Information Note on the Court’s case-law 191

December 2015

Lykova v. Russia - 68736/11

Judgment 22.12.2015 [Section III]

Article 3

Torture

Humiliating and intense ill-treatment inflicted to extract a confession during unrecorded detention: violation

Article 2

Article 2-1

Life

Responsibility of authorities for death of a man who was tortured while in unrecorded detention: violation

Facts – The applicant’s son (“the victim”) and a friend of his were taken to a police station on suspicion of theft. A few hours later the victim threw himself out of a window on the fifth floor. He died in hospital the next day.

The victim’s cousin, not having heard from him, finally found his body at the morgue. Noting multiple bodily injuries, she sought the opening of an investigation, but was unsuccessful. The district investigator found that the death and physical injuries had been caused by the fall. Another in vestigator from the same department also refused to open a criminal investigation against the police officers in question. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision.

In the meantime, a criminal investigation was opened in respect of the victim’s friend (“the witness”). He indicated during an interview that he had witnessed the ill-treatment of the victim and accused one of the police officers, in particular, of being r esponsible.

Law – Article 3 ( substantive aspect ): Relying on the witness’s statements, the applicant presented a consistent and precise story of the ill-treatment her son had allegedly sustained. In addition, the autopsy report showed numerous injuries tha t had not been seen on his arrival at the police station.

The Government interpreted the pathologist’s report as attributing all the injuries to the fall from the fifth floor and thus as refuting the allegations of ill-treatment. The report showed, however , that the injuries in question had nothing to do with the fall. Moreover, the Court did not see any reason to call into doubt the witness’s testimony, which was consistent with the nature and position of the injuries identified on the victim’s body. In ad dition, the witness had given the competent national authorities, before the filing of the autopsy report, several possibilities of verifying her allegations. But her complaints and offers of testimony had each time been ignored by the authorities.

Lastly, the applicant’s version was all the more credible as the authorities had never explained the cause of the victim’s injuries, other than those related to the fall.

Moreover, the decision relating to the closure of the investigation was based on statements containing clear contradictions, especially with regard to the chronology of events.

In those circumstances, the Government’s explanations had not been sufficient in suggesting that the injuries not attributable to the fall had a cause other than ill-treatment inflicted in the police station. Consequently, the Court found it established th at the victim had been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

As regards the intensity of the acts of violence, according to the witness’s version the police had beaten the victim by banging his head against hard surfaces several times. That had been accompanied by sessions of asphyxiation, also causing acute pain and suffering. The victim had, lastly, been humiliated, sustaining this treatment in a state of undress and with his hands and feet tied.

The treatment complained of had taken place during a period of unrecorded detention, which could only have worsened the vulnerability of the victim, who was held in the police station and deprived for several hours of the procedural safeguards normally afforded to persons in custody.

In addition, the ill-treatment had been inflicted with the aim of forcing him to confess.

Having regard to the foregoing, the Court was convinced that the acts of violence inflicted on the victim, taken as a whole, had provoked “acute” pain and suffering and had been particularly serious and cruel in nature. Such acts had to be regarded as acts of torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 2 ( substantive aspect ): The present case did not contain anyt hing to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the victim’s death had been caused intentionally by agents of the State. It had been established that he had thrown himself out of the window. It remained to be determined whether the authorities could be held li able for his fall.

The Court took the view that it was not necessary to establish whether or not the authorities who had arrested the victim had information on the existence of personal circumstances that might drive him to suicide – information which shou ld, if so, have made them take steps to prevent such an act. The victim’s vulnerability at the time of his fall was related above all to the torture being inflicted on him by the police officers. The Court had already established that the victim had been t ortured in the presence of the witness. It could not be excluded that the victim had been tortured afterwards as well, since the witness testified that he had heard him screaming in the ensuing hour. During that time, moreover, the victim had confessed, an d had then jumped out of the window. The victim had entered the building alive and had died after falling from the fifth floor of the police station. The Court found, first, that the Government’s version of suicide for personal reasons was not satisfactory , as it had not taken account of the established fact that the applicant was being tortured or of his unrecorded detention. Secondly, the Court could not draw any decisive conclusion from the investigation, which it had found to be ineffective. Accordingly , having found that neither the Government nor the national investigation had provided a satisfactory explanation for the victim’s death, the Court took the view that the Russian authorities had been responsible for the victim’s fatal fall.

It was not for the Court, in this case, to discuss the individual liability of any police officers present for negligence in view of their insufficient supervision of the victim’s conduct. The Court was thus of the view that the Russian authorities had to be held respons ible, having regard to the Convention, for the death of the victim, who had been tortured during a period of unrecorded detention, when he was deprived of all the rights normally afforded to persons in custody.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

The Cour t also found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the deprivation of the victim’s liberty, and a violation of Articles 2 and 3 in their procedural aspect, given that the criminal investigation condu cted following the victim’s death and the allegations of ill-treatment had not fulfilled the requisite condition of “effectiveness”.

Article 41: EUR 45,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 8,500 in respect of pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/E uropean Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes