I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KRAMARENKO v. RUSSIA.

Information

• Judgment date: 2017-10-03
• Communication date: 2014-11-20
• Application number(s): 26107/13
• Country:   RUS
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1, 13
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment
  Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.846511
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Kramarenko, is a Russian national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Voronezh.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 October 2011 the applicant had an altercation with S., a security guard at his place of work.
The applicant stabbed S. thirty-four times and then fled the scene.
When Z. tried to stop him, the applicant stabbed him too.
Both S. and Z. died.
A.
Alleged unlawful detention and ill-treatment in police custody On 10 October 2011 the police located the applicant.
They took the applicant for questioning to the police station.
According to the applicant, the police officers beat him and subjected him to electric shock.
They kept him handcuffed during the night and did not provide him with food or water.
On 11 October 2011 at 5:05 p.m. the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination.
The expert noted the following injuries on the applicant’s body: a bruise on the right shoulder joint, a bruise and an abrasion on the right shoulder, abrasions on the right calf.
In the expert’s opinion, the applicant might have sustained the injuries as a result of an impact of a solid blunt object shortly before the forensic examination.
The expert also noted a dot sized wound probably caused by a piercing object shortly before the forensic examination.
The applicant submitted to the expert that he had not memory as to what had happened to him after he had been apprehended by the police.
On 18 November 2011 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case reported the applicant’s injuries to the regional investigative committee.
He considered that the applicant could have been subjected to ill-treatment while held in police custody on 10 November 2011.
Following an inquiry into the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, on 28 November 2011 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers as regards the alleged unlawful deprivation of liberty of the applicant and ill-treatment in police custody on 10 October 2011.
He based his conclusions on the findings as follows: “On 11 October 2011 from 7:45 to 8:30 a.m. ... investigator F. questioned [the applicant] as a witness [in the murder case].
Without stating any reasons, [the applicant] refused to sign the questioning record.
According to Krav.
and Ch., on 11 October 2011 they attested by their signature the [applicant’s] refusal to sign the questioning record.
They did not see any injuries on [the applicant].
He did not complain about the police officers either.
On 11 October 2011 at 10:10 a.m., in the presence of the [applicant’s] lawyer B., [the applicant] was [officially] detained on suspicion of [murder] and from 10:40 a.m. to 11:10 a.m., he was questioned.
He refused to say anything.
On 11 October 2011 [the applicant] underwent a medical forensic examination.
... .
According to [the applicant], he did not remember where he had sustained the injuries documented by the expert.
He did not complain about the police officers.
They did not injure him.
Lawyer B.
... refused to comment ... .
According to former investigator F. ... , on 10 October 2010 [the police] established the [applicant’s] whereabouts and he was taken to the police station for questioning.
In the evening he saw [the applicant] at the police station.
The latter demonstrated strange behaviour; he hit his head against the wall, rolled around on the floor, fell down trying to hurt himself.
He asked the police officers to take [the applicant] to hospital ... for examination.
... .
According to police officer Krut.
... , in the morning on 11 October 2011 he took [the applicant] to the [investigator’s office] ... .
During questioning, [the applicant] repeatedly fell down hitting the floor with different parts of his body and refused to talk.
... .
All the [applicant’s] injuries were self-inflicted.
...
They did not use any physical force or put psychological pressure on [the applicant].
Nor did the latter allege such treatment.
According to police officer Bid., ... on 10 October 2011 they located [the applicant] ... and invited him for a talk to the police station.
[The applicant] behaved in a strange way in the police car and at the police station.
He claimed that he had no memory of the circumstances of the crime.
He fell off the chair down on the floor and hit himself against pieces of furniture in the office.
...
They did not use any physical force or put psychological pressure on [the applicant].
[The applicant] could have inflicted all the injuries himself when he hit his head against the wall, fell down off the chair and rolled around on the floor.
Police officers Kom., Mesh.
and Sim.
made similar statements.
According to them, [the applicant] behaved in a strange way and tried to cause himself injuries.
They did not use any physical force or put psychological pressure on [the applicant].
Furthermore, Kom.
explained that on 10 October 2011 [the applicant] had stayed at the police station of his own will.
Police officers Moch.
and Pov.
made similar statements.
They submitted that on 10 October 2011 at about 1-2 p.m. they had established the [applicant’s] whereabouts and invited him for a talk.
At the police station [the applicant] had behaved in a strange way.
He talked to himself, hit his head and back against the wall, fell down and rolled around on the floor.
They did not use any physical force or put psychological pressure on [the applicant].
Nor did the latter allege such treatment.
According to the medical documentation obtained from municipal hospital no.
10, on 10 October 2011 a neurosurgeon examined [the applicant].
He did not detect any injuries or diseases.
According to the statement made by neurosurgeon Mor., on 10 October 2011 he examined [the applicant] who was taken to hospital by police officers.
[The applicant] did not have any injuries.
Nor did he detect any disease.
[The applicant] did not complain about his health or police officers.
... .
...
According to the statement of the emergency response doctor Yer., in the evening on 10 October 2011 an emergency response team arrived to municipal hospital no.
10.
He examined [the applicant].
...
According to the police officer present, [the applicant] behaved in a strange way and they had to take him to hospital.
[The applicant] said that he had no memory of the crime.
He did not complain about the police officers.
...
According to report no.
4925.11 dated 24 November 2011, regard being had to the placement and nature of the bodily injuries documented during the forensic examination [the applicant] underwent, it is possible that [applicant] sustained the injuries when he hit himself against the solid protruding objects in the circumstances described by [the police officers] ... .
[The injuries] were self-inflicted by [the applicant].
The inquiry further established that from about 1-2 p.m. on 10 October 2011 to 7:45 a.m. on 11 October 2011 ... , [the applicant] stayed at the police station voluntarily.
When questioned, [the applicant] did not deny that he had not been kept at the police station against his will.
Accordingly, there is no evidence of his abduction or unlawful deprivation of liberty.” On 23 July and 30 August 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh and the Voronezh Regional Court respectively upheld the decision of 28 November 2011.
B.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 11 October 2011 the applicant was charged with two counts of murder.
It appears that he remained in custody pending investigation and trial.
On 28 June 2012 the Voronezh Regional Court found that the applicant had committed the murders and in a state of insanity and ordered his confinement in a psychiatric institution.
On 6 September 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 28 June 2012 on appeal.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention that on 10 October 2011 he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that the ensuing investigation was not effective.
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention that his detention at the police station on 10 October 2011 was unlawful.
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.
Lastly, he alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 6.