FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF BARONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 18032/19 and 9 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

28 September 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Baronin and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President , Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 7 September 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68 ‑ 73, 17 January 2023).

7. The applicants complained principally of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.

8. The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia , no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland , no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).

9. Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128 ‑ 40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland , no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.

10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and observes that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants, with the exception of the first applicant in application no. 33282/22, in respect of whom it finds only a violation of the procedural limb of that provision.

11. The applicants also submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see the attached table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 148, 22 May 2012, Ksenz and Others v. Russia , nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017, Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015, Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 53-56, 28 November 2017, Belugin v. Russia , no. 2991/06, §§ 69-71, 26 November 2019, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

12. Some applicants also submitted complaints under Article 6 § 3 (d) and Article 13 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it has already examined the main legal issues raised by the applicants in the present case and that accordingly there is no need to examine these complaints separately (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia , no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016, and Leonid Petrov v. Russia , no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).

13. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

14. Having regard to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see Ksenz and Others , cited above, § 120; and, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v.Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021; and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022), the Court considers it appropriate to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Factual information

Medical evidence of ill-treatment

Date of first complaint

Decision issued in response to complaint of ill ‑ treatment

Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP

Appeal decision

Information relating to conviction

Other complaints under well ‑ established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

18032/19

27/03/2019

Pavel Andreyevich BARONIN

1990Vanslova Yekaterina

Nizhniy Novgorod

At 8 p.m. on 14/05/2015 police officers of the Main Directorate for Extremism Prevention arrested the applicant in Moscow on suspicion of an extremism-related crime. Police officers subjected him to beatings, pushed him on the ground and bound his hands with metallic wire. He lay on the ground for several hours before being taken to a police station.

1) Notes from the IVS of the Southern Administrative Circuit of Moscow of 15/05/2015: bruises on the head, face, left part of the thorax and abrasions on his hand and left shoulder.

2) Extract from medical card no. 17237-C of 15/05/2015 by Moscow Hospital no.68: bruises on the head and thorax.

3) Certificate of hospitalisation between 22/06/2015 and 06/07/2015 by the Lubertsy town hospital no. 2: hearing loss on the left, condition after concussion.

4) Forensic medical examination act no. 1707м/1772 of 20/05/2016 by the Moscow Forensics Bureau no.2: multiple haematomas and abrasions on the head and face, bruises on his shoulders, hearing loss on the left side. The injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object. The exact time of infliction of the injuries could not be determined as the medical documents did not contain its morphological features.

On 16/05/2015 complaint during the hearing on measure of restraint / Several refusals to open a criminal case between 25/07/2015 and 14/11/2017, last one on 29/01/2019.

On 16/07/2018, 28/01/2019 and 22/03/2019 the Kuzminskiy District Court in Moscow dismissed the applicant’s appeals because the contested refusals had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors on 16/07/2018, 14/01/2019 and 14/03/2019 respectively.

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - Detention on remand has been pending since 22/07/2020 at least until 16/09/2022; detention orders issued by the Babushkinskiy District Court in Moscow, Moscow City Court,

2-nd Western Circuit Military Court, Military Court of Appeal/ specific defects - fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed

26,000

30426/19

03/06/2019

Pavel Andreyevich ZLOMNOV

1982Garsia Svetlana Dmitriyevna

St Petersburg

1) On 31/01/2018 the applicant was arrested by agents of the St Peterburg Department of the Federal Security Service (the FSB) and put in a minivan. During a forty-minute drive to the FSB premises, he was handcuffed, thrown on the floor of the car and was beaten; an officer repeatedly jumped on the prostrated applicant. Once on the FSB premises, the applicant was placed in a cell equipped only with a bench and was told to sit still; he was not given food or water. He remained in the cell overnight. In the morning on 01/02/2018 the FSB officers took him to the Alexandrovskaya Hospital; after an examination he was taken back to the FSB premises. On 02/02/2018 the applicant was taken to the Gatchina Hospital and then to the Gatchina IVS. Later the applicant was placed in SIZO.

