list evidence in the criminal case and thus violated the domestic law. A re-trial was ordered.

33. On 28 February 2005 the Sverdlosvk Regional Court upon the motion of the defense excluded the applicant ’ s confession from evidence in the criminal case and proceeded to trial.

34. On 23 June 2005 the Sverdlosvk Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and murder and sentenced him to nineteen years ’ imprisonment. The trial court did not find it necessary to scrutinize the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, since the confession allegedly obtained under duress was excluded from evidence. On 7 December 2005 the conviction was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

3. 40393/06 Klepalov v. Russia

35. On 19 March 2005 a criminal investigation of Mrs B. ’ s death was initiated by an investigator in the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Kamenskiy District, Sverdlovsk Region.

36. On the same day in the evening the applicant was apprehended by police officers on suspicion of committing the murder of Mrs B. and taken to Kamenskiy District Police Department.

37. On 20 March 2005 at 3.20 a.m. he was formally arrested for commission of an administrative offence (disorderly conduct).

38. The applicant alleged that subsequently four police officers unlawfully used force to extract from him self-incriminating statements. He was kept handcuffed throughout the day and beaten on his hands, legs, chest, and waist, as well as strangled by a plastic bag placed over his head. He was threatened against mentioning the beatings during formal interrogations.

39. Between 6.45 p.m. and 9.10 p.m. the applicant was interrogated in presence of his defense counsel by Mr P., a deputy prosecutor of Kamenskiy District. The applicant submitted that he did not complain about an unlawful use of force, because Mr P. was a witness to him being beaten by the police but did not intervene.

40. At 10 p.m. he was transferred to temporary detention facility Kamensk-Uralskiy IVS. It was recorded that the applicant had bruising on his chest during the transfer.

41. In the night of 21 March 2005 the applicant lost conscious in his cell and was taken by ambulance to Hospital No. 2 of Kamensk-Uralskiy. In the hospital he was provided with necessary medical treatment, his injuries were recorded, and his head and chest were radiographed. The hospital informed the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Kamenskiy District that the applicant had contusion of chest, bruises on his chest, hematomas in parietal region, and contusion of waist.

42. On the same day the applicant sent a complaint regarding alleged ill-treatment to the Prosecutor ’ s Office of the Kamenskiy District. Neither on this day nor later did he inform the investigator or his defense counsel about this complaint.

43. On 30 March 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Kamenskiy District Ms Ye. after an inquiry refused to institute criminal proceedings, because it was concluded that the applicant sustained his injuries by falling from the bunk bed in short-term detention cell of the Kamenskiy District Police Department. It appears that the applicant was informed about this decision only in September 2005 and appealed against it.

44. On 7 October 2005 the Sinarskiy District Court of Kamensk¬Uralskiy concluded that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was unfounded, because during the inquiry the deputy prosecutor questioned only the policemen accused of ill-treatment, but not the applicant and thus deprived him of an opportunity to effectively present his allegations. The court ordered the decision to be annulled and the inquiry to be resumed.

45. However, on 25 October 2005 the Kamenskiy District Court of Sverdlovsk Region scheduled the trial hearing and refused to exclude the applicant ’ s confession from the evidence in the criminal case. The court reasoned that there was no proof that it was obtained under duress.

46. On 9 November 2005 the applicant was convicted of aggravated robbery with violence and sentenced to nine years ’ imprisonment. The trial court took note of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, however dismissed them as unsubstantiated. On 29 March 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.

47. On 11 April 2008 the inquiry into allegations of ill-treatment was resumed and appears to be still pending.

4. 42265/06 Neyumin v. Russia

48. On 25 October 2004 at 6 p.m. the applicant was apprehended by police on suspicion of murder of a woman and taken to Verkh-Isetskiy District Police Department of Yekaterinburg where he was kept until 5.40 a.m. on 27 October 2004.

49. Between 6 p.m. on 25 October 2004 and 12 midnight on 26 October 2004 the police officers used force to extract confession from the applicant. He was beaten on various parts of the body with hands and feet, a gas mask was put over his head and the airflow was blocked, electric shock was applied to his body. The applicant stayed handcuffed and blindfolded at all times. The applicant maintained that he was only an eyewitness to the murder, but around midnight agreed to sign a confession, which was dictated to him.

