I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in VITRIGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2021-02-09
  • Communication date: 2013-06-05
  • Application number(s): 21123/09
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1, 5-1-b, 6, 6-1, 6-3-c, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect)
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
    Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.858426
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The first applicant, Mr Aslanbek Vitrigov, was born in 1980 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional colony IK-12 in the Arkhangelsk Region.
The second applicant, Mr Anzor Agamerzayev, was born in 1980 and is currently held in correctional colony IK-5 in the Belgorod Region.
The third applicant, Mr Adam Tuntuyev, was born in 1975 and is serving his sentence in remand prison SIZO-1 in Grozny, the Chechen Republic.
All applicants are Russian nationals.
They are represented by Messieurs R. Lemaitre, A. Nikolayev, D. Itslayev and A. Sakalov, lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (hereinafter “the SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
A.
The circumstances of the case 1.
The background to the case Before his arrest in 2005 the third applicant had been employed at the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic and subsequently - at the counterterrorist department in Argun.
The first and second applicants had worked at a sheepfold in the village of Komarovo, helping the second applicant’s father, a shepherd.
On 19 July 2005, during an examination of a crime scene by an investigating group of the Department of the Interior of the Nadterechny District (hereinafter also “the Nadterechny ROVD”) in the village of Znamenskoye, the Chechen Republic, a car exploded.
As a result of the explosion fourteen persons, including ten ROVD officers, one officer of the Federal Security Service (hereinafter “the FSB”) and three civilians, died and twenty four others were injured.
On the same day the acting Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic opened a criminal case into the explosion.
The case file was assigned the number 49017.
On 31 August 2005 M.Kh., deputy head of the Nadterechny Department of the FSB (hereinafter also “the Nadterechny FSB”), informed the Prosecutor General’s Office in the Federal Southern Circuit (hereinafter “the circuit prosecutor’s office”) that certain Z.V.
and S.A. had been implicated in the explosion of 19 July 2005.
The letter also stated that operational and search measures aimed at their arrest were under way.
According to the applicants, Z.V.
and S.A., also considered to have been involved in another violent crime, were “liquidated” by the law-enforcement officials during their attempted arrests in September and December 2005, respectively.
[1] 2.
The applicants’ arrest and alleged ill-treatment The information summarised below is based on the applicants’ account of the events given in the application form, as well as the written statements made by all applicants and the first applicants’ relatives and neighbours M.V., Zh.K., Kh.V., V.M., Ya.V., V.A., Al.D., R.V.
and U.E.
on 29 January, 17 and 24 February and 10 and 17 March 2009.
In their submissions, the applicants often refer to the same persons as “police officers” and “investigators” at the same time.
(a) As regards the first applicant At about 12.30 p.m. on 20 July 2005 a group of four policemen of the Nadterechny ROVD, including A.D., arrived at the sheepfold and ordered the first applicant to follow them to the ROVD.
The police officers did not produce their documents.
They briefly mentioned that the first applicant was to give a written explanation as to whether “he had seen a white car”.
At the ROVD the first applicant was taken to an assembly room to which the policemen repeatedly brought in other persons who pointed at him.
After a while M.Kh., the deputy head of the Nadterechny FSB, told the applicant that he was to confess to having bought a car which he had then blasted in Znamenskoye on 19 July 2005.
M.Kh.
explained to him in detail how the events had unfolded and also extensively questioned him about the property of his family.
In the applicant’s submission, M.Kh.
must have been either drunk or intoxicated.
Faced with the applicant’s refusal to confess, M.Kh.
called several police officers who started beating the applicant up.
They put a plastic bag on his head, inducing his suffocation, and hit and kicked him on his entire body, breaking his nose.
They also put off his pants, squeezed his penis with pliers and poured water over his body.
While the ROVD and FSB officers were beating the applicant up, a certain A.Kh., head of the Department for the Investigation of Particularly Serious Crimes of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic (hereinafter also “the republican prosecutor’s office”), told the applicant that he was in charge of the investigation in the explosion case.
According to the interrogation record (протокол допроса) of 20 July 2005, at 6.05 and 7.40 p.m. on that date A.Kh.
interviewed the first applicant as a witness on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD.
The applicant stated, among other things, that on 3 and 10 July 2005 he had been at his father’s sheepfold in the village of Komarovo and denied having bought any vehicles recently.
There is no indication that the first applicant was interviewed with the assistance of a lawyer.
Between 9.10 and 10.55 p.m. on 20 July 2005 investigator A.Kh.
conducted two identification parades with the participation of the first applicant.
There is no indication that a lawyer for the applicant was present during those investigative steps.
On 21 July 2005 A.Kh.
informed his superiors that he had arrested the first applicant as a suspect on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD at 10 a.m. on the same date.
The record of the first applicant’s arrest as a suspect (протокол задержания подозреваемого) states that he was arrested by investigator A.Kh.
at 10 a.m. on 21 July 2005 on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD pursuant to Articles 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCrP”).
According to the arrest record, the first applicant stated that he had not committed any crimes and that he objected to his arrest.
In the evening on 21 July 2005 the first applicant was visited by officers R.T., A.K., M.Kh, K.M.
and several others.
R.T. told him that he would have to testify as requested by them and swore on the Koran that if he refused, R.T. would rape his sister before his very eyes.
The policemen continued beating the applicant up until early in the morning, hitting and kicking him on his head, to the kidneys area and the genitals.
They also swore at him and promised to kill his relatives, saying that they were too rich and that they would make them leave the region.
In the morning on 22 July 2005 the ROVD officers continued interrogating the first applicant and instructing him as to what exactly he was to tell later to investigator A.Kh.
In the evening on 22 July 2005, while the first applicant was at the assembly hall, A.K.
suggested that the policemen torture him with electric current, after which they brought in a red box with two wires.
The applicant’s hands were cuffed behind his back, he was made lie down on his belly.
Two men sat on his back and one of them was turning the handle to pass electric current through his body.
At about 10 p.m. on 22 July 2005 the policemen dragged the first applicant from the assembly hall to a cell in the ROVD detention ward, which he shared with the second applicant, a certain A.M. and a former police officer named “Aslan”.
The first applicant’s legs were swollen and he was unable to walk.
His penis was black and swollen because of the use of pliers and during several days he had blood in his urine.
The first applicant saw that the second applicant had one of his finger nails torn off.
In the opposite cell the first applicant also saw the third applicant, who had an injured eye.
On the ensuing days the police and FSB officers repeatedly took the first applicant from his cell for “torture sessions” which took place day and night.
They beat him up and tortured him with electricity in their offices at the ROVD and also in several railway carriages located on the ROVD premises, close to the detention ward.
They repeatedly threatened him with rape.
In the first applicant’s submission, about a week after his arrest he was taken to the office of R.T., where policeman R.K. and FSB officer M.Kh.
were already present.
R.T. swore on the Koran that he would rape the first applicant’s sister Khe.V.
if he were to “fail him”.
On R.T.’s request, an on-duty officer brought Khe.V.
to the office.
In her presence R.T. asked the first applicant if he agreed to cooperate.
Faced with his refusal, R.T. started accosting Khe.V.
in front of the applicant, saying that he would undress her.
He then abruptly stopped everything and ordered her to leave, following which he told the applicant that he would show him how she would scream.
He then called investigator A.Kh., who brought several papers with him.
The first applicant, shocked by the incident and considering R.T.’s threats serious, signed all the papers they had given him.
Shortly thereafter he was sent back to the detention ward.
According to Khe.V.’s interview record, she was interviewed as a witness by a police officer of the Nadterechny ROVD on the premises of that authority between 6.20 and 7.40 p.m. on 26 July 2005.
In the submission of the first applicant’s relatives, on the date of Khe.V.’s interrogation by the ROVD officers (given as 24 July 2005), she left the ROVD at 11 p.m. in a state of shock and refused to speak.
On the following morning she told them that she had seen the first applicant, who had been severely beaten up, that the police officers had tried to persuade her to denounce him, had several times hit her with their truncheons and that she had been threatened with rape.
Her relatives had to place her in a hospital two or three days later.
According to the first applicant’s interview record dated 31 July 2005, on that date he confessed to having participated in the explosion in Znamenskoye, together with the second and third applicants.
The interview was conducted between 11.25 a.m. and 2.50 p.m. and the record was signed by a lawyer.
Several days later investigator T. of the prosecutor’s office of the Nadterechny District (hereinafter also “the district prosecutor’s office”) interviewed the first applicant on the premises of that authority.
The applicant denied his involvement in the explosion and complained to T. about his ill-treatment at the ROVD.
After the first applicant’s return to the ROVD A.K., R.T., M.Kh.
and R.K., severely beat him up for denouncing them.
They took him to one of the railway carriages and told him to repeat their version of the explosion before the camera.
When he refused, A.K.
warned him that he would rape him with a truncheon and disseminate the record in the Komarovo village.
He then called a masked police officer and they put a plastic bag on the applicant’s head.
After that they stretched him on a table with his face down, lowered his trousers and started arguing who would be the first to rape him.
Suffocating because of the plastic bag and feeling helpless, the applicant repeated before the camera everything he was requested to say and signed further papers he was given.
On an unspecified date the first applicant was brought to Znamenskoye for an on-the-spot verification of his statements (проверка показаний на месте).
The police officers had “prepared” him for that investigative step, telling him what to say and threatening him with further ill-treatment if he failed to do as requested.
In the first applicant’s submission, during the two months of his detention at the ROVD he was not examined by a doctor.
(b) As regards the second applicant On 21 July 2005 a group of policemen of the Nadterechny ROVD arrived at the sheepfold in Komarovo, where were the second applicant, V.A.
and N.V. Six to seven persons grabbed the second applicant and beat him up in front of his relatives.
They twisted his arms behind his back, tied them with his belt and threw him into their car, where they continued beating him up on the way to the Nadterechny ROVD.
Upon their arrival the policemen dragged the second applicant to a railway carriage where six ROVD officers were already waiting for them.
The applicant was made stand facing the wall, with his legs stretched out, while the policemen hit and kicked him to various parts of his body.
The applicant knew three of the police officers – K.G., “Suleyman” and investigator A.K.
He did not know the others.
When beating him up the policemen requested that he confessed to having participated in the explosion in Znamenskoye, signed the papers they gave him and repeated their version of the explosion to an investigator who would come later.
The applicant claimed his innocence and they continued beating him for about two to four hours, after which he was brought to the office of R.T., investigator and head of the Nadterechny ROVD.
At R.T.’s office, in the presence of investigator A.K., M.Kh.
and several policemen of the Grozny Department for Fight Against Organised crime (hereinafter also “the UBOP”), R.T. told the applicant that the law-enforcement authorities knew who were the true perpetrators of the explosion and that he was innocent.
However, they had already reported to the authorities in Moscow that they had caught the criminals and that they had confessed.
R.T. also told him that denying his guilt was useless because they would “break him” anyway and would make him sign anything they wanted.
After that the second applicant was brought back to the railway carriage, where he told M.Kh.
and R.T. that he was not guilty.
They ordered other police offers “to do the necessary”, after which the policemen started beating him up with a plastic bottle filled with water.
They also put a plastic bag on his head, inducing his suffocation.
The applicant fainted on several occasions because of the lack of oxygen.
The ROVD officers also tortured him with an old field telephone by making him stand with his face against the wall and legs wide apart and passing electric current through the two wires attached to his hands.
At the same time they continued kicking him and hitting him with their truncheons.
According to the record of the interview of the second applicant as a witness (протокол допроса свидетеля) of 21 July 2005, investigator A.Kh.
questioned him on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD between 7.40 and 20.50 p.m.
The applicant described how he had spent the days of 10, 18 and 19 July 2005.
He did not make any self-incriminating statements.
There is no indication that he was assisted by a lawyer.
In the second applicant’s submission, the beatings continued until early in the morning on 22 July 2005, when he was taken to the ROVD detention ward.
At about midday on 22 July 2005 the first applicant’s relatives, whom the policemen had brought to the Nadterechny ROVD on the previous night, saw the second applicant at the ROVD.
In their submission, he was severely beaten up and could barely walk.
The policemen had to drag him around.
After midday on 22 July 2005 the ROVD officers again took the second applicant to the railway carriage where seven to eight policemen continued beating him and torturing him with electric current.
Twenty minutes later A.K.
passed by to ask whether the applicant had agreed to sign the confession.
Since he had not, the policemen continued torturing him for the next five hours.
Unable to stand the ill-treatment, the applicant agreed to confess and signed several pages of a document given to him, without reading it.
After that he was taken to the detention ward and told that an investigator would come next morning to take up his testimony.
In the morning on 23 July 2005 the second applicant was taken to investigators A.Kh.
and R.T.
He told them that he had nothing to say about the explosion and they told other policemen that the applicant “had not been well prepared” and left.
The applicant was then taken back to the carriage, where the beatings and torture by electric current continued.
The second applicant heard the third applicant scream in a nearby carriage.
Unable to stand the ill-treatment, the second applicant agreed to sign a further document requested of him.
He was instructed to learn the content of the document and to repeat it later to the investigator, which he did.
According to the second applicant’s interview record, he was questioned as a witness between 6.45 and 9.20 p.m. on 23 July 2005 by investigator A.Kh.
The document contains a pre-typed statement signed by the second applicant, where he confesses to having participated in the explosion in Znamenskoye together with the first and third applicants.
There is no indication that the applicant was assisted by a lawyer during the interview.
The second applicant’s arrest record states that he was arrested at 10 a.m. on 24 July 2005 by investigator A.Kh.
on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD.
By decision of 26 July 2005 the Nadterechny District Court of the Chechen Republic authorised the second applicant’s placement in custody.
Interviewed as a witness by investigator T. on 26 July 2005, the second applicant confirmed his statement of 23 July 2005.
According to the interview record, the second applicant was questioned without a lawyer.
In the second applicant’s submission, as a result of the ill-treatment he started having kidneys problems, his eyesight deteriorated and he suffers from enuresis.
According to the second applicant, although a lawyer appointed by the investigators was present at some of the initial investigative steps, he disregarded his complaints about the ill-treatment.
(c) As regards the third applicant On 30 July 2005 the third applicant was instructed by his superior to follow police officers R.T. and R.K. to the Nadterechny ROVD “for an identification parade”.
Upon arrival the third applicant was filmed and photographed.
At about 11 p.m. on 30 July 2005 he was placed in the ROVD detention ward.
According to the third applicant’s interview record, between 4.50 and 5.30 p.m. on 30 July 2005 investigator A.Kh.
questioned him as a witness on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD.
The third applicant denied having participated in any terrorist acts or knowing the first or second applicants and submitted that on 19 July 2005 he had been at work at the counterterrorist department in Argun.
During the interview the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer and refused to sign the interview record.
According to the identification record (протокол предъявления лица для опознания) of 30 July 2005, the second applicant identified the third applicant as his accomplice, with whom he and the first applicant had bought and blasted the UAZ vehicle in Znamenskoye.
The identification was conducted between 7.20 and 7.45 p.m.
The third applicant denied knowing the second applicant and refused to sign the record.
After that the third applicant was placed in a solitary cell in the ROVD detention ward, where he was severely ill-treated.
At 8.10 p.m. on 31 July 2005, during a confrontation, the second applicant confirmed his earlier statement, accusing the third applicant of participation in the terrorist act in Znamenskoye.