2) On 21/08/2018 the applicant was taken from SIZO to the IVS of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region, where two investigators seeking to obtain from him self-incriminating statements threatened him, handcuffed him and pulled his arm to the point of causing a wrist injury.

1) Medical certificate by the Alexandrovskaya Hospital of 01/02/2018: bruises on the head and face; traumatic brain injury; injury to the chest, lumbar area, left shoulder and left wrist.

2) the FSB investigator’s report of 01/08/2022 on the impossibility of an identification parade on account of the bruises to the applicant’s face.

3) The IVS report on the discovery of elements of a crime on 02/02/2018: injury to the applicant’s head; bruises to the right shoulder; injuries to the chest and to the lumbar area.

4) The IVS "act of a trauma" on 03/02/2018: blunt trauma to the head, bruises to the left shoulder; trauma to the chest; injury to the lumbar area.

St Petersburg Ambulance Station, medical record of 21/08/2018: injury to palmar ligaments of the left wrist.

On 02/02/2018 at the hearing on the measure of restraint, the applicant informed the judge at the Gatchina District Court that he had been beaten during arrest and sustained injuries to the head and kidneys. On 05/02/2018 the applicant complained of ill ‑ treatment to the Investigative Committee/On 20/04/2018 the St Petersburg Garrison unit of the Investigative Committee refused to open a criminal case for the lack of a criminal event.

On 31/08/2018 a complaint was lodged with the Investigative Committee’s unit on the applicant’s behalf/On 11/12/2018 refusal to open a criminal case, which was overruled on 17/06/2019 by the investigators’ superiors / On 01/07/2019 another refusal was issued.

On 15/10/2018 the refusal of 20/04/2018 was upheld by the St Petersburg Garrison Military Court / on 11/12/2018 it was further upheld by the Leninskiy Circuit Military Court.

The refusal of 01/07/2019 was upheld by the St Petersburg Garrison Military Court on 09/09/2019/

by the First Western Circuit Military Court on 07/11/2019.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of placement in a metal cage during court hearings,

Art. 3 - use of metal cages and/or other security arrangements in courtrooms – the applicant was placed in a metal cage in thirteen court hearings from 02/02/2018 until 15/04/2019,

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - unacknowledged

detention for twenty-six

hours: at 8.40 p.m. on

31/01/2018 the

applicant was arrested

on suspicion of

unlawful trading in

arms;

no record was drawn up

until 11.05 p.m. on

01/02/2018,

Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention – detention from 31/01/2018 to 15/04/2019; detention orders by the Gatchina Town Court of the Leningrad Region / Leningrad Regional Court; Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningrad Region / Leningrad Regional Court – use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to assess the applicant’s personal situation reducing the risks of re-offending, colluding or absconding; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility of the reasons employed by the courts.

26,000

63744/19

27/11/2019

Nariman

Sabir-ogly

ALIYEV

1960Aleksandrova Yevgeniya Olegovna

Tula

On 24/11/2017 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 25/11/2017 his medical examination at the Nerungri police station recorded no injuries. Thereafter six plainclothes police officers beat the applicant on various parts of the body pressuring him to confess to the murder. On the next day the applicant was taken to the Yakutia Main Police Department where other police officers continued his ill-treatment to make him confess. The applicant confessed to the murder under duress.

Expert report no. 796 of 25/11/2017 by the Sakha (Yakutia) Forensic Bureau - no injuries found.

Expert report no. 993 dated 12/04/2018 by the same Bureau: hematomas on the back side of both forearms, front of the left shin caused by hard blunt objects up to three-five days prior to the examination carried out at 11 p.m. on 26/11/2017.

First complaint and three more complaints made to the investigators during the applicant’s interrogation between 23/03/2018 and 12/07/2018. On 2 April 2018 inquiry into the allegations/ refusals to institute criminal proceedings on 09/05/2018, 06/08/2018 and 08/08/2018.