50. During the night he was questioned as a suspect. The applicant demanded presence of Mrs P. a defense counsel, but the request was ignored.

51. On 26 October 2004 at 8 a.m. the applicant ’ s relatives reached the agreement with Mrs P. to represent the applicant in his defence. The investigator Mr K. was immediately notified of the fact. The investigator informed Mrs P. that the applicant was detained in temporary detention facility IVS of Yekaterinburg, however he was not transferred there until 5.40 a.m. on 27 October 2004.

52. The applicant arrived at the temporary detention facility with a medical certificate from Traumatology Department No. 2 in GKB No. 36 of Yekaterinburg. The certificated listed his injuries, i.e. epithelised thermal burns on both forearms, scratches, bruising of the back, abrasions of the nose and forehead. The existence of injuries and presence of the medical certificate was recorded by the medical staff of the temporary detention facility upon the applicant ’ s arrival at 5.40 a.m. on 27 October 2004.

53. On the same day the applicant met his legal counsel and informed her in presence of the investigator of the use of force by policemen in order to extract confession. Later he was arraigned and his pre-trial detention was ordered by Verkh-Isetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg.

54. Later on the same day during his interrogation as an accused, the applicant in presence of his defense counsel renounced his previous statements as made out of fear of use of violence and informed the investigator of the failure to provide him with a lawyer from the time of arrest and to notify his relatives about it.

55. On 28 October 2004 the applicant was transferred to pre-trial detention facility SIZO No. 1 of Yekaterinburg. The medical staff of the facility examined the applicant and recorded the following injuries: epithelised thermal burns on both forearms, scratches, bruising of the back of the chest, abrasions of the nose and forehead. The medical records of the applicant show that he underwent treatment in the medical ward of the facility.

56. Between October 2004 and February 2006 at least seven complains were lodged by the applicant and his defense counsel Mrs P. with the Prosecutor ’ s Offices of Verkh-Isetskiy District of Yekaterinburg and of Sverdlovsk Region.

57. Mrs P. also filed a motion for medical expert examination of the applicant in order to verify his allegations of ill-treatment. On 28 October 2004 the investigator Mr K. ordered the expert examination, but the applicant was sent to it only on 17 December 2004. The expert examination report stated that the applicant had two scars on his right forearm, one scar on his left forearm, and one scar on his left wrist and concluded that these scars were the healed wounds.

58. On 26 December 2005 the applicant was convicted of murder by Verkh-Isetskiy Distict Court of Yekaterinburg and sentenced to nineteen years ’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 22 March 2006. The courts took note of the applicant ’ s allegations, but dismissed them as unsubstantiated, because there was no proof that the injuries had been sustained by him in police custody.

59. On 10 February 2006 the investigator Mr Sh. in the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Verkh-Isetskiy District after an inquiry refused to institute criminal proceedings on the applicant ’ s allegations. On 17 May 2006 the decision was annulled by the Verkh-Isetskiy Distict Court of Yekaterinburg and further investigative actions were ordered.

60. On 19 June 2006 after the further inquiry the investigator Mr Sh. in the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Verkh-Isetskiy District repeatedly refused to institute criminal proceedings. The applicant complained against the decision to court.

61. On 20 November 2006 the Verkh-Isetskiy Distict Court of Yekaterinburg terminated proceedings on the applicant ’ s complaint on res judicata grounds, referring to the fact that the allegations were already examined during the trial and appeal proceedings leading to the applicant ’ s conviction. On 13 December 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the lower court ’ s decision on appeal.

5. 47641/06 Grebennikov v. Russia

62. At 1 a.m. on 13 February 2005 the applicant was arrested by police for disorderly conduct and taken to Kotovskiy Town Police Department, Volgograd Region.

63. On 14 February 2005 the applicant was questioned by policemen about the robbery of Mrs S. on 7 February 2005. The applicant denied his complicity in that crime and requested a lawyer. In order to extract confession the policemen had put a gas mask over his head and blocked the airflow and repeatedly hit him on his head with a plastic bottle filled with water. The applicant did not confess.

