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


  • Judgment date: 2017-10-03
  • Communication date: 2014-10-21
  • Application number(s): 36620/07
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
  • Result: Violation

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.924161
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


 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 applicant, Ms Lyubov Prokofyevna Shevtsova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod, represented by the Committee Against Torture, a non‐governmental organisation based in Nizhniy Novgorod.
The applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers On 6 November 2001 the applicant was visiting her sister.
At an unspecified time two police officers Mr P. and Mr T. arrived at her sister’s house searching for the applicant’s son.
They asked the applicant to hand over to her son a summons to appear at the police station.
She agreed and asked them to leave.
Mr P. insulted her verbally and pulled her down from the entrance steps.
Mr T. held her arm, and Mr P. twisted it, pulled the applicant down to the ground, punched and kicked her.
On her fall she hit her head against the wall of the house.
Her sister’s partner intervened and a fight broke out between them.
The applicant ran to a neighbor to call the police.
When she returned she found her sister’s partner handcuffed and then saw the police take him away in their car.
The applicant’s injuries On the same day the applicant saw a doctor.
She had a soft tissue bruise on her right eye.
On 9 November 2001 the applicant underwent medical examination at the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Forensic Medical Bureau which recorded abrasions on her face and bruises on her arm and chest.
The expert concluded that the injuries could have been caused by blunt objects three‐four days before the examination.
C. Inquiry into the applicant’s allegation of police ill‐treatment On 8 November 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unlawful actions of police officers Mr P. and Mr T. with the Nizhniy Novgorod Avtozavodskiy district prosecutor’s office.
The prosecutor’s office carried out a series of pre-investigation inquiries under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) which all ended in decisions not to institute criminal proceedings.
Those decisions were annulled eleven times ex officio or as a result of the applicant’s appeals to investigators’ superiors or a court.
The Nizhniy Novgorod Avtozavodskiy District Court granted the applicant’s appeals under Article 125 of CCrP on three occasions (decisions of 13 September 2002, 19 February 2007 and 5 October 2009), and rejected her appeal on one occasion on the ground that the investigator’s relevant decision had already been annulled by his superior (decision of 30 August 2005).
The latest decision to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings was taken by an investigator of the Nizhniy Novgorod Avtozavodskiy District Investigation Committee at the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional prosecutor’s office (Следственный отдел по Автозаводскому району г. Нижнего Новгорода следственного управления Следственного комитета при прокуратуре РФ по Нижегородской области) on 11 November 2009.
It rejected the applicant’s version of events and relied on the police officers’ statements that the applicant had been in a state of alcoholic inebriation, that they had suggested to take her to the police station but she had disobeyed.
They had tried to get her into their car but Mr F. had prevented them from doing so.
The investigator found that the police officers had acted lawfully and that the applicant’s aggressive behavior and resistance to their demands was unlawful.
The investigator concluded that there was no convincing evidence that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant by the police officers and that no criminal proceedings should be brought for the lack of the elements of a crime in the actions of police officers Mr P. and Mr T., as provided by Article 24 § 1 (2) of the CCrP.
The applicant’s appeal against the investigator’s decision of 11 November 2009 was dismissed (the Nizhniy Novgorod Avtozavodskiy District Court’s decision of 9 March 2010, as upheld on 30 April 2010 by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court).
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that she was beaten by the police officers.
She also complains under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention that the authorities failed to carry out effective investigation into her complaint of police ill-treatment.