The applicant raised his ill-treatment complaint before the trial court/on 10/11/2018 the court, having questioned ten of the implicated police officers all of whom had denied the applicant’s ill ‑ treatment, rejected the complaint and used the evidence obtained under the duress for the applicant’s conviction.

On 05/02/2019 the Sakha (Yakutia) Supreme Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment/ on 28/05/2019 the conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia.

Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings - use of statements given under duress in evidence to convict the applicant of murder.

26,000

5290/20

28/12/2019

Abdul-Khalim Abdulayevich ABDULMEZHIDOV

1990Crew Against Torture

Nizhniy Nogorod

On 13/01/2017 the applicant was arrested by seven police officers and taken to the Shali police department in Chechnya where for about 4 hours he was severely ill ‑ treated to obtain a confession of his membership in an illegal armed group. The officers beat him up with a plumbing pipe and administered electric shocks via his right foot. When he lost consciousness, medical aid was provided. Then he was taken to the basement of a police patrol service’s building and detained there until 09/03/2017. During the detention he was systematically subjected to electric shocks. On 09/03/2017 the applicant was placed into the IVS. No medical examination was carried out. On 20/03/2017 he was taken to the police station for questioning, where he confessed. On 24/03/2017 criminal proceedings against the applicant were opened and on 25/03/2017 the arrest record was drawn up.

Forensic examination no. 1111 of 02/06/2017 by the Chechnya Forensic Bureau: injuries in the form of scars in the area of the fifth fingers on the back surface of both sides. It is impossible to establish their origin, since the scars have partially healed.

Expert examination of the medical file on 30/09/2018 ordered by the applicant’s lawyer: the forensic report no. 1111 of 02/06/2017 was not based on appropriate scientific literature, the examination was biased and incomplete. Linear scars of the proximal phalanges of the fingers of the right foot could have been caused by electric shocks. The scars could have occurred in the time frame of 6 to 18 months prior to the examination.

On 01/06/2017 the applicant complained to the expert who carried out his forensic examination. The complaint was transferred to an investigator. On 05/09/2017 the applicant’s mother complained on the applicant’s behalf to the investigator in his criminal case/ Several refusals to open a criminal case, the latest (6th) on 02/04/2019.

On 02/03/2020 the Staropromyslovskiy District Court in Grozny rejected the applicant’s complaint against the last refusal / it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic on 16/06/2020.

On 20/11/2018 the Leninskiy District Court in Grozny convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment /

On 11/07/2019 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the conviction.

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis – unrecorded detention of the applicant from 13/01/2017 to 24/03/2017 - detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia , nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018),

Art. 6 (1) - unfair criminal proceedings - the conviction was based, inter alia, on the applicant’s submissions given on 20/03/2017, his confession statements on 25/03/2017 and 26/03/2017 obtained as a result of ill-treatment during the pre-trial investigation which were retracted by the applicant at the trial.

52,000

4057/21

25/12/2020

Lali Guramovna MENTESHASHVILI

1966Toreyeva Svetlana Anatolyevna

Moscow

On 25/07/2018 officers of the Odintsovo police station in the Moscow Region searched the applicant’s flat on suspicion of her son’s involvement in a theft; they pinned her to the floor, placed a foot on her head and beat her on the neck and torso.

Medical examination act no. 13412 of 25/07/2018 by the Mytishchy hospital of the Moscow Region: concussion and injuries on the head, torso and chest.

On 25/07/2018 complaint to the police / on 18/09/2018 the first refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti, last refusal on 10/10/2019.

On 25/02/2020 and 25/06/2020 the Mytishchy Town Court in the Moscow Region ruled in favour of the applicant in the proceedings (i) against the refusal of 24/07/2019 and (ii) inaction of the investigators, respectively. The court held that the inaction of the investigators was unlawful and ordered them to remedy the situation. The investigators failed to comply with the orders.

The applicant was not charged, her son was a suspect in a theft investigation. No further information is available.