64. On 15 February 2005 the applicant was fined 100 Russian roubles (2,5 euros) for disorderly conduct.

65. On 16 February 2005 at 22 p.m. he was released, but immediately apprehended again at the entrance of the Kotovskiy Town Police Department. Four policemen took the applicant by car to the forest where he was informed that he must either sign the confession or “he would not be found”. In the forest the applicant was stripped of his clothing, heat by a metal bar, and dragged on the ground by the car to which he was tied. Late in the night the applicant agreed to sign the confession.

66. Around 5 a.m. on 17 February 2005 he was taken back to the Kotovskiy Town Police Department, cleaned, and placed in a cell. The applicant requested an ambulance call, because he had a head wound and fractured nose, but his request was denied.

67. Between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. the applicant was released from detention and went home, where an ambulance was called by his mother. Painkillers were administered to him and hospitalization was advised, however the applicant refused it.

68. On 18 February 2005 the applicant complained about the ill¬treatment to the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Kotovskiy District and medical expert examination of his injuries was ordered.

69. On the same day the applicant was invited by the investigator Mr K. to come to the Kotovskiy Town Police Department. The investigator informed the applicant that he was suspected of robbery with violence. Subsequently, the applicant was interrogated in this respect in absence of a defense counsel, while his presence was requested. The applicant was released on his own recognizance.

70. On 21 February 2005 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. The report stated that the applicant ’ s injuries could had been inflicted by a hard blunt object and that they did not cause damage to health. The following injuries were listed: bruise on the right side of the forehead-temple area, bruise in front of the left ear, hematoma under the left eye, hematoma and bruise under the right eye, two round shaped bruises on the lower third of the right shoulder, dark-blue and blue-red bruises covering almost the whole right shoulder and forearm with internal stripe-shaped hematomas, blue bruise of the right carpus, and blue-green bruise under the right shoulder blade.

71. On the same day the applicant was taken to the Police Department and informed that another criminal investigation on the charge of fraud was initiated against him. He was advised by policemen that more charges would follow if he did not withdraw his ill-treatment complaint. Later that day the applicant had withdrawn his complaint in presence of the investigator from the Prosecutor ’ s Office who was invited to the Police Department.

72. On 25 February 2005 the applicant was provided with a defense counsel Mr Ka., who immediately requested postponement of all investigative actions in view of the applicant ’ s state of health. Mr Ka. highlighted in his motion that the applicant demonstrated signs of ill-treatment.

73. On 3 March 2005 at 6.25 p.m. the applicant was examined by a surgeon in Central District Hospital of Kotovo and his chest was radiographed. He was diagnosed with fractures of the ninth-tenth left ribs.

74. On 4 March 2005 the Kotovskiy District Court of Volgograd Region ordered pre-trial detention of the applicant.

75. On 5 March 2005 the applicant was charged with robbery with violence.

76. On 30 November 2005 the Kotovskiy District Court of Volgograd Region convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery with violence and sentenced him to 9 years ’ imprisonment. On 25 April 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the conviction with minor changes to qualification and sentencing. The courts took note of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, but summarily dismissed them.

77. In 2006 – 2007 the investigators in Prosecutor ’ s Office of Kotovskiy District, Volgograd Region at least five times refused to initiate criminal inquiry into the applicant ’ s allegations and each time the decisions were annulled by supervising prosecutors.

78. On 15 August 2007 an investigator in Prosecutor ’ s Office of Kotovskiy District once again refused to institute criminal proceedings, because it had not been proven that the injuries were inflicted by the policemen. The applicant complained to court.

79. On 4 October 2007 the Kotovskiy District Court of Volgograd Region dismissed the complaint as unsubstantiated and found the decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings reasonable. On 12 February 2008 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the lower court ’ s decision on appeal.

6. 49683/06 Gavshin v. Russia

80. On 14 January 2003 at 9 a.m. the applicant was taken to the Arsenyev Town Police Department, Primorskiy Region and placed in a short-term detention cell. At 3 p.m. he was questioned about the actions of Mr B. during the previous night, because the latter was suspected of murder. After the questioning the applicant was released.

81. On 16 January 2003 the applicant was again taken to the Town Police Department, where he was questioned in respect of the same events, and again released at 5 p.m.

82. Around midnight on 17 January 2003 the policemen broke into the applicant ’ s apartment and conducted a search without showing the applicant a search warrant. Subsequently, he was taken to the temporary detention facility IVS of Arsenyev and detained for two days on suspicion of burglary. Between 17 and 19 January 2003 the applicant was several times interrogated, but mostly in respect of murder allegedly committed by Mr B.

83. On 19 January 2003 after the two days in detention the applicant was released on his own recognizance. However in about 20 minutes he was once again apprehended by police and brought back to the Town Police Department, where he spent the next two days in short-term detention cell or interrogation rooms without being formally detained. The applicant was beaten by policemen in order to extract a statement incriminating Mr B. in murder. Being unable to obtain such statement they changed strategy and used beatings to force the applicant to incriminate himself in the murder.

84. On 21 January 2003 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. He was found to have abrasions of the nasal bridge, tip of the nose, right side of the lower lip, right side of the lower jaw, right earlobe, right shoulder, wrist, and hand, scratch on the left palm, abrasions on the right side of the back of the chest, left shoulder blade, and in the area of the first and second lower back spinal disks. It was estimated that the injuries were sustained one or two days before the examination.

85. On 22 January 2003 at 1.20 a.m. the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of murder. The arrest records showed that the applicant had no injuries. Later on that day he was examined by the resident medical staff of the temporary detention facility and diagnosed with contusion of the ribs, hematoma on the left side of the waist, frequent urination and blood in the urine. The applicant was advised to consult an urologist.

86. Between 22 p.m. on 22 January 2003 and 12 midnight 23 January 2003 the applicant was beaten, th reatened, and compelled to self ‑ incriminate two times. After midnight the applicant agreed to sign the confession.

87. On 23 January 2003 the applicant was again examined by the resident medical staff of the temporary detention facility and diagnosed with contusion of the ribs and hematoma on the left side of the waist.

88. During the preliminary investigation stage of proceedings the applicant recanted and complained about the ill-treatment to the supervising police authorities and prosecutors.

89. On 23 July 2003 the Internal Affairs Department of Primorskiy Region after an internal inquiry into allegations of ill-treatment found them to be unsubstantiated.

90. On 25 July 2003 the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Arsenyev refused to institute criminal inquiry into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill ‑ treatment, since they were found to be unsubstantiated. Four of the applicant ’ s complaints about the decision sent to superior prosecutors were dismissed.

91. Subsequently, the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Arsenyev refused to institute criminal inquiry into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment at least twice on 11 November 2005 and 6 April 2006.

92. On 14 April 2005 the Primorskiy Regional Court in jury trial convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and robbery with violence and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 3 May 2006 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal. The courts took note of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, but summarily dismissed them.

93. In 2008 the applicant challenged in court the refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued on of 6 April 2006 by the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Arsenyev. On 31 October 2008 the Arsenyevskiy Town Court of Primorskiy Region ruled in favor of the applicant and annulled the prosecutor ’ s decision, but the decision was annulled on appeal on 22 January 2009 by the Primorskiy Regional Court and the case was remanded.

94. On 30 April 2009 the Arsenyevskiy Town Court of Primorskiy Region after re-consideration of the applicant ’ s complaint dismissed it, but the decision was annulled on appeal on 11 December 2009 by the Primorskiy Regional Court and the case was remanded.

95. On 30 April 2010 the Arsenyevskiy Town Court of Primorskiy Region after repeated re-consideration of the applicant ’ s complaint dismissed it as unsubstantiated, and the decision was upheld on appeal on 8 February 2011 by the Primorskiy Regional Court.