According to the confrontation record, the third applicant submitted that he did not know the first applicant, that had seen him for the first time during the identification parade and that on 19 July 2005 he had been at his working place.
On 30 July 2005 A.Kh.
formally arrested the third applicant on suspicion of participation in the terrorist act.
The arrest record was drawn up at 9.30 p.m. and stated that the third applicant was arrested at 9.20 p.m. on 30 July 2005 on the premises of the Nadterechny ROVD.
During an identification parade carried out at 6.10 p.m. on 31 July 2005 the first applicant did not recognise the third applicant among the persons presented to him for identification.
On 31 July 2005 the third applicant gave a written statement (объяснение) to police officer A.-M.D.
of the Nadterechny ROVD, in which he submitted that he had participated in the terrorist act in Znamenskoye in concert with the first and second applicants and that he had committed a number of further crimes in 2002.
On 1 August 2005 the Nadterechny District Court authorised the third applicant’s placement in custody.
In the third applicant’s submission, after his arrest and during the ensuing two months of his detention at the Nadterechny ROVD he was routinely subjected to ill-treatment.
In particular, at about 6 p.m. on the evenings policemen would take him to one of their offices and request that he signed the documents they gave him.
If he refused, they beat him up with their truncheons and tortured him with electric current, A.Kh.
and M.Kh.
being among the most cruel torturers.
According to the third applicant, the overnight interrogations were conducted mostly by investigator A.Kh., who repeatedly requested him to sign undated documents.
M.Kh.
also participated in the interrogations and when the applicant refused to do as instructed by him, the latter would leave him for several hours with the ROVD and FSB officers who beat him up to obtain what M.Kh.
requested of him.
The officers took turns to torture him.
During the short “respite” periods between the “torture sessions” they made the applicant squat, while one of them, usually the heaviest, sat on his back.
After ten minutes in that posture the applicant would have strong pain in his legs and the police officers would tell him that if he stayed in that position for half an hour, he would not feel his legs anymore.
Moreover, on several occasions the third applicant was transferred to the Nadterechny FSB, where its officers suspended him to the ceiling by his handcuffs, with a plastic bag on his head.
On an unspecified date in August 2005 the third applicant was brought to the office of R.T., head of the ROVD.
There he saw officers A.A., A.K.
and the first and second applicants.
A.A. asked the second applicant how he had identified the first applicant.
He replied that police officers had shown him the first applicant on a video record before the formal identification and had instructed him to identify him.
After that A.K.
started cursing the second applicant and threatening him with reprisals, following which the applicants were brought back to their cells.
At about 3 a.m. on that night the third applicant heard the second applicant scream and groan from his cell.
Shortly thereafter the third applicant was taken to an office where he saw A.K., the first and second applicants and two masked police officers.
After the first applicant had been taken away, A.K.
ordered the third applicant to have sexual intercourse with the second applicant, who was lying on a table, his hands cuffed to the table legs and trousers lowered down.
The third applicant refused to do as ordered, following which A.K.
unzipped his pants, took out his penis and started touching the second applicant’s buttocks with it.
Shortly thereafter the third applicant was taken back to his cell.
On 7 September 2005 the third applicant was transferred from the ROVD to remand prison IZ-20/2 in Grozny.
On 13 September 2005 he was sent back to the Nadterechny ROVD, where he stayed until 4 October 2005.
In the applicant’s submission, on that occasion he was subjected to a particularly severe ill-treatment, following which on 30 September 2005 he confessed to having participated in the explosion in Znamenskoye and a number of other crimes.
On 4 October 2005 the third applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-20/1 in Grozny.
According to his medical check-up record (акт медицинского освидетельствования) of the same date, he was found to have the following injuries: bruises on his right shoulder and the right side of the thorax region; crust-covered abrasions on both wrists, around the left eye and on the nose.
The third applicant stated to the medics that he had sustained the injuries at the Nadterechny ROVD seven days before.
3.
The applicants’ complaints about the ill-treatment and the related inquiries (a) As regards the first applicant On 9 August 2005 the first applicant’s relatives hired Mr Z. to represent him.
On 15 and 18 August 2005 Z. complained to prosecutors of various levels that on 10 and 15 August 2005 investigator T., as well as a number of officers of the ROVD and its detention ward had persistently refused him access to his client under various pretexts and that they had tried to persuade his relatives to hire lawyer E. instead of Z because the investigators had been satisfied with his job.
Z. asserted that those State officials were, in reality, waiting for the first applicant’s injuries to heal and prevented him from requesting his client’s medical examination.
He also averred that his client must have been transferred to a remand centre long before and that he was held in the police ward, under the control of the ROVD officers, in breach of the national legislation.
Z. requested that all first applicant’s statements obtained during his detention at the ROVD and with the participation of lawyer E. be declared inadmissible and that the matter be investigated.
On 22 August and 6 September 2005 the first applicant’s mother complained to a number of State authorities, including prosecutors of various levels, that investigator T. and other officials were persistently refusing her son access to Z. because they wished to conceal his injuries and hinder his access to medical assistance.
She further complained about the law-enforcement authorities’ campaign of harassment against her family, referring to the fact that they had confiscated their passports and had refused to give them back.
She also submitted that on 13 August 2005 police officer K. of the Nadterechny ROVD had requested from her 15,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the services of State-appointed lawyer E. K. alleged that he had paid for E.’s services with his own money and that the first applicant’s mother was to pay him back.
On an unspecified date in September 2005 the first applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-20/2 in the village of Chernokozovo.
It appears that on 5 September 2005 the first applicant was for the first time visited by his lawyer Z.
On the same date the first applicant complained to the republican prosecutor’s office that he had been repeatedly ill-treated at the Nadterechny ROVD after his arrest on 20 July 2005 with a view to having him confess to a terrorist act.
The appointed lawyer E. had asked him to confess to avoid further ill-treatment.
As a result of the ill-treatment, the first applicant had problems breathing, his ribs were broken and there was blood in his urine.
A medic had examined him only after a request by his lawyer Z. and as late as in the end of September 2005.
According to the stamp, the complaint was sent by the detention facility on 11 October 2005 and received by the addressee on 24 October of the same year.
By decision of 9 September 2005 the deputy Prosecutor of the Chechen Republic partly granted the complaint by the first applicant’s mother and requested that her allegations of ill-treatment against the first applicant be verified and he be examined by a medical expert.
On 27 October 2005 investigator A.Kh.
of the republican prosecutor’s office allowed the first applicant’s request for an X-ray, noting that his medical examination was already under way.
On 17 February 2006 the first applicant complained to the republican prosecutor’s office about his unrecorded arrest and the ensuing ill-treatment at the Nadterechny ROVD, providing a detailed description of those events and giving the names of the officials implicated in the ill-treatment.
On 13 March 2006 the first applicant filed with the republican prosecutor’s office a further complaint about his ill-treatment and unlawful detention along the same lines.
He asserted that it was his fourth complaint to that State authority.
On 18 March 2006 the first applicant, interviewed as accused (обвиняемый) by an investigator of the republican prosecutor’s office, reiterated his submissions concerning the ill-treatment.
Among other things, he gave the names, ranks and distinctive features of the officials allegedly involved in it and stated that he would be able to identify them.
He also submitted that he had previously told about the ill-treatment his lawyers E. and Z.
On 19 March 2006 investigator A.Kh.
extended the term for the inquiry into the first applicant’s allegations.
By decision of 26 March 2006 the republican prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the first applicant’s alleged ill‐treatment.
The decision stated that the applicant’s guilt in the terrorist attack had been fully proven.
On 16 September 2005 he had been examined by a forensic expert.
According to expert report no.
208 of the same date, the first applicant had “small superficial abrasions on the left foot”, which could have been caused by a blunt solid object four to five days prior to the examination and had not entailed damage to his health.
The first applicant’s X-rays performed on 17 October 2005 had not revealed any changes to the thorax region and, according to his medical file, no ailments had been noted during his primary medical examination in remand prison IZ-20/2.
Accordingly, the expert’s conclusions refuted the first applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.
Moreover, on 16 September 2005 investigator A.Kh.
had identified the first applicant as one of the persons whom he had seen on 19 July 2005 in Znamenskoye at the car which had exploded shortly thereafter.
The fact that the first applicant complained about the ill‐treatment for the first time eight months after his arrest indicated that he was trying to evade his criminal responsibility, slander the police officers and have his self-incriminating statements declared inadmissible.
On 10 May 2006 the first applicant complained to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic about his alleged ill-treatment, providing its detailed description and referring to his previous complaints, including those of 27 February and 13 March 2006.
It is not entirely clear whether that complaint was replied to.
Following the request for an inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic (see below), on 12 December 2006 the republican prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to open a criminal case.
The text of the decision reproduced verbatim the decision of 26 March 2006.
In addition, it stated that the medical logbooks concerning the first applicant’s primary medical examination upon admission to the police ward of the Nadterechny ROVD and remand prison “IZ-20/1” contained no evidence indicating that he had been subjected to ill-treatment.
Unspecified ROVD police officers flatly denied having applied physical force to the first applicant or having seen anyone do so.
Following the trial court’s direction of 7 March 2007 for an additional inquiry into the applicants’ allegations (see below), on 28 March 2007 the republican prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to open a criminal case.
It reproduced verbatim the text of the previous refusals.
In addition, it referred to the statement by investigator A.Kh., who maintained that the first applicant had confessed because of the irrefutable evidence against him.
According to A.Kh., before every interrogation he had personally verified whether undue pressure had been exerted on the first applicant and his co-accused.
A.Kh.
had been aware that many police officers of the Nadterechny ROVD were relatives of the victims of the explosion in Znamenskoye.
However, it was unconceivable that they could injure the applicants because access to the detention ward was restricted and the co-accused had been taken from it only with a view to participating in various investigative steps, in the presence of their lawyers.
A.Kh.
opined that the first applicant’s co-detainees, who were residents of Znamenskoye, could have ill-treated him in revenge for the persons who had died in the explosion.
(b) As regards the second applicant On 26 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Nadterechny District refused to open a criminal case into the second applicant’s complaint about the ill-treatment and unlawful detention, received by it on 17 October 2005.
The decision stated that the second applicant, interviewed on an unspecified date, denied having been ever ill-treated by police officers of the Nadterechny ROVD and submitted that he had given all self-incriminating statements of his own free will.
He likewise denied having submitted any complaints in that respect.
According to forensic report no.
207 of 19 October 2005, the second applicant did not have any bodily injuries at the time of his examination.
On 9 March 2006 the second applicant complained to the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic that after his arrest on 21 July 2005 police officers of the Nadterechny ROVD had repeatedly ill-treated him to obtain his confession in the terrorist act in Znamenskoye.
He requested to be interviewed on the premises of remand prison IZ-20/1 and not to be transferred from there to any other detention facility.
The complaint was received by the republican prosecutor’s office on 20 March 2006.
On 26 March 2006 A.Kh.
granted a request by investigator A.V., his subordinate, for the extension of the term for the inquiry into the second applicant’s allegations.
By decision of 30 March 2006 the republican prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the second applicant’s alleged ill‐treatment.
The decision stated that the second applicant’s guilt in the explosion had been fully proven by the materials of the criminal case.
According to forensic report no.
210 on 16 September 2005, the second applicant was found to have a scar and several areas of “depigmentation of the skin on the left lower limb”, developed as a result of the healing of wounds and abrasions, which could have been sustained at the time and in the circumstances described by him, namely as a result of the beatings by police officers on 21 July 2005.
The decision went on to state that no other injuries had been found by the expert.
Accordingly, the second applicant’s submissions about the ill-treatment were refuted by the expert’s conclusions.
There was no other evidence to confirm the ill-treatment, except for the second applicant’s unsubstantiated allegations.
Moreover, he had been repeatedly interviewed in the presence of a lawyer and an interpreter.
Accordingly, his complaint was aimed at evading his criminal liability and invalidating his initial confession statements.
On 10 April 2006 the second applicant lodged a further complaint about the ill-treatment with the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic, describing in detail the methods used by the ROVD officers.
He submitted, among other things, that the expert had examined him only two months after the beatings.
Although he still had marks on his hands because of the torture by electricity, by the time of his examination the bruises and other injuries had already disappeared.
Moreover, despite his request for an X-ray which he had made because of his fear that he had broken ribs, it had never been performed.
In addition, the second applicant had a mark on a left shoulder caused by a burn and a nail torn off a finger on his right foot.
In spite of his complaints about those injuries to A.Kh., they were not reflected in any records.
The applicant stressed that, in fact, A.Kh.
had disregarded all his complaints about the ill-treatment.
The applicant requested not to be transferred from remand prison IZ-20/1 to any other detention facility.
By letter of 20 April 2006 the republican prosecutor’s office replied to the second applicant that on 30 March 2006 it had refused to open a criminal case into his allegations.
It was further stated that the applicant’s complaint of 10 April 2006 had been appended to the case file concerning the criminal proceedings against the second applicant.
It appears that following the request for an inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic (see below), on 12 December 2006 the republican prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to open a criminal case in respect of the second applicant’s complaints.
On 28 March 2007, following the Supreme Court’s direction for an additional inquiry, the republican prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to open a criminal case into the second applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
The text of the decision, while referring to the conclusions set out in forensic report no.
210, reproduced verbatim the text of the refusal to institute criminal proceedings, issued on the same date in respect of the first applicant (see above).
(c) As regards the third applicant On 8 or 18 August 2005 the third applicant requested the republican prosecutor’s office in writing to urgently order his transfer from the Nadterechny ROVD to a remand prison in Grozny and to carry out his medical examination.
On 13 October 2005 the prosecutor’s office of the Nadterechny District received the third applicant’s medical check-up record of 4 October 2005, accompanied by his written statement of 11 October 2005, in which he submitted that from 13 to 30 September 2005 he had been detained at the Nadterechny ROVD, where its police officers had beaten him up and tortured with electricity to obtain his confession of participation in the terrorist act in Znamenskoye.
On 22 October 2005 the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the third applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
A copy of that decision was not submitted by the applicants.
On 23 October 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Nadterechny District set aside that decision and ordered an additional inquiry.
On 25 October 2005 the district prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings.
It referred to the medical check-up record of 4 October 2005 and the forensic report no.
206 of 19 October 2005, which established that the applicant had a number of bodily injuries, including scars and abrasions on the nose, both wrists and around the left eye; areas of depigmentation and bruises on his hands and right shoulder, and abrasions and bruises on the right side of the thorax region.
According to expert report no.
206, those injuries could have been caused by impact of blunt solid objects four to five days prior to the examination.
The decision went on to state that the third applicant had refused to provide any explanations about the alleged ill-treatment to the officials of the district prosecutor’s office.
At the same time, ROVD officers S.D., K.G., D.U., A.M. and M.M.Kh.
denied having applied physical force to the third applicant or seen anyone do so.
According to them, the ROVD detention ward had five cells, which were under permanent supervision of the on-duty staff.
Officials of the district prosecutor’s office checked the detention ward several times a day, questioning the inmates as to whether they had any complaints.
Their check-up records were signed.
Suspects held in the detention ward were taken out of their cells under escort and only upon requests by the investigators with a view to carrying out investigative measures.
The third applicant had been taken out of his cell only on a written request of investigator A.Kh.
of the republican prosecutor’s office.
On an unspecified date unspecified on-duty officers noticed redness over the third applicant’s left eye.
He explained that he had injured himself accidentally by hitting a door.
The decision further stated that, according to the detention ward cell occupation log (журнал покамерного размещения лиц, содержащихся в ИВС), the third applicant had been held in cell no.
1.
The inspection of his cell had not revealed anything “which could have suggested that he had been subjected to violence”.
It followed from the detainees’ circulation log of the detention ward (журнал вывода обвиняемых и подозреваемых из камер ИВС) that between 13 September and 4 October 2005 the third applicant had been taken out of his cell to be questioned by investigator A.Kh., to meet a lawyer and for a “conversation” with V.F., officer of the Nadterechny FSB.
The log contained no indication that the third applicant had been taken out of his cell upon requests of any other officials.
Moreover, according to the written instruction (письменное указание) for the head of the detention ward, issued by investigator T.T.
of the Main Directorate of circuit prosecutor’s office, the first to third applicants were to be “handed over” (выдаваться) outside the ROVD only upon a written approval of investigator A.Kh., who was in charge of the criminal case against them.
Lastly, it was noted that, according to the log of primary medical examination of and medical assistance to the detention ward inmates (журнал первичного опроса и регистрации оказания медицинской помощи лицам, поступающим для содержания в ИВС Надтеречного РОВД), the third applicant had not had any health-related complaints in the period from 13 September to 4 October 2005.
On 26 September 2005 he had complained about diarrhoea, after which a facility medic had examined him and prescribed him the appropriate medication.
Accordingly, the third applicant’s allegation that he had sustained his injuries as a result of ill‐treatment by ROVD officers was unfounded.
On 24 April 2006 the third applicant lodged a further complaint about the alleged ill-treatment with the then Head of the Government of the Chechen Republic, Mr R. Kadyrov.
On 30 May 2006 the above complaint was received by the republican prosecutor’s office.
On the same date investigator A.V.
refused to open a criminal case into the third applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
The decision stated that the third applicant’s guilt in the terrorist act was fully proven by the case file materials.
During his medical examination on 16 September 2005 the third applicant had been found to have bruises and abrasions on the left side of the thorax region and scars on both wrists and knees.
The injuries to the thorax area and the knees had been caused by impact of blunt solid objects.
The bruises and abrasions could have been inflicted three to four days prior to the examination and the scars on the knees – on 4‐5 August 2005, as described by the third applicant.
Injuries to the wrists could have been sustained as a result of the use of handcuffs in the time span of not earlier than one month prior to the examination.
A.V.
concluded that the third applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were not confirmed but effectively refuted by the conclusions of the expert.
Moreover, the third applicant’s defence rights had been respected because he had been on several occasions questioned with the assistance of a lawyer and an interpreter.
In addition, on 28 September 2005 investigator A.Kh.
of the republican prosecutor’s office had identified the third applicant as a person who had abducted a certain S. on 13 July 2005.
The fact that the third applicant had not complained about the alleged ill-treatment at the preliminary investigation stage and had raised the matter only several months after his arrest indicated that he was, in reality, seeking to avoid his criminal responsibility, slander the ROVD officers and have his confession statements invalidated.
It remains unclear whether the third applicant was provided with that decision at the material time.
On 30 June 2006 the third applicant’s lawyer Kh.M.
requested head of remand prison IZ-20/2 in Grozny to inform him when his client had been admitted there and whether he had had any injuries at the time of admission.
By letter of 6 July 2006 head of the remand prison replied that the third applicant had been admitted to the detention facility on 7 September 2005 and that his examination had revealed scars on both wrists because of the use of handcuffs.
On 13 September 2005 the third applicant had been transferred to the Nadterechny ROVD, from where he had returned to the remand prison on 4 October 2005.
When examined on the latter date, he had been found to have bruises on the right shoulder and the right side of the thorax region, abrasions on both wrists, around the left eye and the nose.
On 18 October 2005 the third applicant had been again transferred to the ROVD, from where he had returned on 24 October 2005 with an abrasion on the right side of his back.
Subsequently, the third applicant had been held in the ROVD between 14 and 23 December 2005, 18 and 27 January 2006 and 10 February 2006 until an unspecified date.
On those occasions no injuries had been discovered on him.
By a further letter of 7 July 2006 head of the remand prison informed Kh.M.
that upon the third applicant’s admission to the facility on 17 September 2005 he had scars on both wrists.
The letter, in so far as relevant, went on as follows: “... 4.10.05.
Return [from the Nadterechny ROVD].
On examination a yellow bruise on the third upper part of the right shoulder and the right side of the thorax region.
Crust-covered abrasions on the wrists.
Yellowness around the left eye and crust‐covered abrasions; a longish crust-covered abrasion on the bridge of the nose.
[According to the third applicant], the injuries inflicted seven days ago at the ROVD in Znamenskoye.
12.10.05.
Examination by medical assistant – diagnosis: acute bronchitis, after‐effects of bruising.
24.10.05.
Return [from the ROVD].
A crust-covered longish abrasion on the right side of the back, inflicted one week ago.
... 9.12.05.
Complaints about heart pain.
Diagnosis: simulation ...” Following the request for an inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of ill‐treatment by the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic (see below), on 12 December 2006 the republican prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to open a criminal case concerning the third applicant’s complaint.
It is unclear whether the applicant was provided with a copy of the decision at the material time.
Following the trial court’s direction of 7 March 2007 for an additional inquiry into the applicants’ complaints about the ill-treatment (see below), on 28 March 2007 the republican prosecutor’s office issued a further decision refusing to open a criminal case into those events.
The decision reproduced verbatim the text of the previous refusals issued in respect of the third applicant and contained the same reasoning as the refusals issued in respect of the first and second applicant on 28 March 2007 (see above).
On 4 March 2008 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic instructed the Naurskiy Interdistrict Investigating Department of the Investigating Committee with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the Chechen Republic (hereinafter also “the investigating department”) to conduct a further inquiry into the third applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.
On 14 March 2008 the investigating department, yet again, decided not to institute a criminal investigation into the third applicant’s alleged ill‐treatment.
With reference to statements by ROVD officers Kh.T., S.D., K.G., A.K.
and R.K. and FSB officer M.Kh., who denied having applied physical force to the third applicant, investigator D.M concluded that the third applicant’s submissions were unsubstantiated.
The decision also stated that the applicant’s allegations had been previously dismissed as unfounded.
4.
The applicants’ trial On an unspecified date in 2007 the criminal case against the applicants was sent for trial to the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic.
Before the trial court the applicants denied having committed the offences of which they stood accused and submitted that they had given their self-incriminating statements as a result of torture by police officers.
The first applicant also claimed that although a lawyer had been present during some of the investigative steps, in reality he had not provided him with adequate legal assistance.
(a) The first round of proceedings (i) Judgment of 12 April 2007 In a 76-page long judgment of 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic found the applicants guilty of participation in an organised gang, carrying out of a terrorist act, several counts of murder and assault against law-enforcement officials and unlawful possession of arms.
The first and second applicants were sentenced to eighteen and twenty one years’ imprisonment respectively.
The third applicant received a life imprisonment term.
In finding the applicants guilty the trial court relied in the first place on their pre-trial statements in which they admitted their guilt.
The court did not give the dates of those statements but noted that they had been made in the presence of the applicants’ lawyers.
As regards the second applicant, it also observed that he had confirmed his pre-trial confession statement on 23 and 28 July and 15 September 2005.
The trial court also relied on testimonies of seventy witnesses; records of crime scene and corpses’ inspection, records of identification parades and cross-examination; forensic expert examinations and other pieces of evidence.
As to the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment, the court observed that they had been arrested and questioned in the presence of their representatives, who had also participated in the drawing up of the related procedural documents.
Those investigative steps had been taken by various officials of law-enforcement authorities.
Accordingly, it based the applicants’ conviction on those self-incriminating pieces of evidence in so far as they were coherent and supported by other evidence.
The court went on to note that following its request and also during the preliminary investigation, the republican prosecutor’s office had examined the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and had arrived at well-reasoned decisions that they were unfounded.
Moreover, the trial court found convincing the submissions by investigator A.Kh.
to the effect that the investigating authorities had not needed to use violence against the applicants to obtain their confessions and that, on the contrary, they had been obliged to protect them from reprisals on the part of the relatives of the victims of the explosion.
The court “did not exclude” that those persons could have inflicted bodily injuries on the applicants.
It also noted that the applicants and their lawyers “had avoided participating in the inquiries” conducted by the prosecutors and considered that they had therefore “agreed” with the refusals to institute criminal proceedings into their allegations.
The court stated that its conclusions were further supported by a video record of a conversation (беседа) of 23 July 2005 with the participation of the first and second applicants and the police officers.
Their interrogation on that date had been conducted by way of “questions and answers”.
The applicants had not displayed fear, no injuries could be seen on their faces.
They had denied some circumstances and talked about others, which fact indicated that they had had at their disposal various defence strategies and refuted their allegation that they had only signed interrogation records prepared in advance or repeated the information told to them by police officers.
The court also invalidated the record of identification of the third applicant by witness R. because it established that unspecified ROVD officers had several times showed her his photograph before the identification.
(ii) The special decision of 12 April 2007 By special decision (частное определение) of 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court drew the attention of the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic to numerous breaches of the rules of criminal procedure in the conduct of the investigation in case no.
49017.
In particular, the decision stated that on 13 November 2006 the trial court had ordered the republican prosecutor’s office to conduct an inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment.
Although the inquiry itself had lasted one month, the republican prosecutor’s office had delayed the submission of its conclusions to the trial court for three months.
Moreover, while the first applicant’s allegations concerning his bodily injuries had been confirmed by the expert, the inquiry had failed to give the answer to the main question, that is the origin of those injuries.
The decisions in respect of the second and third applicants were flawed by the same defect.
As a result, the trial court had had to order an additional inquiry.
The court went on to state that transcripts of major investigative steps had blank spaces permitting later modifications and add-ups.
The majority of conclusions of the forensic experts concerning the corpses had been given on the basis of their visual examinations (осмотры) and witness’ statements and in the absence of their autopsies, which was unacceptable.
The case file contained materials concerning “liquidation” of nine members of the organised criminal gang during their arrest.
However, in none of those cases had the law-enforcement authorities conducted an inquiry of the proportionality of the use of force.
The site- and corpses’ inspection reports stated that the killed members of the gang had been armed.
However, no arms had been discovered at those crime scenes.
The court instructed the prosecutor of the Chechen Republic to look into the matter and to notify it of the measures taken not later than a month after the receipt of the decision.
There is no indication that there was a follow-up on that decision.
(iii) The applicants’ appeal Between 18 and 24 April 2007 the applicants appealed against the trial judgment.
They submitted, among other things, that the trial court had based their conviction on their self-incriminating statements obtained under torture and that the lawyers who had represented them at the initial stages of the investigation had failed to provide them with adequate legal assistance.
(iv) The appellate judgment of 25 September 2007 On 25 September 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation set aside the applicants’ conviction on the ground that the trial court had failed to establish convincingly the role of each of the applicants in the terrorist act and had given too lenient sentences to the first and second applicants.
It remitted the case at first instance for a re-trial in a different court composition.
(b) The second round of proceedings (i) Trial judgment of 15 May 2008 In a 101-page long judgment of 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic found the applicants guilty of participation in an organised gang, carrying out of a terrorist act, several counts of murder and attempted murder, assaults against law-enforcement officials and unlawful possession of arms and explosives.
The first to third applicants were sentenced to seventeen years and six months’, nineteen years and six months’ and twenty four years’ imprisonment, respectively.
The court held that the applicants’ detention pending investigation and trial was to be counted off towards their sentences and that the starting point for it was to be the date of each of the applicant’s actual arrest: 21 July 2005 for the first applicant; 24 July 2005 for the second applicant and 30 July 2005 for the third applicant.
In finding the applicants guilty the trial court relied on their pre-trial confession statements, including those given by the first applicant on un unspecified date and on 31 July 2005, by the second applicant – on an unspecified date and on 23 and 28 July and 15 September 2005, and by the third applicant – on an unspecified date and on 30 September 2005.
It also relied on testimonies from some seventy witnesses; records of crime scene and corpses’ inspection and other pieces of evidence.
The court considered that the applicants had retracted their confessions because they were trying to avoid their criminal responsibility.
Their allegations at trial that they had not been involved in the crimes imputed to them were effectively refuted by their pre-trial confession statements and witness testimonies.
The applicants’ submission that they had been forced to confess under torture and threats of rape directed against them and their relatives were unfounded because all investigative steps with their participation had been conducted in the presence of defenders and, where necessary, attesting witnesses.
The applicants had not made any objections at the time when those investigative steps had been taken.
The republican prosecutor’s office and the investigating department had refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicants’ alleged ill‐treatment because their submissions were unfounded and the court found no reasons to question those conclusions.
The trial court excluded as inadmissible evidence the video record of a “conversation” (беседа) between the first and second applicants and the ROVD officers because it had not been properly appended to the criminal case file and although it was written on the video tape that it had been recorded on 21 July 2005, it clearly followed from the conversation that it had taken place on a later date.
(ii) The appellate decision of 23 September 2008 On 23 September 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the trial judgment on the applicants’ appeal.
B.
Relevant Domestic Law Article 46 of the CCrP provided, at the relevant time (July 2005), for the procedural rights from the moment of arrest of a suspect (задержание подозреваемого), including the following rights: to be informed of the suspicion against him; to receive a copy of the decision to initiate criminal proceedings against him or a copy of the arrest record (протокол задержания); to make a deposition in relation to the suspicion against him or to remain silent; to have legal assistance from the moment indicated in Article 49 § 3 (2) and (3) of the Code; and to have a confidential meeting with counsel before the first interview.
According to Article 49 of the CCrP, counsel had to participate in a criminal case from the initiation of criminal proceedings against a named person, from the time of the arrest of a suspect in situations described in Articles 91 and 92 of the Code, or when detention of the suspect had been ordered under Article 100 of the Code.
Article 49 also provided that an advocate could be admitted as counsel in a criminal case from the moment when a suspect was apprehended with due regard to Article 91 and 92 of the Code, or when he was remanded in custody under Article 100 of the Code.
It followed from Article 50 of the CCrP that a suspect could retain counsel or have him appointed by the investigating or prosecuting authority.
Under Article 51 participation of counsel was mandatory unless the suspect waived his right to legal assistance.
It was mandatory in cases concerning an eventual sentence beyond fifteen year’s imprisonment.
In such a situation counsel should be retained by the suspect or appointed by the investigating or prosecuting authority, following the procedure under Article 49 of the Code.
Article 92 of the CCrP required that after the suspect had been arrested he should be brought (доставление) before an investigating authority or a prosecutor.
No later than three hours after this an arrest record should be compiled together with a notice that the suspect had been informed of his rights under Article 46 of the Code.
The suspect should be interviewed, and before such interviews, he should, if requested, be afforded an opportunity to have a meeting with counsel.
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment and that the national authorities failed to investigate it properly.
The first and second applicants complain that because of the belated drawing up of their arrest records they were held in unrecorded and unacknowledged detention which left them in a legal vacuum, contrary to the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention.
With reference to Article 6 of the Convention the applicants complain that the domestic courts convicted them on the basis of their self-incriminating statements obtained under torture.
Moreover, a number of investigative measures (including on-site verifications of the applicants’ statements and identification parades) were carried out without their lawyers.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) the applicants further complain that the national authorities had breached their right to legal assistance of their own choosing at the initial stages of the criminal proceedings against them.
Lastly, the applicants complain under Article 13 that they did not have effective remedies in respect of their grievances under Article 3.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF USPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos.
48053/06 and 7 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
9 February 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Uspanov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,Dmitry Dedov,Peeter Roosma, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos.
48053/06 and 7 others) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Russian nationals (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the applicants’ complaints concerning their alleged ill‐treatment, unrecorded detention and the use of confession statements allegedly obtained under duress;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1.
Between 2004 and 2010 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of belonging to illegal armed groups and having committed crimes of a terrorist nature in the North Caucasus region. The applicants alleged, among other things, that they had been ill-treated by law-enforcement officers and that they had been convicted on the basis of confession statements obtained under duress. THE FACTS
2.
The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. 3. The Government were initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and then by his successor in that office, Mr M. Galperin. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. According to the applicant, on 31 October 2004 at around 4 p.m. a group of armed persons in uniforms without insignia stopped him near a local market in the village of Assinovskaya in the Sunzhenskiy District of Chechnya. According to the applicant, they were officers of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic (kadyrovtsy). They hit him with the butts of their guns, put a bag over his head and put him in a car. 6. According to the applicant, they held him in a basement. Six men beat him, forcing him to confess to various crimes, to testify against unknown people and to sign blank papers. They kicked and punched him on his torso, shoulders and hips, and beat him with pistol butts and a spade. The beatings continued for about seven days, mostly at night. The officers attached electric wires to his fingers and administered electric shocks to him every fifteen minutes. Unable to withstand the pain, the applicant signed the blank documents. 7. On 5 or 6 November 2004 the applicant’s wife, Ms L.Kh., and his mother, Ms Z.T., went to the Gudermes Division of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic. The head of the Security Service informed them that the applicant had been detained because he was suspected of belonging to illegal armed groups. 8. Shortly thereafter the applicant was taken to an office to see his mother and wife. According to them, he could barely walk and was dragging his foot. His eyes were red and he had black bruises under them and his clothes were dirty and torn. He could barely speak and asked his relatives to bring him warm clothing and food because he had not eaten for five days. 9. On 10 November 2004 the applicant was transferred to the Sunzhenskiy Department of the Interior (“ROVD”). 10. On 11 November 2004 the applicant was taken to an interview. He complained to an investigator about his ill-treatment and unlawful detention but the investigator dismissed his complaints and threatened him with further ill-treatment if he did not confess to the crimes he had been accused of or refused to cooperate. 11. On 11 November 2004 at 10.20 a.m. the investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest and he was transferred to a temporary detention centre (“IVS”). 12. At 10.40 a.m. the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer. He confessed to belonging to illegal armed groups, and stated that the ROVD officers had not applied physical force to him. 13. On 12 November 2004 the applicant was examined by an IVS doctor, who recorded bruises and haematomas on his shoulders and hips. 14. On 7 January 2005 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment and unrecorded detention to a prosecutor. 15. On 17 January 2005 a forensic medical expert issued report no. 35, according to which the injuries recorded on 12 November 2004 had been inflicted by a hard blunt object seven to ten days prior to the applicant’s examination. 16. On 18 January and 22 April 2005 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case. According to the refusals, the applicant had been arrested on 10 November 2004 during a special operation carried out by officers of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD. Referring to the officers’ explanations that the applicant had resisted arrest, the prosecutor found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment unfounded. 17. On 31 August 2006, on behalf of the applicant, Ms L.Kh. challenged the refusals of 18 January and 22 April 2005 before the Achkhoy-Martan District Court. She also complained that his arrest had been recorded ten days after his actual arrest. 18. On 11 October 2006 the court dismissed the complaint, using the same terms as in the text of the refusals. 19. On 22 November 2006 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the District Court’s decision as unfounded, noting that his allegations had already been examined by the Supreme Court of Chechnya during his trial. 20. On 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya convicted the applicant on charges of terrorism and belonging to illegal armed groups, relying on the confession statements he had given during the investigation and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. 21. The applicant appealed, submitting that his conviction had been based on his confession, which had been obtained under duress. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. 22. According to the applicant, on 6 February 2006, while he was being held in the Chernokozovo remand prison in Chechnya, he asked officials there to send his preliminary complaint to the Court. 23. The Court did not receive the applicant’s letter. 24. The Government were unable to provide the Court with a copy of the outgoing-correspondence logbooks from the Chernokozovo remand prison because the time-limit for the storage of the documents in question had expired. 25. According to the applicant, on 27 March and 15 May 2006 he sent two more letters to the Court from correctional colony no. 28 in the Arkhangelsk Region. 26. The Court did not receive those letters either. 27. According to the outgoing-correspondence logbooks of colony no. 28, provided by the Government, between May and July 2006 the applicant sent letters to human rights organisations and his lawyer. He did not send any addressed to the Court. 28. On 20 November 2006 the Court received the applicant’s preliminary complaint, which was dated 27 July 2006. 29. On 4 December 2006 the Court invited the applicant to submit a completed application form. 30. On 2 March 2007 the applicant submitted his application form. 31. The applicants are Mr Ismail Mutayev and Mr Ismail Tatayev. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. (a) The applicant’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment between 14 and 17 November 2004
32.
According to the applicant, on 14 November 2004 at a petrol station in Gudermes, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia stopped him and forced him at gunpoint to lie down. They punched him and then handcuffed him, put him in a car and drove away. 33. According to the applicant, these were officers of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic. They took him to their headquarters in the village of Tsentoroy, where they beat him for about five to six hours. The applicant was handcuffed to a pipe. His back, shoulder, elbow, the palm of his right hand and his abdomen were burned using gas flames. He fainted on several occasions. Each time he regained consciousness, he was ordered to sign documents. 34. On 15 November 2004 the applicant was taken to the Gudermes ROVD. The ROVD officers also beat him and threatened to pour acid on his burnt hand. The applicant signed a confession. 35. On 17 November 2004 at 6.20 p.m. the investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest. On the same day he was transferred to the IVS of the Gudermes ROVD. According to the applicant, he was again ill-treated and subjected to electric shocks. 36. On 18 and 23 November and 2 December 2004 the applicant confessed to belonging to illegal armed groups, blowing up military vehicles, abduction and aggravated murder. 37. On 28 December 2004 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny. (b) Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
38.
On 3 February 2005 the applicant’s lawyer complained to a prosecutor about the applicant’s arrest and his ill-treatment. 39. On 7 February 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 124 of 9 February 2005, he had a linear scar on his head, scars on his right shoulder, an extensive scar of an intense pink-red colour on his right forearm and hand, a red oval scar in the lumbar area, a scar on his chest, and two scars on both lower legs. The expert concluded that the scars had been caused by something very hot being applied to the applicant’s skin within two to three months before the examination. The scars on his legs could have been inflicted by a hard blunt object two to three months before the examination. 40. On 17 February 2005 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of the police officers and concluding that the injuries had been inflicted before his arrest. 41. On 11 April 2005 the applicant again complained about his ill‐treatment and that his confession statements had been given under duress. 42. On 16 May 2005 the applicant complained about his ill-treatment to a prosecutor. He reiterated in detail the circumstances of his apprehension in Gudermes on 14 November 2004 and the ensuing ill‐treatment. 43. On 11 May 2005 the investigator opened a criminal case into the infliction of medium harm to health by unidentified perpetrators. On 1 July 2005 the applicant was granted victim status. 44. Between 11 July 2005 and 25 April 2008 the criminal investigation was suspended at least nine times for failure to identify a perpetrator. All of those decisions were quashed as incomplete. 45. In the meantime, on 6 November 2005 the investigator refused to open a criminal case in respect of several police officers the applicant had identified, owing to the lack of evidence of a crime. 46. Between 16 April and 28 October 2013 the investigation was resumed and suspended twice for failure to identify a perpetrator. (a) The applicant’s apprehension and alleged ill-treatment between 23 August and 24 September 2004
47.
According to the applicant, on the night of 23 August 2004 a group of armed men in masks and camouflage uniform broke into his house in Gudermes. They beat him and searched the house. The applicant noticed the word “Vostok” (a military unit staffed by Chechens under the command of Mr S.Ya.) on the men’s T-shirts. The men covered the applicant’s head and, according to him, took him to the Vostok headquarters, where they subjected him to electric shocks while pouring water over his feet. The ill‐treatment lasted for about two hours, after which the applicant was unable to walk. When he fell to the ground, the men kicked him in the kidney area. 48. On 23 August 2004 the applicant was transferred to the Gudermes ROVD. The ROVD officers questioned him about members of illegal armed groups and threatened him with further ill-treatment. They wrapped telephone wires around his head, put a gas mask over it and administered electric shocks to him. Unable to withstand the pain, the applicant confessed and also made several statements incriminating other people. 49. According to the applicant, on 24 and 25 August 2004 the ill‐treatment continued. 50. On 27 August 2004 an investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest. He was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer. 51. On 20 September 2004 he reiterated his confession statement. 52. According to the applicant, he was regularly ill-treated until at least 24 September 2004 with the use of gas masks and electric shocks, being forced to drink alcohol and inhale cigarette smoke, and pinching various parts of his body with pliers. 53. On an unspecified date in March 2005, the applicant’s uncle and mother visited him in the Gudermes ROVD. According to them, the applicant looked “worn-out, pale and sick”. His eyesight had significantly deteriorated although he had had no problems with it before. He had a black bruise on his nose and wounds on his hand. It appears from the material in the case file that the applicant was not examined by a doctor either following his arrest or during his detention. (b) Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
54.
On 11 February 2005 the applicant complained to a prosecutor about his apprehension and ill-treatment and that his confessions had been obtained under duress. 55. On 12 March 2005 during the interview with the prosecutor the applicant retracted his confession and again complained about his ill‐treatment. 56. On 19 March 2005 the investigator refused to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime, referring only to the explanations of the police officers. 57. On 22 June 2005 the applicant lodged another complaint with a prosecutor. He complained about his apprehension and ill-treatment, reiterating his earlier submissions and giving the names and ranks of the perpetrators. 58. On 17 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Chechnya, examining the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 59 below), ordered an additional inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of ill‐treatment which resulted in the refusal to open a criminal case of 30 November 2005. 59. On 23 June 2005 the applicants’ trial before the Supreme Court of Chechnya started. The applicants pleaded not guilty and complained about their arrest and ill-treatment and that their confessions had been signed under duress. 60. On 7 August 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya found the applicants guilty as charged, relying on the confessions they had given during the investigation. 61. Questioned as a witness, Mr Tatayev’s mother submitted that he had been arrested at night at their house and that she had seen him for the first time after that four or five days later. According to her, he had been severely beaten. 62. Questioned as witnesses, Mr Mutayev’s uncle and his neighbour submitted that Mr Mutayev had been arrested on 14 November 2004. The following day, when officers took Mr Mutayev home to carry out investigative activities, his uncle and neighbour saw him and noted that his face and body were covered with haematomas and bruises and his right hand had been burned. 63. The applicants appealed, submitting that their confessions had been obtained under duress. On 16 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed their appeals and amended the judgment, sentencing them to twenty-two and seventeen-years’ imprisonment, respectively. 64. On 19 March 2007 Mr Tatayev was issued with a certificate attesting that he had a second-degree disability, in connection with the general state of his health. 65. On 26 September 2005 at around 1 p.m. officers of the special police forces (OMON) and officers of the Groznenskiy ROVD burst into the car service centre where the applicant worked. They took him at gunpoint to OMON premises in Grozny. According to the applicant, the officers beat him for three days, forcing him to confess to killing three police officers. They kicked and punched him on his body, beat him with rubber truncheons and a spade, and administered electric shocks to him. 66. On 29 September 2005 the OMON officers threatened him with sexual violence. The applicant signed a confession. 67. On 7 October 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny where he was examined by a doctor. According to his medical notes of 7 October 2005, he had two vertical stripes on his back 25 and 10 cm in length, scabbed-over abrasions on his back, swelling of his left shoulder joint, and bruises on his right leg. The applicant explained that the injuries had been caused by rubber truncheons. 68. According to the applicant, on 15 or 18 February 2006 police officers of the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD again ill-treated him, suspending him from a pipe, strangling him and subjecting him to electric shocks. 69. On 26 February 2006 the applicant was taken back to the remand prison. A doctor recorded three scabbed-over bruises on his back. 70. On 28 February 2006 the applicant’s lawyer complained to a prosecutor about the applicant’s ill-treatment in September 2005 and February 2006. 71. In his forensic medical report no. 215 of 10 March 2006, the expert noted the applicant’s injuries recorded on 7 October 2005. According to the report, the bruises on the applicant’s back recorded on 26 February 2006 had been inflicted by a hard blunt object. The applicant explained that on 15 February 2006 police officers had beaten him all over his body and subjected him to electric shocks. The expert concluded that it was possible that the injuries had been sustained on the date and in the circumstances described by the applicant. The expert also recorded a scar on his forearm, three scars on his back and a scar on his lower right leg, which had been caused by injuries inflicted between one and three months before the examination. 72. On 13 March 2006 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of the OMON and ROVD officers, who had denied the applicant’s allegations. The investigator concluded that the applicant’s injuries had been sustained before his arrest. 73. On 25 May 2007 the Zavodskoy District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the refusal, referring to his trial proceedings and final conviction of 27 July 2006, in which the trial court had dismissed his allegations of ill-treatment. 74. On 20 June 2007, on an appeal by the applicant, the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the District Court’s decision. 75. On 8 May 2005 at about 10 a.m. officers of the Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic (Управление по борьбе с организованной преступностью – “UBOP”) stopped the applicant on the street in Nalchik and took him to their premises. The officers put a bag over his head, handcuffed him and transferred him to the Federal Security Service (FSB) in Cherkessk in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic. 76. According to the applicant, the officers kicked and punched him and beat him with rubber truncheons, forcing him to confess to belonging to illegal armed groups and having participated in terrorist attacks. 77. On 8 May 2005 the applicant signed a confession. 78. On 11 May 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. Unidentified convoy officers were present during the examination. According to report no. 431, the applicant had abrasions on his wrists, neck and upper left shoulder that had been inflicted by a hard blunt object between one and five days before the examination. 79. On an unspecified date, the applicant was transferred to Moscow. On 26 July, 15 and 29 August and 12 September 2005 he complained to a prosecutor about his ill-treatment. 80. On 27 October and 12 December 2005 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring solely to the explanations of the FSB officers. 81. On 7 November 2007 the Basmannyy District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the refusal of 27 October 2005, referring to his conviction of 30 August 2007 (see paragraph 83 below) and noting that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had already been examined during his trial. 82. On 12 March 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision on appeal. 83. On 2 February 2007 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty on charges of terrorism and sentenced him to life imprisonment, relying on the confession he had given during the investigation. In court the applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that his confession had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed his allegations, referring to the refusals to open a criminal investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. 84. The applicant appealed, submitting that his confession had been obtained under duress. On 30 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. 85. The applicants are Mr Umar Khadziyev, Mr Alikhan Ozdoyev and Mr Rustam Tsurov. Their personal details are indicated in the appendix. 86. On 21 July 2006 traffic police officers stopped the applicants between the villages of Kartsa and Chermen in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania for an identity check. When two of the applicants failed to produce their identity documents, the police searched their car and found an object which was later identified as a bomb. 87. The applicants were taken to the Promyshlenniy ROVD, where officers of the UBOP of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania questioned them. 88. According to the applicants, the officers repeatedly kicked and punched them all over their bodies, put plastic bags over their heads, strangled them, beat them with rubber truncheons, administered electric shocks to their fingers, ears and genitals, put needles under their nails and burned them with cigarettes. 89. On 22 July 2006 at about 7 p.m. the applicants were taken to remand prison no. 99/6 in Vladikavkaz. 90. According to the remand prison medical records, Mr Khadziyev had a black eye, bruises on his right forearm and multiple bruises on his legs. Mr Ozdoyev had a haematoma under his left eye, multiple bruises on his left shoulder and bruises on his legs. Mr Tsurov had bruises in the scapula area and multiple scratches on his legs. 91. On 23 July 2006 the applicants were again questioned and, according to them, ill-treated. 92. On 23, 24 and 25 July 2006 the ambulance doctor examined the applicants. According to their medical notes, they had multiple bruises and haematomas on their bodies and limbs. Mr Tsurov also had fractured ribs and a damaged chest. 93. On 24 July 2006 Mr Khadziyev and Mr Ozdoyev signed confession statements. 94. On 24, 25, 26 and 29 July 2006 Mr Tsurov also confessed during his interviews as a suspect. 95. On 31 July 2006 Mr Ozdoyev reiterated his confession statement during his interview as a suspect. 96. On an unspecified date in August or September 2006 the applicants complained about their ill-treatment to a prosecutor. 97. According to forensic medical reports nos. 2059 and 2060 of 2 October 2006, injuries to Mr Khadziyev and Mr Ozdoyev had been recorded on 22, 23 and 24 July 2006. It was impossible to determine the mechanism of their infliction owing to lack of information. 98. On 19 October 2006 the investigator opened a criminal case into infliction of injuries. 99. Between 15 and 17 November 2006 forensic experts issued three more reports: no. 2423 (in respect of Mr Ozdoyev), no. 2424 (in respect of Mr Khadziyev) and no. 2425 (in respect of Mr Tsurov). In those reports, they reiterated the applicants’ multiple injuries, bruises and haematomas recorded in their medical notes on 22, 23 and 24 July 2006. The experts did not find any injuries consistent with having been inflicted by electric shocks. In report no. 2425, the expert confirmed the fractures of Mr Tsurov’s ninth and tenth ribs on the left side. 100. By two separate decisions of 19 March 2007, the investigator discontinued the investigation for lack of evidence of a crime. Referring to the statements of the UBOP officers, the investigator concluded that the applicants’ injuries had been inflicted while they were resisting arrest. 101. On 7 November 2007 the Promyshlenniy District Court endorsed the investigator’s reasoning and dismissed the applicants’ subsequent appeals. 102. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, which on 19 December 2007 upheld the court’s decision. 103. On 13 December 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania convicted the applicants on charges of terrorism and belonging to illegal armed groups, relying on their confessions of 24, 25, 26, 29 and 31 July 2006. The applicants had pleaded not guilty, arguing that the statements had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed their allegations as unfounded, referring to two decisions of 19 March 2007. 104. Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov were sentenced to twenty-three, eighteen and twenty-four years’ imprisonment, respectively. 105. On 2 July 2009, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the convictions. 106. On 17 March 2006 at about 10 p.m. officers of the Karachayevsk UBOP in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic apprehended the applicant near his house. They put him in a car and drove to Cherkessk. 107. According to the applicant, on the way the officers twisted his arms, hit him on his head and various parts of his body. He was taken to the Khabezkiy ROVD, where the officers kicked and punched him. 108. On 18 March 2006 at about 12.30 a.m. the officers took the applicant to a hospital because he was bleeding profusely from the head. 109. On 18 March 2006 at an unspecified time in the evening an investigator recorded the applicant’s arrest. 110. On 19 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to the IVS in Cherkessk. According to medical notes taken there, he had haematomas under his eyes and on his left shoulder, and a fresh scar on his head. The applicant complained of headaches. 111. On the same day the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 179, he had abrasions on his head and bruises on his face and head inflicted by a hard blunt object between one and two days before the examination. 112. On 31 March 2006 the applicant was admitted to remand prison no. 9/1. 113. According to the applicant, on 2 May 2006 the officers beat him again. It appears from the extract of the remand prison medical notes of 2 May 2006 that the applicant had contusions on his chest and forehead and bruises on his upper limbs. 114. On 23 March 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office in the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic about his unrecorded detention and ill-treatment on 18 March and 2 May 2006. 115. On 6 April 2006 a prosecutor refused to open a criminal case, mainly referring to the explanations of the UBOP officers. 116. On 13 April 2006 the applicant’s lawyer questioned a nurse, Ms L.O., who had been on duty at the hospital on 18 March 2006. According to her, the officers had taken the applicant to the hospital at night. He was bleeding from the head. The officers ordered her not to record the applicant’s presence. She treated the wound on his head and the officers took him away. 117. On 20 November 2006 the refusal of 6 April 2006 was quashed as incomplete. 118. On 25 November 2006 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the explanations of the UBOP officers. 119. On an unspecified date in January 2009 the applicant appealed against the refusal of 25 November 2006 to the Cherkesskiy Town Court. 120. On 22 January 2009 the court declared the refusal unsubstantiated and unlawful. It noted that the investigator had failed to properly address the applicant’s complaint that he had been ill-treated by the police on 18 March and 2 May 2006. The court also noted that the investigator had not addressed the applicant’s allegation concerning his unrecorded detention between 17 and 18 March 2006 at all. 121. On 26 February 2009 the investigator again refused to open a criminal case on the same grounds as before. 122. On 18 July 2008 the Supreme Court of the Karachayevo‐Cherkessiya Republic convicted the applicant of belonging to illegal armed groups and illegally storing weapons and explosives, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant had pleaded partially guilty, and stated that his confession had been obtained under duress. The court dismissed his allegations, referring to the refusals to open a criminal case. 123. On 23 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal and upheld the judgment in its entirety. 124. On 15 March 2013 the applicant was released upon completion of his sentence. 125. The applicants are Mr Aslanbek Vitrigov, Mr Anzor Agamerzayev and Mr Adam Tuntuyev. The applicants’ personal details are indicated in the appendix. 126. On 19 July 2005 a car exploded in the village of Znamenskoye in Chechnya, resulting in the death of ten police officers and three civilians and injuries to twenty-four other persons. A criminal case into the matter was opened. (a) Mr Aslanbek Vitrigov
127.
On 20 July 2005 at about 12.30 p.m. police officers of the Nadterechniy ROVD went to Mr Vitrigov’s house and ordered him to follow them. The officers took him to a police station, where he was asked to confess to blowing up the car. The applicant refused and the officers beat him. According to the applicant, they put a plastic bag over his head, suffocating him, and punched and kicked him on his body, breaking his nose. They also took off his trousers, pinched his penis with pliers and poured water over his body. 128. On 21 July 2005 at 10.30 a.m. Mr Vitrigov’s arrest was recorded. 129. On 21 and 22 July 2005 the applicant’s ill-treatment continued, including by administering electric shocks to him. The officers had the applicant’s sister brought to the police station and threatened to rape her if he refused to confess. The applicant signed all the papers the officer had given him. 130. On 31 July 2005 the applicant confessed to having participated in the explosion. 131. According to the applicant, he was not examined by a doctor during the ensuing two months of his detention at the ROVD. 132. On 16 September 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 208, he had small superficial abrasions on his left foot, which could have been caused by the impact of a hard blunt object four to five days before the examination. (b) Mr Anzor Agamerzayev
133.
On 21 July 2005 police officers of the Nadterechniy ROVD went to the applicant’s house, beat him and took him to a police station. The applicant was forced to stand facing the wall with his legs apart while the officers hit and kicked various parts of his body. They put a plastic bag over his head, suffocating him, and administered electric shocks through the wires attached to his hands. 134. On 22 July 2005 Mr Vitrigov’s relatives, whom the officers had had brought to the Nadterechniy ROVD, saw Mr Agamerzayev in the building. According to them, he had been severely beaten and could barely walk. The officers had to drag him around. 135. On 22 and 23 July 2005 the officers continued to beat him and again subjected him to electric shocks. Unable to withstand the treatment, the applicant agreed to confess. 136. On 24 July 2005 at 10.30 a.m. the applicant’s arrest was recorded. 137. On 26 July 2005 the applicant confessed to an investigator. 138. On 16 September 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 210, he had a scar and several areas of skin depigmentation on his left leg caused by wounds and abrasions which could have been sustained at the time and in the circumstances described by him, namely as a result of the beatings by police officers on 21 July 2005. (c) Mr Adam Tuntuyev
139.
On 30 July 2005 at about 11 a.m. Mr Adam Tuntuyev, who was an employee of the Security Service of the President of the Chechen Republic, was taken to the Nadterechniy ROVD. 140. The applicant was questioned as a witness about the car explosion. He denied having participated in the crime. According to the applicant, the police officers beat him, subjected him to electric shocks, made him squat while one of the officers sat on his back and suspended him from the ceiling by his handcuffs with a plastic bag over his head. 141. On the same day, Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev identified Mr Tuntuyev in an identification parade as their accomplice. 142. On 31 July 2005 the applicant signed a confession statement. 143. According to the applicant, after his arrest and during the ensuing two months of his detention at the Nadterechniy ROVD he was routinely subjected to ill-treatment, including by administering electric shocks and threats of sexual violence. 144. On 4 October 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny. According to his medical record, he had bruises on his right shoulder and the right side of the thorax and scabbed‐over abrasions on both wrists, around his left eye and on his nose. 145. On 19 October 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to report no. 206, he had scars and abrasions on his nose, both wrists and around his left eye, areas of depigmentation and bruises on his hands and right shoulder, and abrasions and bruises on the right side of the thorax. The injuries could have been inflicted by a hard blunt object four to five days before the examination. (a) The applicants’ complaints to a prosecutor
146.
On various dates in August, September and October 2005 the applicants and their relatives lodged several complaints with a prosecutor about the applicants’ ill-treatment by the ROVD officers. 147. On 17 October 2005 and 17 February 2006 respectively Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Vitrigov complained about their unrecorded detention following their arrests. 148. On 22 and 25 October 2005 and 30 May 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Tuntuyev, finding his allegations unfounded. 149. On 26 October 2005 and 30 March 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Agamerzayev, referring to the report on his forensic examination of 19 October 2005 which stated that he had no injuries. 150. On 26 March 2006 the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case into the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Vitrigov, finding his allegations unfounded. 151. The decisions contained no conclusions concerning Mr Agamerzayev’s and Mr Vitrigov’s complaints about their alleged unrecorded detention. (b) Inquiries ordered by the Supreme Court of Chechnya
152.
On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya, examining the criminal case against the applicants (see paragraphs 157-158 below), ordered an additional inquiry into the applicants’ allegations of unlawful arrest and ill-treatment. 153. On 12 December 2006 the prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment. 154. On 7 March 2007 the Supreme Court again ordered an additional inquiry. It noted, among other things, that the prosecutor had failed to explain Mr Vitrigov’s injuries recorded in forensic report no. 208 of 16 September 2005. 155. On 26 March 2007 the refusal of 12 December 2006 was quashed as incomplete. 156. On 28 March 2007 the investigator refused to open a criminal case, finding that Mr Vitrigov’s and Mr Tuntuyev’s injuries could have been caused “as an act of revenge for them having committed a terrorist act and not necessarily with the aim of extracting confession statements”. Mr Agamerzayev’s injuries could have been sustained before the arrest. The decision did not contain conclusions concerning the applicants’ complaints about their alleged unrecorded detention. 157. On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Chechnya found the applicants guilty on charges of terrorism, belonging to illegal armed groups, several counts of murder and assault against law-enforcement officers and unlawful possession of arms. The court relied on their confessions, dismissing the applicants’ complaints that they had been obtained under duress. 158. On the same date the Supreme Court of Chechnya issued a separate decision, in which it noted numerous breaches committed during the inquiry into the applicants’ alleged ill-treatment. It noted, among other things, that the investigator had failed to explain the origin of the applicants’ injuries. 159. On 25 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment, finding the sentences imposed too lenient. 160. On 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court of Chechnya again found the applicants guilty and sentenced them to seventeen, nineteen and twenty‐four years’ imprisonment. 161. On 23 September 2008 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment and dismissed the applicants’ subsequent appeals. 162. On 30 January 2014 Mr Tuntuyev was transferred to correctional colony no. 7 in the Omsk Region to serve his sentence. There, he was characterised as a “persistent rule-breaker”. 163. Between 27 February and 23 June 2014 and between 28 August 2014 and 28 February 2015, the applicant was placed on a prison ward (ШИЗО) and in solitary confinement punishment cells (ПКТ) for reasons such as not greeting colony officers or greeting them informally. 164. It appears from the material in the case file that the applicant was held on a prison ward and in punishment cells in isolation. 165. On 10 August 2005 police officers of the Ministry of the Interior in Grozny arrested the applicant on suspicion of a crime. According to the applicant, the officers badly beat him and subjected him to electric shocks, forcing him to confess. 166. On 20 August 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 20/1 in Grozny, where it was noted that he had haematomas in his scapula and groin areas. 167. According to the applicant, the officers also ill-treated him between 5 and 9 September 2005. 168. On 12 October 2005 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. In his forensic report no. 1079, the expert referred to the applicant’s injuries recorded in the remand prison and noted that they had been inflicted by a hard blunt object, but that it was impossible to determine when they had been inflicted. 169. On 16 September 2005 the applicant’s lawyer complained to a prosecutor about the applicant’s ill-treatment. 170. On 24 September and 28 December 2005 an investigator refused to open a criminal case, referring to the lack of evidence of a crime. 171. On 27 January 2006 the Zavodskoy District Court convicted the applicant of belonging to illegal armed groups. The applicant complained about his ill-treatment by the police in the early stages of the proceedings. The complaint was eventually dismissed as unfounded. 172. On 30 April 2008 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the refusal of 28 December 2005, referring to the judgment of 27 January 2006 in which his allegations of ill‐treatment had already been examined and dismissed by the trial court. 173. On 5 December 2008 and 24 May 2009 the prosecutor issued two more refusals to open a criminal case, mainly referring to the explanations of the police officers, who had denied any use of force against the applicant. 174. On 14 August 2009, on an appeal by the applicant, the Leninskiy District Court upheld the refusal of 24 May 2009. 175. On 30 September 2009 the Supreme Court of Chechnya upheld the decision of 14 August 2009 on an appeal by the applicant. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
176.
For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48‐52, 14 November 2013) and Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014). 177. For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the rights of suspects, see Turbylev v. Russia (no. 4722/09, §§ 46-49, 6 October 2015). RELEVANT COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIAL
178.
The relevant parts of the Public statement of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation of 13 March 2007 read as follows:
“15.
In the course of the visits to the North Caucasian region in 2006, the CPT’s delegation once again received many credible allegations of recent ill-treatment of detained persons by members of law enforcement agencies and security forces in the Chechen Republic. The ill-treatment alleged was frequently of such a severity that it could be considered to amount to torture; the methods involved included extensive beating, asphyxiation using a plastic bag or gas mask, electric shocks, suspension by the limbs, hyperextension and, more rarely, the infliction of burns by cigarettes, lighters or other devices. Accounts were also received of threats of execution or of sexual abuse in order to obtain a confession or information. The general picture which emerged was that any detained person who did not promptly confess to the crime of which he was suspected (or provide information being sought by those responsible for the detention) would be in imminent danger of being ill-treated. ...
As regards official law enforcement structures, a particularly high number of allegations of ill-treatment continue ... (more recently) to its inter-district divisions, especially the division in Urus-Martan.
Other law enforcement structures where there would appear to be a particularly high risk of ill-treatment include the Internal Affairs District Divisions of Groznenskiy (rural), Leninskiy (Grozny), Gudermes and Naur. ...
28.
In the course of the 2006 visits, the CPT’s delegation again spoke with a number of persons who gave detailed and credible accounts of being unlawfully held – on occasion for prolonged periods – in places in the Chechen Republic. Frequent reference was made to facilities located in the village of Tsentoroy in the Kurchaloy district, run by armed formations allegedly operating under the command of Ramzan Kadyrov, the present Prime Minister of the Chechen Republic. In certain cases, formal complaints had been lodged with the prosecution services relating to unlawful detention and ill‐treatment at Tsentoroy. ...
31.
Reference should also be made to the delegation’s visit on 2 May 2006 to the Headquarters of the Vostok Battalion of the 42nd Division of the Ministry of Defence, which are situated close to Gudermes. The delegation had received reports that persons had in the past been held unlawfully at these Headquarters ...”
THE LAW
179.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 180. In the case of Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), the Government questioned the date of 13 July 2007 as the date the application had been lodged. 181. The Court notes that Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev sent their first letter containing a brief description of their complaints on 13 July 2007. By a letter of 2 August 2007, the Court invited the applicants to submit a completed application form. The applicants submitted their application form without undue delay on 6 February 2008. Therefore, the Court accepts the date of 13 July 2007, when the complaint was first made, as the date of introduction of the application and dismisses the Government’s objection (see Koni v. Cyprus, no. 66048/09, § 57, 27 October 2015). 182. Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), and Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09) complained about their unrecorded detention under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“1.
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...”
183.
As to Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), the Government submitted that the applicant had failed to challenge the decision of 11 October 2006 of the Achkhoy-Martan District Court and had thus failed to exhaust domestic remedies. 184. Regarding Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), they submitted that the applicants had not requested the trial court to count their conviction sentences from the date they alleged that they had actually been arrested and thus they had not exhausted domestic remedies. 185. As regards the application of Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09), the Government submitted that the applicants had complained about their alleged unrecorded detention to the investigating authorities only once in October 2005 and February 2006, respectively, and that they had not raised the complaint in subsequent proceedings before the courts. According to them, the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their complaints and they had therefore been lodged out of time. 186. The applicants maintained their complaints. (a) Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06)
187.
Contrary to the Government’s submission, the Court notes that the applicant challenged the decision of 11 October 2006 of the Achkhoy‐Martan District Court. As it transpires from the material in the case file, on 22 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Chechnya examined the applicant’s appeal against the court decision and dismissed it as unfounded (see paragraph 19 above). The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection. (b) Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07)
188.
The Court reiterates that the counting of prison terms from the date of the actual detention has no bearing on the availability of procedural safeguards during the applicant’s unrecorded detention (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 66, 26 June 2018). The Court therefore cannot agree with the Government that the applicants should have exhausted domestic remedies by requesting the trial court to count their sentences from the dates of their actual arrests. 189. The Court further observes that the Government did not identify any specific remedy of which the applicants should have made use (see, mutatis mutandis, Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, § 66, 4 November 2010). On the facts, the Court notes that Mr Mutayev lodged at least two complaints with the authorities on 3 February and 16 May 2005, in which he described in detail the circumstances of his arrest and subsequent detention and ill-treatment (see paragraphs 38 and 42 above). Mr Tatayev complained similarly about his detention and ill‐treatment on 11 February and 22 June 2005 (see paragraphs 54 and 57 above). Both applicants reiterated their complaints before the trial court, which ordered an additional inquiry into the allegations that resulted in the refusal to open a criminal case (see paragraphs 58-59 above). 190. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the authorities were sufficiently made aware of the alleged unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention by way of the criminal-law complaint that prompted the inquiry by the investigative authorities, the outcome of which was reviewed by the domestic courts at the applicants’ trial (see Golubyatnikov and Zhuchkov v. Russia, nos. 44822/06 and 49869/06, § 76, 9 October 2018). 191. Having regard to the above, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicants. (c) Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09)
192.
The Court notes that the Government, without specifying a remedy, submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, since they had complained about their unrecorded detention only once in the initial stage of the pre-trial proceedings. 193. The Court observes that the applicants, in addition to their initial complaints about their unrecorded detention lodged with the authorities in October 2005 and February 2006 (see paragraph 147 above), also raised the issue about their apprehension and ill-treatment at trial. The inquiry ordered by the trial court resulted in the refusal to open a criminal investigation of 28 March 2007 (see paragraph 156 above). During the second set of criminal proceedings, the trial court examined and dismissed in their entirety the applicants’ complaints about their apprehension, ill‐treatment and forced confessions. 194. In view of the above, the Court also considers that the applicants provided the domestic authorities with an opportunity to put right the alleged violation. It cannot agree with the Government that it was incumbent on the applicants to lodge yet another complaint challenging the actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities. In this connection it also cannot be said that the applicants failed to comply with the six-month rule for lodging their grievance before the Court (see Ivan Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 30271/03, § 78, 25 November 2010). The Government’s objection should therefore be dismissed. (d) Conclusion
195.
The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. 196. The Court considers that Mr Uspanov’s (no. 48053/06) apprehension on 31 October 2004 is confirmed by the submissions of his mother and wife who saw him on 5 or 6 November 2004 at the Gudermes Division of the Security Service (see paragraph 7 above). By that time the applicant had already been held by State officers for several days (see paragraph 8 above). The Government did not rebut their submissions and the Court has no reason to doubt them. As is apparent from the material in the case file, the applicant’s arrest was recorded on 11 November 2004, that is, about two weeks after his actual arrest (see paragraph 11 above). 197. The Court observes that it was not disputed by the Government that Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07) were “deprived of their liberty” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Nor did they dispute that no records of the applicants’ arrest or detention were drawn up before 17 November 2004 and 27 August 2004 respectively (see paragraphs 35 and 50 above). Moreover, at trial the applicants’ relatives submitted under penalty of perjury that the applicants had been arrested on 14 November 2004 and 23 August 2004 respectively (see paragraphs 61-62 above). 198. In this regard, the Court also notes the CPT’s observations regarding instances of unlawful detention reported at Vostok headquarters and detention facilities located in the village of Tsentoroy, where Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev were allegedly detained (see paragraph 178 above). 199. Regarding Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), the Court observes that his statement about his apprehension by State officers in the evening of 17 March 2006 can be confirmed by the statement of the nurse who treated his wounds on the night of 18 March 2006 at the hospital (see paragraph 116 above). The Government did not dispute her statement and the Court has no reason to doubt it. As is apparent from the material in the case file, the applicant’s arrest was not recorded before the evening of 18 March 2006. The Court also notes the decision of the Cherkesskiy Town Court of 22 January 2009, which found that the investigator had failed to address the applicant’s complaint about his detention between 17 and 18 March 2006 (see paragraph 120 above). 200. In the case of Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09), the Government did not dispute the applicants’ version of the events. The Court observes that the applicants were apprehended on 20 and 21 July 2005, respectively, and their arrest records were drawn up on 21 and 24 July 2005, respectively (see paragraphs 128 and 136 above). 201. The Court therefore finds it established that the applicants were detained as suspects by the State officers without acknowledgment for one day (in the case of Mr Vitrigov and Mr Laypanov), three days (Mr Mutayev and Mr Agamerzayev), four days (Mr Tatayev) and twelve days (Mr Uspanov). The lack of any acknowledgment or records of the applicants’ detention as suspects led to them being deprived of access to a lawyer and all the other rights they should have had as suspects, which meant that they were left completely at the mercy of those holding them. As such, the applicants were vulnerable not only to arbitrary interference with their right to liberty but also to ill-treatment (see Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 53, 8 October 2015, and Golubyatnikov and Zhuchkov, cited above, § 83). 202. The Court finds that the applicants’ unrecorded detention was a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and was incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of this Article (see Fartushin, cited above, § 54). There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), and Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09). 203. The applicants complained that they had been subjected to ill‐treatment at the hands of law-enforcement officers and that no effective investigation into their complaints had been carried out. Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08) and Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09) also complained that there had been no effective remedies available in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”
204.
In the case of Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08) and Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09) the Government stated that Mr Shavayev had appealed against the refusal to open a criminal case of 27 October 2005 in October 2007. As to Mr Laypanov, they submitted that he had appealed against his respective refusal of 25 November 2006 in January 2009. According to the Government, the applicants had failed to act with due diligence in the domestic proceedings, delaying challenging the investigators’ decisions in order not to fall foul of the Court’s six-month time-limit for lodging an application before it. 205. The Court notes that Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08) and Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09) appealed against their respective refusals after the criminal court proceedings against them had been completed (see paragraphs 81 and 119 above). The Court further notes that their complaints were examined in substance. In particular, in the case of Mr Shavayev, on 7 November 2007 the Basmannyy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, referring to his conviction (see paragraph 81 above), and in the case of Mr Laypanov, on 22 January 2009 the Cherkesskiy Town Court quashed the refusal, finding it unlawful (see paragraph 120 above). The Court therefore considers that there were no unexplained delays on the part of the applicants and that they complied with the six-month time-limit. It therefore dismisses the Government’s objections. 206. The Court notes that the complaints are neither manifestly ill‐founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. 207. The Court has already established that Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), and Mr Vitrigov and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09) were apprehended by State officers on suspicion of them having committed various terrorism‐related crimes and held for several days in unrecorded detention in violation of Article 5 of the Convention (see paragraph 202 above). 208. The Court notes that Mr Aliyev (no. 7626/08), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08), Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov (no. 30444/08), Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) and Mr Gastemirov (no. 19185/10) were also arrested by State officers on suspicion of them having committed various terrorist acts (see paragraphs 65, 75, 86, 139 and 165 above). 209. The Court further observes that all the applicants submitted that they had been subjected to violence. They provided detailed and consistent accounts of the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment, which involved severe beatings, including by rubber truncheons, administration of electric shocks through the hands, ears and genitals, putting needles under their nails, pinching of the limbs with pliers, suffocation using gas masks and plastic bags, threats of sexual violence, suspension from pipes and ceilings, burning with gas flames and cigarettes and so forth (see paragraphs 6, 33‐35, 65, 68, 76, 88, 107, 127, 129, 133, 135, 140, 143 and 165 above). 210. After spending varying periods of time at the hands of State officers, the applicants were found to have sustained injuries of varying degrees of severity, as recorded by forensic medical experts and detention facilities (see paragraphs 13, 15, 39, 67, 71, 78, 90, 92, 97, 99, 110-111, 113, 132, 138, 144-145, 166 and 168 above). 211. The Court also notes that at no point was Mr Tatayev examined by a doctor during his detention in the Gudermes ROVD (see paragraph 53 above). Nevertheless, the Court accepts his mother’s statements given during the trial that she saw him several days after his arrest and that he had been beaten (see paragraph 61 above). The Court also notes further statements of his mother and uncle, undisputed by the Government, that they had visited him in March 2005 in the ROVD and that the applicant had had injuries on his nose and hand (see paragraph 53 above). It takes note of his second-degree disability certificate, issued while he was in detention (see paragraph 64 above). In this connection the Court also notes the CPT observations concerning frequent allegations of ill-treatment of detainees in, among other facilities, Gudermes police station (see paragraph 178 above). 212. The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicants’ accounts of the events and to satisfy the Court that the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were credible. 213. The Court observes that the applicants’ credible allegations of their injuries being the result of violence by State officers were dismissed by the investigating authorities as unfounded mainly because of the statements of the State officers denying the applicants’ ill-treatment (see paragraphs 16, 40, 45, 56, 72, 80, 115, 118, 121, 148-150, 153, 156, 170 and 173 above). The investigators issued several decisions refusing to open criminal proceedings, some of which were quashed as unlawful and incomplete (see paragraphs 117 and 155 above). 214. The Court notes that in the case of Mr Mutayev (no. 29924/07), the authorities opened an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment in respect of unidentified persons, which was suspended at least eleven times (see paragraphs 44 and 46 above). At the same time, the investigators refused to open a criminal case in respect of officers whom Mr Mutayev had directly identified as the perpetrators (see paragraph 45 above). In the case of Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 30444/08), the investigator opened an investigation and discontinued it less than six months later, also referring mainly to the statements of the UBOP officers, who denied any use of force (see paragraphs 98 and 100 above). 215. The Court further observes that in some cases the investigating authorities ignored the findings of the national courts. In particular, the Cherkesskiy Town Court noted that the investigator’s findings regarding the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Laypanov were unsubstantiated (see paragraph 120 above). The Supreme Court of Chechnya also noted in the case of Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev that despite two inquiries ordered by the trial court (see paragraphs 152 and 154 above), the investigator had still failed to explain the applicants’ injuries (see paragraph 158 above). Nevertheless, the authorities subsequently again refused to open a criminal case without taking into account the courts’ findings. 216. The Court notes that in all the other cases the national courts at two levels upheld and endorsed the investigators’ defective reasoning contained in their decisions without any independent assessment of the allegations of ill-treatment whatsoever (see paragraphs 18-19, 73-74, 81‐82, 101-102, 172 and 174-175 above). The Court further notes that in the cases of Mr Mutayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Aliyev (no. 7626/08) and Mr Agamerzayev (no. 21123/09) the investigators concluded that the applicants’ injuries had been inflicted before their arrests (see paragraphs 40, 72 and 156 above). No evidence at all was put forward in support of those findings. Furthermore, the investigator’s conclusion regarding Mr Vitrigov and Mr Tuntuyev that their injuries could have been caused “as an act of revenge for them having committed a terrorist act and not necessarily with the aim of extracting confession statements” could be seen as an implicit acknowledgment that the applicants had indeed been ill‐treated by law-enforcement officers as an act of revenge (see paragraph 156 above), which would have made opening and conducting an effective investigation all the more essential. 217. As regards the quality of the forensic expert examinations, the Court reiterates that proper medical examinations are essential safeguards against ill-treatment (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 55 and 118, ECHR 2000‐X). In the present case, some of the forensic examinations were conducted with a significant delay after the events. 218. In particular, Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Khadziyev and Mr Ozdoyev (no. 30444/08), Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) and Mr Gastemirov (no. 19185/10) were examined about two or more months after their respective arrests. Three months passed between the arrests of Mr Mutayev (no. 29924/07) and Mr Tsurov (no. 30444/08) and their forensic examinations. Mr Aliyev (no. 7626/08) was examined more than five months after his first alleged ill‐treatment and about a month after his second alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 68 above). 219. When the applicants were eventually examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (see Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012). In this connection, the Court considers that the significant delays, as well as the lack of information provided to the forensic experts, made it impracticable for them to provide adequate answers to the questions raised by requesting authorities (see Mogilat v. Russia, no. 8461/03, § 64, 13 March 2012). 220. The Court further notes that Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07) was not examined by a forensic expert at all. 221. The Court observes that Mr Shavayev was examined by a forensic expert in the presence of convoy officers (see paragraph 78 above). The Court reiterates that medical examinations must be carried out by a doctor without any police officers being present. Practices such as in the present case undermine the effectiveness and reliability of medical examinations (see Akkoç, cited above, § 118, and Ferhat Kaya v. Turkey, no. 12673/05, § 44, 25 September 2012). 222. Furthermore, the investigators and courts based their findings on the results of a pre‐investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 129, 24 July 2014). In Lyapin, the Court held that in such circumstances a pre‐investigation inquiry is normally insufficient and the authorities’ refusal to institute a fully fledged criminal investigation into credible allegations of ill‐treatment was indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 132-36). 223. Given that the Government’s explanations have their basis in the superficial domestic inquiries which fell short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds that they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. It holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicants’ account of events, which it therefore finds established (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 83-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 102-04, 12 December 2017). 224. The applicants alleged that they had been subjected to torture. 225. The Court observes that the applicants’ allegations of torture, namely by electric shock, severe beatings, pinching of the limbs with pliers, suffocation, threats of sexual violence, needles put under their nails, burning with gas flames and cigarettes, were supported by medical evidence and their detailed descriptions of their ill-treatment. 226. The Court also notes the CPT’s observations (see paragraph 178 above) concerning the serious human rights violations committed by law‐enforcement officers, particularly in Chechnya. It is notable that the applicants’ descriptions of their ill-treatment correspond to the CPT’s observations made in 2006 in various detention facilities in the region. 227. The Court considers that the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicants clearly caused severe physical and mental suffering. The sequence of events also demonstrates that the pain and suffering was inflicted on them intentionally, namely with the aim of extracting confessions that they had committed crimes (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 53, 2 October 2008, and Lolayev v. Russia, no. 58040/08, § 79, 15 January 2015). The Court therefore concludes that the ill‐treatment in issue amounted to torture (see Tangiyev, cited above, § 56; Mukayev v. Russia, no. 22495/08, § 70, 14 March 2017; and Abdulkadyrov and Dakhtayev v. Russia, no. 35061/04, § 70, 10 July 2018). 228. In view of the above, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all the applicants. In the light of this finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether there has also been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08) and Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09). 229. Mr Tuntuyev complained that his placement in a punishment cell in correctional colony IK-7 between 27 February and 23 June 2014 and 28 August 2014 and 28 February 2015 had amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 230. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 231. The Court reiterates that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment (see Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, § 30, 7 June 2011, and Razvyazkin v. Russia, no. 13579/09, § 100, 3 July 2012). While prolonged removal from association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure falls within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention depends on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Razvyazkin, cited above, § 100, with further references). 232. In the present case, the applicant was held in uninterrupted solitary confinement between 27 February and 23 June 2014 and 28 August 2014 and 28 February 2015 (see paragraph 163 above), in total, ten months of isolation. The Court takes note that in addition to social isolation the applicant’s placement in solitary confinement punishment cells was associated with a number of further restrictions involving, in particular, limited access to outdoor exercise and limitations on family visits and receiving any parcels from outside (see Razvyazkin, cited above, § 102). 233. The Court notes that the applicant was put in solitary confinement on account of his alleged lack of respect towards colony officers (see paragraph 163 above). There are no records in the case file of disorderly or dangerous conduct of the applicant. The Court considers that failing to greet, or greeting informally, colony officers is a clearly insufficient reason to keep the applicant in near complete social isolation for a total of ten months in the absence of him posing any danger to himself or to others. 234. The Court therefore finds that the applicant’s solitary confinement in punishment cells in correctional colony IK-7 in the Omsk Region between 27 February and 23 June 2014 and 28 August 2014 and 28 February 2015 amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 235. Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08), Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov (no. 30444/08), and Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) complained that their convictions had been based on confession statements obtained as a result of their ill-treatment, which had rendered their trials unfair. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
236.
In the case of Mr Uspanov, the Government submitted that he had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit. In particular, they pointed out that he had been convicted on 8 June 2005 and the conviction judgment had been upheld on appeal on 8 December 2005. The applicant had lodged a preliminary complaint with the Court on 27 July 2006, which was more than six months after the date of the final decision in his case. 237. The Court observes that the first letter it received from the applicant was dated 27 July 2006, and that it had not received any letters before this date (see paragraphs 23 and 26 above). The applicant’s allegation that he had sent a letter on 6 February 2006 while detained in the Chernokozovo remand prison is not supported by any evidence; the same is true of his subsequent alleged attempts to contact the Court. On the contrary, his statements contradict the documents available, since it appears that in 2006 the applicant sent letters from the correctional colony to which he had been transferred to destinations other than the Court (see paragraph 27 above). 238. The Court therefore accepts the Government’s objection regarding the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as lodged out of time, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 239. The Court notes that the complaints of Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08), Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov (no. 30444/08), and Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. 240. The Government argued that in addition to the applicants’ written confession statements, their convictions had been based on a plethora of evidence obtained during the investigations. The trial courts had examined the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and had dismissed them as unsubstantiated. The applicants maintained their complaints. 241. The Court reiterates that the admission of confession statements obtained in violation of Article 3 renders the associated criminal proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, irrespective of the probative value of those statements and irrespective of whether their use was decisive in securing the defendant’s conviction (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 166, ECHR 2010, and Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 90, 6 October 2015). 242. The Court further reiterates that when dealing with allegations that evidence has been obtained as a result of ill‐treatment, the trial court may be called upon to assess the same facts and elements which had previously been subject to the investigative authorities’ examination. However, its task is not to examine the individual criminal responsibility of the alleged perpetrators but to address through a full, independent and comprehensive review the issue of admissibility and reliability of evidence. Admission in evidence of testimony notwithstanding credible allegations that it was obtained as a result of ill-treatment raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings (see Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, § 71, 26 November 2019). 243. In the present case, the Court has already found that the applicants’ confession statements were obtained as a result of torture, to which they were subjected at the hands of State officers (see paragraph 228 above). The domestic courts did not exclude the confession statements as inadmissible evidence and referred to them when convicting the applicants of crimes to which they had confessed in those statements (see paragraphs 60, 63, 83-84, 103, 105, 122-123, 157 and 160 above). They refused to exclude the confessions as evidence, relying on the investigators’ decisions not to open criminal cases into the alleged ill‐treatment (see paragraphs 83, 103 and 122 above). 244. The Court concludes that the trial courts failed to carry out an independent and comprehensive review of the applicants’ credible allegations that their self-incriminating statements had been the result of police violence (see Belugin, cited above, § 78). 245. In such circumstances, the Court concludes that the domestic courts’ use of the applicants’ confessions obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, regardless of their impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, rendered the applicants’ trials unfair. 246. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08), Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09), Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov (no. 30444/08), and Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09). 247. The Court observes that Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07) complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the authorities had unlawfully searched his home on the night of his apprehension on 23 August 2004. The Court notes that there is no indication in the material in the case file that the applicant ever complained about the search to the national authorities or that he raised the issue in the domestic proceedings. His complaint is therefore inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 248. Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that the national authorities had breached their right to legal assistance of their own choosing at the initial stages of the criminal proceedings in respect of them. Having regard to the findings relating to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. 249. The Court further notes that Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) complained under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the punishment cells and that the authorities had hindered his correspondence with the Court. In the light of the material in its possession, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints do not disclose an appearance of a violation of the Convention. They are inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 250. 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.”
251.
The amounts claimed by the applicants in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses are indicated in the appended table. 252. Mr Uspanov (no. 48053/06), Mr Aliyev (no. 7626/08), Mr Shavayev (no. 8187/08), and Mr Vitrigov, Mr Agamerzayev and Mr Tuntuyev (no. 21123/09) provided documents and receipts in support of their claims in respect of the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 253. Mr Mutayev and Mr Tatayev (no. 29924/07), Mr Khadziyev, Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsurov (no. 30444/08) and Mr Gastemirov (no. 19185/10) did not provide a legal contract with their representatives in support of their claims in respect of costs and expenses. 254. Mr Laypanov (no. 8600/09) did not claim any compensation under the head of costs and expenses. 255. The Government submitted that Article 41 should be applied in accordance with the Court’s established case-law. 256. Wherever the Court finds a violation of the Convention, it may accept that the applicants have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the findings of violations, and make a financial award. 257. As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324). 258. Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above and to the parties’ submissions, the Court awards the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts. 259. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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 amounts indicated in the appended table 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 9 February 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Darian PavliDeputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX
List of cases:
No.
Case name
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses
1
Uspanov v. Russia
48053/06