26,000

517/22

20/12/2021

Aram Vyacheslavovich GAMBARYAN

1975Valiyeva Elza Albertovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

At about 10 a.m. on 21/03/2017, the applicant who was driving his car in Krasnodar, was stopped and dragged into a minivan by officers of the Federal Security Service and the Moscow Criminal Investigations Police Unit. During the ride in the minivan, he was beaten on his head and kidney area, then taken to a forest where, for 6 to 7 hours, with a goal of extracting a confession to a crime, he was subjected to waterboarding, beaten severely all over his body, electrocuted with a taser on his genital area, in the arm pits, under his jaw and on his legs. He was subjected to fake execution by being thrown twice in a grave, by having a firearm blank shot on his temple area and having a firearm discharged close to his ear. He was then taken back to the car and driven to the police station; during the ride he was beaten on the neck which made him vomit. At about 10-12 p.m. on the same day he was brought to police station no. 9 in Krasnodar where his clothes were changed and where he continued to be beaten. He vomited and lost consciousness several times. He signed all the documents that were given to him. After that he was allegedly driven elsewhere, with a stopover in a local hospital where he was injected with a pain killer and no official record of that visit there was made.

On 22/03/2017 at about 10 a.m. a record of the applicant’s detention was drawn up. On 22/03/2017 at about 12 p.m. the applicant was taken to the hospital. Between 22/03/2017and 29/03/2017 he was in administrative detention, pursuant to his conviction of 22/03/2017 of administrative offence by the Severskiy District Court in Krasnodar.

Hospital record of 22/03/2017 by the Severskaya District Hospital in Krasnodar: closed skull fracture, multiple bruises of torso and extremities, kidney injury.

Records nos. 67, 70, and 0383 of, respectively, 25/03/2017, 28/03/2017 and 01/04/2017 by the medical emergency service: closed skull fracture, concussion, chest trauma, acute pancreatitis, hypertension.

Medical record book, common record no. 4289 for entries on 25/03/2017, 27/03/2017 and 28/03/2017 by the medical ward of the temporary detention facility of the Severskiy District Police Station in Krasnodar: closed skull fracture, concussion, chest trauma, acute pancreatitis, hypertension.

Medical record no. 26376 of 01/04/2017 by the Krasnodar Regional Hospital: intussusception (a serious condition in which part of the intestine slides into an adjacent part of the intestine); acute kidney failure; posttraumatic kidney nephritis with 3rd degree kidney damage, secondary anaemia, concussion, multiple bruises and abrasions, extensive hematomas on lower extremities.

Hospital Release Record of 11/04/2017-25/04/2017 by Central Clinical Hospital: acute traumatic kidney damage of 3rd degree; concussion, spinal injury (neck); multiple bruises and abrasions; extensive haemorrhaging of lower extremities;

Record of a psychiatrist consultation of 08/10/2017 / name of the medical organisation illegible (anxiety, depression, panic attacks).

Report no. 147/2018 of 16/08/2018 by the Krasnodar Forensics Bureau: confirming the applicant’s injuries and indicating that they could have been caused in the circumstances described by the applicant.

On 22/03/2017 the applicant’s wife complained to the Karasunskiy police station about the applicant’s disappearance. On 03/04/2017 complaint about ill ‑ treatment filed by the applicant’s lawyer / Between 06/04/2017 and 18/12/2017 – 16 refusals to open a criminal case. On 10/04/2018 – a criminal case was opened into the applicant’s abduction and ill-treatment/ On 10/09/2018 – the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of evidence/Between 24/10/2018 and 23/11/2021 – 15 rulings for re-opening, termination and suspension of the criminal investigation were issued and overruled by the investigators’ superiors.

none

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - No record of arrest between 10 a.m. on 21/03/2017 and 10 a.m. on 22/03/2017.