96. In 2010 the applicant tried to institute private prosecution proceedings against the policemen, whom he accused of ill-treating him. However, his claims were dismissed by the Justice of the Peace for the 30 th Circuit of Arsenyev, Primorskiy Region on 3 and 19 August 2010 as falling out of statute of limitations. The applicant ’ s appeals were dismissed on 9 November and 23 December 2010 by the Arsenyevskiy Town Court of Primorskiy Region. The cassation appeals against the decisions were finally dismissed by the Primorskiy Regional Court on 29 March and 17 July 2012.

7. 1004/09 Dorofeyev v. Russia

97. On 11 June 2007 at 12 p.m. the applicant and his wife Mrs Gs. were apprehended by police on suspicion of murder and taken to Ustinovskiy District Police Department of Izhevsk. Between 11 and 14 June 2007 the applicant was deprived of sleep, food, water, and systematically ill-treated with the view of extracting a confession. He was beaten on the head, ears, and body with hands, feet, and chair back rails. A gas mask was put over his head and the airflow was blocked. Suffering from extreme pain the applicant several times lost conscious, but after each incident the beatings were resumed. It is alleged that the applicant ’ s wife was also subjected to beatings. After an alleged attempt of the police officers to rape the applicant and his wife he signed the confession.

98. On 13 June 2007 an investigator in the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Ustinovskiy District of Izhevsk ordered medical expert examination of the applicant. On the same day Mrs A. was appointed by investigation authorities as the applicant ’ s legal counsel.

99. On 14 June 2007 a medical expert Mr K. in the medical expert facility the BMSE of Udmurtiya Republic examined the applicant. It was found that the applicant had multiple elongated diagonal bruises of violet colour on the middle and lower parts of his back and on his waist. In the expert report it was concluded that they might have been caused by an impact of a blunt elongated object.

100. On the same day pre-trial detention of the applicant was ordered by Ustinovskiy District Court of Izhevsk. The court appointed Mr K. as the applicant ’ s legal counsel.

101. On 15 June 2007 the officer on duty in temporary detention facility IVS of Izhevsk recorded that the applicant had bruises on the back and swelling in the pubic area.

102. On the same day the applicant was attended by a surgeon in Municipal Hospital No. 3 of Izhevsk and diagnosed with contusion of the chest and multiple bruises on the body. The applicant ’ s chest had been examined by radiography and his abd omen by ultrasound scanning. No internal injuries were observed and it had determined that he could follow an out-patient treatment. The hospital informed the local police department of the external injuries sustained by the applicant.

103. On 19 June 2007 the defense counsel Mrs S. and Mrs N. were hired to represent the applicant and on 21 June 2007 they lodged a motion with the Prosecutor ’ s Office of Ustinovskiy District of Izhevsk indicating that the applicant had injuries and that medical expert examination is necessary. It is not clear whether they received any reply.

104. On 6 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Udmurtiya Republic convicted the applicant of incitement to murder and being an accessory to murder and sentenced him to nine years ’ imprisonment. The trial court took note of the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment, however summarily dismissed them with reference to inquiries by the prosecutors ’ office.

105. However the trial court also issued on the same day a judicial note ( частное постановление ) to direct attention of the prosecution authorities to defects in the criminal case. The note included the following statement:

“... Further it follows from the testimonies [of witnesses] and case materials that the witnesses Mrs Gs. [the applicant ’ s wife] and Mrs Go. were also apprehended [by police] and were kept between the evening of 11 June and the evening of 12 June 2007 on the premises of Ustinovskiy District Police Department of Izhevsk, where they were subjected to cruel treatment by police officers...”

106. The court separately noted that there appeared to have been a breach of the criminal investigation principles, namely respect of dignity, and a breach of the procedural legislation regulating apprehension and detention of persons. The prosecution authorities were ordered to report to the court on their actions within one month.

107. On 3 June 2008 the deputy prosecutor of Udmuritya Republic informed the Supreme Court of Udmurtiya Republic about the actions taken by his office, but no information was provided in respect of the allegedly “cruel treatment” and unlawful apprehension of Mrs Gs. and Mrs Go.

108. On 27 August 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal in part concerning commission of the crime and annulled in part concerning recovery of the victim ’ s funeral costs. The appeal court considered the applicant ’ s allegations of forced confession, but dismissed them with reference to participation of defense counsel in investigative actions and absence of ill-treatment complaints at the early stages of the investigation.

