I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in TEMERKHANOV v. RUSSIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-12-15
- Communication date: 2020-11-24
- Application number(s): 76614/12
- Country: RUS
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 3, 5, 5-1, 6, 6-1, 6-3-d, 8, 8-1, 13
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.943475
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Yusup-Khadzhi Temerkhanov, was a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and was detained in Omsk.
On 3 August 2018 the applicant died.
By letter of 30 April 2019 the applicant’s mother, Ms Mosku Temerkhanova, expressed her intention to pursue the application before the Court.
The applicant is represented before the Court by Ms D.V.
Trenina, Mr M.A.
Musayev and Mr K.N.
Koroteyev, lawyers practising in Moscow.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Mr Yu.B., a former Russian army colonel and a military commander in Chechnya in 2000, was killed in broad daylight in Moscow on 10 June 2011.
The applicant was suspected in having committed the murder of Mr Yu.B.
At the time of the events the applicant was known as Mr Magomed Suleymanov.
In the documents mentioned below he was referred to by this other name.
According to the applicant, on 19 August 2011 around 10 p.m. he took a taxi from his house to Moscow city centre where he intended to meet his friend, Mr R.T. On his way, road traffic officers (ДПС) stopped his taxi.
While the officers checked the taxi driver’s documents, a group of men in masks and black uniforms approached the taxi car and dragged the applicant out.
They handcuffed him and put a hat over his head covering his eyes.
The men put him into a black minibus and drove away.
According to the applicant, there were approximately five men in the vehicle.
On the way one of the men administered electric shocks in the back of his head.
The applicant was taken to an unknown building in the forest area where he was cuffed to a pipe.
The abductors undressed him and subjected him to electric shocks.
He was asked to confess to the murder of Mr Yu.B.
The abductors cuffed his hands and feet, stepped on his hands causing acute pain, and administered electric currents.
They put a plastic bag over his head causing suffocation.
He fainted on several occasions.
Several times they beat his feet with a blunt object.
The ill-treatment lasted for four or five days.
They did not let the applicant to sleep.
The applicant refused to give any self-incriminating statements.
On the fifth day of his detention, he was given some food and clothes.
He was allowed to sleep for several hours.
According to the applicant, some of his abductors mentioned that they were from the military intelligence service.
On 25 August 2011 late in the evening they put him in a car and took him to a park located in the south-west of Moscow.
The abductors threatened to harm his family if he complained about the abduction and ill‐treatment.
In the park the applicant was cuffed to a tree and his head covered with a hat.
Several minutes after the abductors left, two vehicles with a group of four or five men arrived.
They unfastened the applicant from the tree, handcuffed him and put him into their car.
According to the applicant, they were police officers.
They asked him whether he was ready to confess to the murder.
The officers threatened the applicant to return him to the men who had abducted him.
The applicant refused to confess.
On the night of 26 August 2011 the officers brought the applicant to his apartment and searched his place.
On 26 August 2011 at about 9 a.m. the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up.
The applicant was admitted to a temporary detention facility (“IVS”).
According to its medical notes, the applicant had abrasions on his wrists, on his nose and left knee.
On 5 September 2011 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the investigation department of Moscow about the applicant’s apprehension on 19 August 2011 and ill-treatment.
He also requested the applicant’s medical examination.
On 7 September 2011 the applicant was admitted to remand prison no.
2 in Moscow.
According to its medical notes, he had abrasions on his wrists.
On 15 September 2011 the investigator ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination.
On 23 September 2011 the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor.
On 28 September 2011 the expert issued report no.
440-10283, citing the applicant’s medical notes drawn up in IVS and the remand prison.
The expert concluded that the applicant had scars on his wrist joints caused within at least one month and not more than two months.
She noted that the scars could have resulted from healed wounds caused by handcuffs.
His abrasions on the bridge of his nose and his left knee-joint could have resulted from a sliding impact of a blunt object.
Due to the lack of description of the state and colour of the abrasions’ surface, their exact quantity and location, their forms and size, it was impossible to determine the time when they had been inflicted and individual characteristics of traumatic objects.
On 5 October 2011 the investigator refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged kidnapping and ill-treatment.
The refusal contained the applicant’s detailed description of the abduction and ill-treatment.