52,000

5624/22

14/01/2022

( 4 applicants )

Artem Alekseyevich PONOMARCHUK

1994Karen Samvelovich YENGOYAN

1987Erik Stanislavovich YENGOYAN

1989Aram Samvelovich ARUSTAMYAN

1984Zadorozhnaya Mariya Aleksandrovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

Between 24 and 25/12/2015 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of a robbery and detained in the IVS of the Anapa police station. On 26/12/2015 the court imposed 12-day administrative detention on them. While in detention, the applicants were ill-treated by police officers to make them confess to the crime and give evidence against each other.

The first applicant (Mr Ponomarchuk): between 24 and 25/12/2015 five officers (A., L., M., Me. And S.) handcuffed him, pulled a gasmask over his head to suffocate him, beat him on the feet with a metal object, electrocuted him and inserted a baton in his anus. The first applicant wrote a statement claiming that the injuries received had been caused by a fall prior to the arrest.

The second applicant (Mr K. Yengoyan): on 25/12/2015 three officers (S., Zh., A.) hit him on the head and chest. On 29/12/2015 the officers pulled a gasmask over his head to suffocate him, poured a burning liquid inside the gasmask, bound his limbs with adhesive tape and handcuffed him; beat him on the feet; electrocuted him and threatened by sexual violence. The officers took photos of him with an object next to his anus and threatened to make photos public.

The third 3rd Applicant (Mr E. Yengoyan): On 25/12/2015 three officers Zh., L., A., and M. hit the applicant with handcuffs on the back and knees, suffocated him by pulling a plastic bag over his head, hit him on the heels with a baton, threatened him with the electrocution; having put a motorcycle helmet, they beat his head against the wall and threatened him with sexual violence. At 3.30 a.m. on 26/12/2015 the applicant tried to cut his veins to have an independent medical examination, but to no avail as no ambulance was called. He was examined and provided with medical assistance by an on-duty policeman. The third applicant wrote a statement that his injuries had been obtained at work prior to the arrest.

The fourth applicant (Arustamyan): on 25/12/2015 four officers handcuffed him, pulled gas mask over his head and dripped ammonia through, beat him on various parts of head and torso, electrocuted him and having pulled his jeans off threatened him with sexual violence.

The first applicant:

(i) medical examination act no. 174/2016 of 04/03/2016 by the Anapa Forensic Bureau: abrasions on the extremities, right buttock and between buttocks, abrasions on the wrists, 4th right finger, knees and lower back - those injuries could have been caused by a hard blunt object between 25 and 27/12/2015. Abrasions on the right buttock, between buttocks, inner left ancle, right shin could be traces of electrocution;

(ii) medical examination act no. 270/2016 of 21/06/2016 by the Krasnodar Regional Forensic Bureau confirmed the conclusions of the forensic examination of 04/03/2016, however, it was impossible to determine that the abrasions on the right buttock, between buttocks, inner left ancle, right shin could have been caused by electrocution only;

(iii) expert report no. 1469/7/И of 27/09/2016 by the Federation of Forensics: anal fissure caused by a hard blunt object, which could have been caused on 24-25/12/2015 under circumstances alleged by the applicant.

The second applicant: (i) medical examination act no. 202/2016 of 16/03/2016 by the Anapa Forensic Bureau: abrasions on the upper and lower extremities caused by hard blunt objects between 28 and 29/12/2015. Abrasions on the wrists could have been caused by handcuffs, abrasions on the first left toe could have been caused by a hard blunt object. Abrasions on the 5th right finger, 3-5th left fingers, right heel and the back of both shins could be traces of electrocution;

(ii) medical examination act no. 271/2016 of 21/06/2016 by the Krasnodar Regional Forensic Bureau confirmed the conclusions of the forensic examination of 16/03/2016; however, it was impossible to determine that the abrasions on the 5th right finger, 3-5th left fingers, right heel and the back of both shins could have been caused by electrocution only.

The third applicant:

(i) certificate by the Anapa town hospital: open wound of the 2nd right finger with damage to cartilage; (ii) medical examination act no. 28/2016 of 18/01/2016 by the Anapa Forensic Bureau: abrasion of 6x8 cm on the right part of the chest;

(iii) excerpt from the applicant’s medical record no. 1545 of 20-21/01/2016 by the Anapa town hospital: post-traumatic neurological syndrome; (iv) medical examination act no. 271/2016 of 21/06/2016 by the Krasnodar Regional Forensic Bureau confirmed the conclusions of the forensic examination of 18/01/2016 and stated that the injury could have been caused by hard blunt object on/around 25/12/2015.