27/07/2006
Imran Vakhidovich USPANOV
1975
Puksa
Russian

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
Sought by the applicant
EUR 50,000
EUR 5,319
Awarded by the Court
EUR 50,000
(fifty thousand euros)
EUR 3,000[1]
(three thousand euros)
2
Mutayev and Tatayev v. Russia
29924/07

13/07/2007
Ismail Patakhovich MUTAYEV
1981
Gudermes
Russian

Ismail Amelyevich TATAYEV
1975
Grozny
Russian

William BOWRING
Sought by the applicant
At the Court’s discretion
GBP 4,393.8

Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) to each applicant
-
3
Aliyev v. Russia
7626/08

18/12/2007
Aslan Yunusovich ALIYEV
1981
Vostochnyy
Russian

Dokka Saydaminovich ITSLAYEV
Sought by the applicant
At the Court’s discretion
EUR 4,987
Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros)
EUR 3,000[2]
(three thousand euros)
4
Shavayev v. Russia
8187/08

24/12/2007
Murat Ismailovich SHAVAYEV
1975
Kharp
Russian

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
Sought by the applicant
At the Court’s discretion
EUR 2,523
Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros)
EUR 2,523[3]
(two thousand five hundred and twenty-three euros)
5
Khadziyev and Others v. Russia
30444/08

19/06/2008
Umar Bagaudinovich KHADZIYEV
1984
Kartsa
Russian

Alikhan Magomedovich OZDOYEV
1977
Kartsa
Russian

Rustam Yunusovich TSUROV
1979
Kartsa
Russian

MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
Sought by the applicants
EUR 60,000 to each applicant

GBP 7,892.87
Awarded by the Court
EUR 60,000
(sixty thousand euros) to each applicant
-
6
Laypanov v. Russia
8600/09

06/02/2009
Safar Dayfurovich LAYPANOV
1968
Karachayevsk
Russian

Roemer LEMAITRE
Sought by the applicant
EUR 45,000
-
Awarded by the Court
EUR 45,000
(forty-five thousand euros)
-

7
Vitrigov and Others v. Russia
21123/09

23/03/2009
Aslanbek Yaraliyevich VITRIGOV
1980
Komarovo
Russian

Ayub Kharonovich TUNTUYEV
1975
Melekhovo
Russian

Anzor Shakhitovich AGAMERZAYEV
1980
Goragorsk
Russian

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
Sought by the applicants
EUR 100,000 to each applicant

EUR 11,966.75
Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) to each applicant
EUR 3,000[4]
(three thousand euros)
8
Gastemirov v. Russia
19185/10

25/03/2010
Roman Magomedovich GASTEMIROV
1979
Grozny
Russian

Anton Igorevich RYZHOV
Sought by the applicant
EUR 50,000
EUR 4,000
Awarded by the Court
EUR 50,000
(fifty thousand euros)
-

No.
Case name
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses
1
Uspanov v. Russia
48053/06

27/07/2006
Imran Vakhidovich USPANOV
1975
Puksa
Russian

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
Sought by the applicant
EUR 50,000
EUR 5,319
Awarded by the Court
EUR 50,000
(fifty thousand euros)
EUR 3,000[1]
(three thousand euros)
2
Mutayev and Tatayev v. Russia
29924/07

13/07/2007
Ismail Patakhovich MUTAYEV
1981
Gudermes
Russian

Ismail Amelyevich TATAYEV
1975
Grozny
Russian

William BOWRING
Sought by the applicant
At the Court’s discretion
GBP 4,393.8

Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) to each applicant
-
3
Aliyev v. Russia
7626/08

18/12/2007
Aslan Yunusovich ALIYEV
1981
Vostochnyy
Russian

Dokka Saydaminovich ITSLAYEV
Sought by the applicant
At the Court’s discretion
EUR 4,987
Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros)
EUR 3,000[2]
(three thousand euros)
4
Shavayev v. Russia
8187/08

24/12/2007
Murat Ismailovich SHAVAYEV
1975
Kharp
Russian

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
Sought by the applicant
At the Court’s discretion
EUR 2,523
Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros)
EUR 2,523[3]
(two thousand five hundred and twenty-three euros)
5
Khadziyev and Others v. Russia
30444/08

19/06/2008
Umar Bagaudinovich KHADZIYEV
1984
Kartsa
Russian

Alikhan Magomedovich OZDOYEV
1977
Kartsa
Russian

Rustam Yunusovich TSUROV
1979
Kartsa
Russian

MEMORIAL HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE
Sought by the applicants
EUR 60,000 to each applicant

GBP 7,892.87
Awarded by the Court
EUR 60,000
(sixty thousand euros) to each applicant
-
6
Laypanov v. Russia
8600/09

06/02/2009
Safar Dayfurovich LAYPANOV
1968
Karachayevsk
Russian

Roemer LEMAITRE
Sought by the applicant
EUR 45,000
-
Awarded by the Court
EUR 45,000
(forty-five thousand euros)
-

7
Vitrigov and Others v. Russia
21123/09

23/03/2009
Aslanbek Yaraliyevich VITRIGOV
1980
Komarovo
Russian

Ayub Kharonovich TUNTUYEV
1975
Melekhovo
Russian

Anzor Shakhitovich AGAMERZAYEV
1980
Goragorsk
Russian

STICHTING RUSSIAN JUSTICE INITIATIVE
Sought by the applicants
EUR 100,000 to each applicant

EUR 11,966.75
Awarded by the Court
EUR 67,600
(sixty-seven thousand six hundred euros) to each applicant
EUR 3,000[4]
(three thousand euros)
8
Gastemirov v. Russia
19185/10

25/03/2010
Roman Magomedovich GASTEMIROV
1979
Grozny
Russian

Anton Igorevich RYZHOV
Sought by the applicant
EUR 50,000
EUR 4,000
Awarded by the Court
EUR 50,000
(fifty thousand euros)
-
[1] The amount is to be paid to the applicant’s representative’s bank account.
[2] The amount is to be paid to the applicant’s representative’s bank account. [3] The amount is to be paid to the applicant’s representative’s bank account. [4] The amount is to be paid to the applicant’s representative’s bank account.