COMPLAINTS

109. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about ill ‑ treatment by police officers.

110. Mr Zarubinskiy, Mr Neyumin, Mr Grebennikov, and Mr Gavshin further complain under Article 3 about the lack of prompt and effective investigation of their allegations of ill-treatment by police.

111. Mr Klepalov, Mr Neyumin, Mr Gavshin, and Mr Dorofeyev also complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention about the use of the confessions extracted by force for their convictions.

112. The applicants further submitted a number of other complaints under Articles 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

The Government are invited to address the following questions in respect of all the applicants:

1. Did the applicants exhaust the available domestic remedies regarding their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention? (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, §§ 46-52, 24 July 2008)

2. Were the applicants subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment in police custody, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

In answering that question the Government are requested to address, inter alia , the following points:

(a) Did the police use force during apprehension of the applicants and, if yes, was such use of force reasonably justified?

(b) Were the applicants subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment by police officers in police stations and temporary detention facilities ( ОВД, РОВД, ИВС )?

(c) What activities involving the applicants were conducted by police after their apprehension? What confessions and/or statements ( явка с повинной; показания ) did the applicants give during that period (please submit relevant documents, in particular, written, audio or video records containing the applicant ’ s statements/confessions)?

(d) Were they given access to lawyers and, if so, when?

(e) Were they given access to medical services and, if so, when and were medical examinations conducted out of the hearing and out of sight of police officers and other non medical staff?

The Government are invited to address the following questions in respect of individual applicants:

3. Did Mr Zarubinskiy and Mr Gavshin comply with the six month time¬limit as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? Having regard to the course of the investigation of their allegations concerning ill ‑ treatment by police should they have co mplained to the Court before 17 April 2006 and 23 October 2006 respectively? If yes, during what period should they have lodged their respective applications?

4. Having regard to the questions above, did the national authorities ensure prompt and efficient investigation of Mr Zarubinskiy ’ s, Mr Neyumin ’ s, Mr Grebennikov ’ s, and Mr Gavshin ’ s allegations of ill-treatment by police as required by Article 3 of the Convention?

5. Were Mr Klepalov ’ s, Mr Neyumin ’ s, Mr Gavshin ’ s, and Mr Dorofeyev ’ s convictions based on the evidence obtained by police as a result of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? If yes, did the use of such evidence violate the applicants ’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In answering that question the Government are requested to address, inter alia , the following points:

(a) Were the applicants afforded a genuine opportunity to present before the domestic courts their claims regarding the use of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment with the aim of extracting their confessions?

(b) If yes, were these claims duly reviewed by the domestic courts during criminal proceedings against them?

6. The Government are further invited to submit the following documents in respect of all the applicants:

(a) a typed copy of the applicant ’ s medical records for the periods between their apprehension and conviction;

(b) full copies of the prosecutorial inquiry files regarding the applicants ’ allegations of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention;

(c) typed copies of the trial and appeal proceedings transcripts ( протоколы судебного заседания ) in the part concerning judicial review of the applicants ’ allegations of ill-treatment by police.

APPENDIX

ITMarkAppendix

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

23625/06

17/04/2006

Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich ZARUBINSKIY

09/04/1957

Moscow

31231/06

05/06/2006

Roman Vyacheslavovich LYUPAYEV

10/07/1973

Yekaterinburg

Aleksandr Georgiyevich SAVELYEV

40393/06

21/09/2006

Sergey Vladimirovich KLEPALOV

04/01/1969

Yekaterinburg

42265/06

18/09/2006

Anton Sergeyevich NEUYMIN

18/05/1979

Yekaterinburg

47641/06

28/09/2006

Aleksandr Nikolayevich GREBENNIKOV

04/09/1972

Surovikino

49683/06

23/10/2006

Andrey Yuryevich GAVSHIN

11/06/1961

Kharp

1004/09

03/12/2008

Andrey Vladimirovich DOROFEYEV

12/02/1973

Sarapul