The fourth applicant: (i) excerpt from the applicant’s medical record of 29/01/2016 by the trauma unit at the Anapa town hospital: closed craniocerebral injury, cerebral contusion;

(ii) medical examination act no. 90/2016 of 05/02/2016 by the Anapa Forensic Bureau: abrasion on the right wrist, post ‑ traumatic neurological syndrome, periarthritis of the right shoulder blade, venous congestion of both brain hemispheres. The injuries could have been caused between 25 and 27/12/2015 by a hard blunt object;

(iii) medical examination act no. 269/2016 of 21/06/2016 by the Krasnodar Regional Forensic Bureau confirmed the conclusions of the forensic examination of 05/02/2016 and stated that the closed craniocerebral injury could not be confirmed.

On 01/06/2016 joint complaint to the Krasnodar Regional investigative committee/refusals to open a criminal case / On 23/11/2017 the criminal case was opened. The investigation was repeatedly terminated and reopened, last time - decision to terminate the proceedings on 22/07/2020 for the lack of constituent elements of a crime (the applicants’ allegations were unsubstantiated as the implicated police offers and their colleagues denied involvement).

On 18/05/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Krasnodar rejected the applicants’ complaint against the last termination as ungrounded /on 14/07/2021 the decision was upheld by the Krasnodar Regional Court.

52,000,

to each of the first and second applicants;

26,000,

to each of the third and fourth applicants.

25396/22

25/04/2022

Denis Vasilyevich KHALYAVIN

1975Uvarov Aleksandr Leonidovich

Nizhniy Tagil

On 15/07/2021 the applicant was arrested by police officers of Nizhniy Tagil police station no. 16. During the arrest the officers twisted his arms, beat him and stood on his legs when he was on the ground. At the police station, the officers continued to use force against the applicant.

Medical examination record of 15/07/2021 by the first-aid clinic in Nizhniy Tagil: bruises, bloodstains, abrasions on both legs and arms.

On 18/07/2021 complaint to the police / 22/08/2021 first refusal to open a criminal case due to the lack of corpus delicti (last refusal - 26/03/2022).

On several occasions (latest being on 08/04/2022) the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil in the Sverdlovsk Region discontinued the examination of the case as the impugned refusals had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors shortly prior to the proceedings.

The applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft. No official charges have been filed.

26,000

25739/22

22/03/2022

Andrey Valeryevich ZAVGORODNIY

1978Kruglov Aleksandr Gennadyevich

Samara

On 12/07/2021 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of an administrative offence and on 13/07/2021 placed in a cell for administrative offenders at the Samara police station where he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers, in particular on 15/07/2021 while being held in a metal cage. On 15/07/2021 the officers called an ambulance. The applicant was taken to a hospital with head injuries and was treated there until 20/07/2021.

Medical examination on 12/07/2021 after the applicant’s arrest: no visible injuries, no intoxication.

Record of an administrative arrest of 12/07/2021: no bodily injuries.

Certificate of Samara town hospital no. 1 (at 10.55 p.m. on 13/07/2021 the applicant was taken to the hospital where an X-ray examination of the skull showed no pathology).

Medical examination at 10.15 a.m. on 14/07/2021: bruising in the area of the right eye and an abrasion in the area of the left eyebrow.

Medical examination on 20/07/2021 by a forensic expert: two stitched wounds on the right side of the forehead and a wound in the area of the left eyebrow, bruising to the face and right hand, abrasions on the right hand.

On 21/07/2021 complaint with the Sovetskiy inter-district unit of the Samara Regional investigative committee/ on 05/08/2021 refusal to open a criminal case, overruled on 20/08/2021 by the investigators’ superiors as incomplete (e.g. documents of the applicant’s medical examinations had not been obtained), no convincing explanation of the injuries.