It also contained the explanations of Mr V.L., a taxi driver.
According to him, on 19 August 2011 the road officers stopped his car and asked for documents.
They asked him to go out of the car and while they were checking the documents, someone grasped his neck, took him several meters away from his car and told him not to move.
The persons introduced themselves as officers of a department against organised crime.
They asked the driver about the applicant and told him not to tell anyone about the events and that if anyone asked, Mr V.L.
was supposed to say that he had dropped the applicant near the hotel.
According to Mr V.L., when the group left, the applicant was not in the car.
He did not see or hear whether any force had been applied to the applicant.
According to the explanations of Mr F.R.
and Mr P.A., concierges in the applicant’s house, on 26 August 2011 after midnight a group of policemen arrived with the applicant who was handcuffed.
The policemen asked to turn off video recording in the house and went to the applicant’s flat.
They did not see any visible injuries on the applicant.
They did not see the applicant between 19 and 25 August 2011.
According to the explanations of Mr R.T., the applicant’s friend, on 19 August 2011 at around 11 p.m. he called the applicant.
During the conversation, Mr R.T. heard some noise, screams and then the sound of a falling telephone.
He tried to reach the applicant several times but to no avail.
The applicant did not come to the meeting and Mr R.T. has not seen him or heard from him afterwards.
According to the explanations of the head of the criminal investigation service of Moscow (УУР ГУ МВД по г. Москва) and its officers, the applicant was suspected of committing the murder of Mr Yu.B.
In the evening of 25 August 2011 they received information that the applicant’s mobile phone was detected in the area of the park where they later found the applicant.
According to the officers, during the arrest the applicant tried to escape.
The handcuffs were used.
No physical violence was used against him.
The decision referred to the applicant’s medical notes and the forensic report.
The investigator concluded that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by handcuffs during the arrest.
Dismissing the applicant’s complaint about his abduction on 19 August 2011, the investigator concluded that the persons who had stopped the applicant’s taxi car were unidentified persons who had imitated the actions of road traffic officers.
The investigator concluded that there was no evidence of crime under Articles 126 (kidnapping) and 286 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code (“the CC”).
On 31 October 2011 the applicant challenged the refusal before the Presnenskiy District Court.
On 4 April 2012 the Presnenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the refusal as unfounded and endorsed the investigator’s reasoning.
On the same day the applicant appealed against the court decision.
On 21 May 2012 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that the refusal was lawful.
On 7 May 2013 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of murder of Mr Yu.B., relying on witness statements and other material evidence.
On 4 December 2013 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction.
For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other 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.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect, and that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his grievances.
He also complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention between 19 and 26 August 2011.
Judgment
THIRD SECTIONCASE OF TEMERKHANOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 76614/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Temerkhanov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 November 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms D.V. Trenina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect, and that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his grievances. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention between 19 and 26 August 2011. THE LAW
6. Following the death of the applicant in March 2018, Ms Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova, his mother, expressed the wish to pursue the application. The Government did not comment. 7. The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014) and in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII). 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to the late applicant in the present judgment. 9. The applicant complained that between 19 and 25 August 2011 he had been ill-treated by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to properly investigate the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
10. Given the evidence contained in the medical documents submitted to the Court and the applicant’s consistent and detailed complaints of ill‐treatment before the domestic authorities, the Court finds that these complaints should have prompted the authorities to duly investigate the matter. When investigating serious allegations of ill-treatment, whether it has been inflicted by State agents or private individuals (see Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 96, 14 January 2021), the authorities must be prompt and thorough and take all reasonable steps to secure the evidence, including forensic evidence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 133, 29 July 2010; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114 23, ECHR 2015). 11. The investigators refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s allegations having stated that the injuries had occurred as a result of handcuffing during the arrest. However, the documents submitted show that this explanation was neither plausible nor satisfactory and convincing. 12. Given the omissions of the pre-investigation inquiry, the authorities’ refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment is indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 128-40, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018). 13. In the light of the foregoing, it is proposed to find a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect. 14. Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence to be assessed by the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see, among other authorities, Bouyid, cited above, § 82). 15. The medical documents submitted to the Court do not clearly and unequivocally corroborate the applicant’s account of the alleged ill-treatment (see, by contrast, Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, § 61, 28 November 2013). Furthermore, the applicant’s conflicting accounts on his whereabouts from 19 to 25 August 2011 do not enable the Court to rely on his version of events (see, by contrast, S.T. and Y.B. v. Russia, no. 40125/20, §§ 78 and 84, 19 October 2021). 16. In such a situation the Court finds that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that between 19 and 25 August 2011 the applicant was subjected to the ill-treatment in the circumstances as alleged by him. 17. Consequently, the Court finds no substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 18. Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural aspect, it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13. 19. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 20. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 21. 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.”
22. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 23. The Court further 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 applicant’s heir, Ms Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Factual information relating to arrest
Medical evidence of ill‐treatment
Date of first complaint
Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment
Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP
Appeal decision
Information relating to conviction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
76614/12
21/11/2012
Yusup-Khadzhi Khizriyevich TEMERKHANOV
1972
Deceased on 03/08/2018
Application pursued by Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova
1949
According to the applicant, on 19/08/2011 he was riding a taxi in Moscow when traffic police officers ordered the vehicle to pull over. While the officers were checking the driver’s documents, a group of four to five unidentified men in balaclavas and black uniforms ran up to the car and dragged him out. They handcuffed and blindfolded him and took him in their vehicle to a building situated in a forest. While in the car, one of the men administered electric shocks to the applicant’s head. In the building the abductors, who said that they were from the Military Intelligence Service, cuffed the applicant to a pipe, undressed him and subjected him to electric shocks pressurising him to confess to the murder of Mr Yu.B. The abductors cuffed his hands and feet, stepped on his hands causing acute pain, administered electric shocks, suffocated him with a plastic bag over his head, beat him on the feet with a hard object and deprived him of sleep. The applicant lost consciousness several times. The ill-treatment lasted for four to five days. The applicant refused to confess to the murder. On the fifth day, he was given some food and clothes and allowed to sleep for several hours. On 25/08/2011 the abductors took the applicant to a park, where they threatened to harm his family if he lodged complaints about the abduction and ill treatment. Having blindfolded and cuffed him to a tree, the abductors left. Several minutes later the police arrived; they untied the applicant, handcuffed him and took him to the police station. The officers asked the applicant whether he was ready to confess to the murder but to no avail. On the night between 25 and 26/08/2011 the officers took the applicant to his flat and searched it. At about 9 a.m. on 26/08/2011 the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up and he was admitted to a temporary detention facility (“IVS”) and subsequently transferred to remand prison no. 2 in Moscow. The IVS medical records of 26/08/2011: abrasions on the wrists, on the nose and left knee. Remand prison no. 2 medical records of 07/09/2011: abrasions on the wrists. Forensic report no. 440‐10283 of 28/09/2011: scars on the wrists which had been caused between one to two months prior to the examination. The scars could have been caused by healed wounds from handcuffing. The abrasions on the bridge of the nose and the left knee-joint could have been sustained as result of a sliding impact of a blunt object. Due to the lack of description of the state and colour of the abrasions’ surface, their exact quantity, location, form and size, it was impossible to determine neither the time of their infliction nor individual characteristics of the traumatic objects. 05/09/2011 1st complaint to the investigative committee about the abduction by the police on 19/08/2011 and subsequent ill‐treatment to extort confession. 05/10/2011- refusal to open a criminal case
21/05/2012 Moscow City Court
upheld the refusal
On 07/05/2013 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentence upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia, 04/12/2013
20,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF TEMERKHANOV v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 76614/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 December 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Temerkhanov v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 November 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 21 November 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms D.V. Trenina, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by State agents and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect, and that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his grievances. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his unrecorded detention between 19 and 26 August 2011. THE LAW
6. Following the death of the applicant in March 2018, Ms Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova, his mother, expressed the wish to pursue the application. The Government did not comment. 7. The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014) and in ensuring that justice is done, even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII). 8. Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Ms Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant’s stead. It will therefore continue dealing with the case at her request. For convenience, it will, however, continue to refer to the late applicant in the present judgment. 9. The applicant complained that between 19 and 25 August 2011 he had been ill-treated by State agents and that the domestic authorities had failed to properly investigate the matter. He relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