The applicant’s appeal against the inactivity of the investigators was dismissed by the Sovetskiy District Court on 26/10/2021/upheld by the Samara Regional Court on 19/01/2022.

On 13/07/2021 the Leninskiy District Court of Samara convicted the applicant of using foul language in a public place and sentenced him to five days’ detention/on 23/09/2021 the Samara Regional Court terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant for lack of evidence.

26,000

33282/22

20/06/2022

( 3 applicants)

Mushvig

Mekhman ogly GULIYEV

1975Mushvig Allakhshukur ogly SHYKHALIYEV

1972Ramin Ramiz ogly SHAKHMAROV

1978Valiyeva Elza Albertovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

The first applicant (Mr Guliyev) - On 06/03/2018 police officers escorted the first applicant to the police station in Orenburg; on the way an officer hit the applicant in the neck. On 07/03/2018 at the police station, the first applicant was suffocated and beaten multiple times (including when his hands were tied behind his back) on his chest, neck and head. The officers allegedly also used a stun gun on his stomach, legs, head, torso and groin and threatened him with sexual violence to obtain his self-incriminating statements as well as statements against the other two applicants.

The second applicant (Mr Shykhaliyev) - Between 06/03/2018 and 07/03/2018 police officers of the Abdulino police department in the Orenburg Region threatened the second applicant; on 07/03/2018 he was taken to the police station in Orenburg where the officers beat him and several times pressed his genitals with their feet for up to 15 min at a time. On 08/03/2018 the officers forced the second applicant on his knees and used a stun gun on his shoulder and thighs.

The third applicant (Mr Shakhmarov) - On 07/03/2018 officers of the Abdulino police station in the Orenburg Region beat the third applicant on various body parts and left him in a folded position with his hands behind his back during four hours of transit to the Orenburg police station. There on 08/03/2018 police officers continued to beat and suffocate the third applicant.

All three applicants - Forensic medical examinations nos. 1032, 1033 and 1034 of 14/03/2018 by the Orenburg Forensic Bureau: no injuries were found on all three applicants.

Medical records of the IVS and SIZO-1 in Orenburg of 09/03/2018 and 10/03/2018 respectively - no injuries were found on all three applicants. The medical examination took place in the office of the Orenburg Investigative Committee.

The second and third applicants - medical examination act no. 6-1-7/ 3 of 17/03/2018 by Orenburg Hospital no. 4: point-like abrasions on the right thigh for the second applicant and several abrasions and bloodstains on arms and stomach injuries for the third applicant.

The First applicant - medical examination by Orenburg Hospital no. 4 and forensic medical act no. 1172 by the Orenburg Forensic Bureau - both examinations were held on 23/03/2018: no injuries, some pigmentation on the right thigh.

The second applicant - forensic medical act no. 1152 of 23/03/2018 by the Orenburg Forensic Bureau: abrasions on the left leg likely caused by a hard blunt object after the examination on 09/03/2018.

The third applicant - forensic medical act no. 1171 of 23/03/2018 by the Orenburg Forensic bureau: abrasions and bloodstains on arms likely caused by a hard blunt object within 5-10 days prior to the examination.

As of 11/03/2018 all three applicants complained about the ill-treatment to the investigators during their interrogations / on 29/06/2018 the criminal case into alleged ill-treatment was opened/On 02/07/2018 this decision was overruled by the investigators’ superiors. Several rounds of opening a criminal case and then closing the investigation. Last termination of the criminal case – on 12/10/2020.

On 28/01/2022 the Promyshlennyy District Court of Orenburg rejected the applicant’s complaint against the last termination / On 16/03/2022 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.

All three applicants were charged with murder. However, the charges were dropped due to the applicants’ non-involvement in the crime (investigator’s decisions of 26/12/2018 and 21/02/2019 respectively).

12,500,

to the first applicant, and

26,000,

to each of the second and third applicants.

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.