10. Given the evidence contained in the medical documents submitted to the Court and the applicant’s consistent and detailed complaints of ill‐treatment before the domestic authorities, the Court finds that these complaints should have prompted the authorities to duly investigate the matter. When investigating serious allegations of ill-treatment, whether it has been inflicted by State agents or private individuals (see Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 96, 14 January 2021), the authorities must be prompt and thorough and take all reasonable steps to secure the evidence, including forensic evidence (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 133, 29 July 2010; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114 23, ECHR 2015). 11. The investigators refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s allegations having stated that the injuries had occurred as a result of handcuffing during the arrest. However, the documents submitted show that this explanation was neither plausible nor satisfactory and convincing. 12. Given the omissions of the pre-investigation inquiry, the authorities’ refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment is indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 128-40, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018). 13. In the light of the foregoing, it is proposed to find a violation of Article 3 in its procedural aspect. 14. Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence to be assessed by the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see, among other authorities, Bouyid, cited above, § 82). 15. The medical documents submitted to the Court do not clearly and unequivocally corroborate the applicant’s account of the alleged ill-treatment (see, by contrast, Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, § 61, 28 November 2013). Furthermore, the applicant’s conflicting accounts on his whereabouts from 19 to 25 August 2011 do not enable the Court to rely on his version of events (see, by contrast, S.T. and Y.B. v. Russia, no. 40125/20, §§ 78 and 84, 19 October 2021). 16. In such a situation the Court finds that it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that between 19 and 25 August 2011 the applicant was subjected to the ill-treatment in the circumstances as alleged by him. 17. Consequently, the Court finds no substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention. 18. Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural aspect, it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13. 19. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 20. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 21. 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.”
22. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. 23. The Court further 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 applicant’s heir, Ms Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 15 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(torture or inhuman or degrading treatment)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Factual information relating to arrest
Medical evidence of ill‐treatment
Date of first complaint
Decision issued in response to complaint of ill-treatment
Decision under Article 125 of the CCrP
Appeal decision
Information relating to conviction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
76614/12
21/11/2012
Yusup-Khadzhi Khizriyevich TEMERKHANOV
1972
Deceased on 03/08/2018
Application pursued by Mosku Khasanovna Temerkhanova
1949
According to the applicant, on 19/08/2011 he was riding a taxi in Moscow when traffic police officers ordered the vehicle to pull over. While the officers were checking the driver’s documents, a group of four to five unidentified men in balaclavas and black uniforms ran up to the car and dragged him out. They handcuffed and blindfolded him and took him in their vehicle to a building situated in a forest. While in the car, one of the men administered electric shocks to the applicant’s head. In the building the abductors, who said that they were from the Military Intelligence Service, cuffed the applicant to a pipe, undressed him and subjected him to electric shocks pressurising him to confess to the murder of Mr Yu.B. The abductors cuffed his hands and feet, stepped on his hands causing acute pain, administered electric shocks, suffocated him with a plastic bag over his head, beat him on the feet with a hard object and deprived him of sleep. The applicant lost consciousness several times. The ill-treatment lasted for four to five days. The applicant refused to confess to the murder. On the fifth day, he was given some food and clothes and allowed to sleep for several hours. On 25/08/2011 the abductors took the applicant to a park, where they threatened to harm his family if he lodged complaints about the abduction and ill treatment. Having blindfolded and cuffed him to a tree, the abductors left. Several minutes later the police arrived; they untied the applicant, handcuffed him and took him to the police station. The officers asked the applicant whether he was ready to confess to the murder but to no avail. On the night between 25 and 26/08/2011 the officers took the applicant to his flat and searched it. At about 9 a.m. on 26/08/2011 the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up and he was admitted to a temporary detention facility (“IVS”) and subsequently transferred to remand prison no. 2 in Moscow. The IVS medical records of 26/08/2011: abrasions on the wrists, on the nose and left knee. Remand prison no. 2 medical records of 07/09/2011: abrasions on the wrists. Forensic report no. 440‐10283 of 28/09/2011: scars on the wrists which had been caused between one to two months prior to the examination. The scars could have been caused by healed wounds from handcuffing. The abrasions on the bridge of the nose and the left knee-joint could have been sustained as result of a sliding impact of a blunt object. Due to the lack of description of the state and colour of the abrasions’ surface, their exact quantity, location, form and size, it was impossible to determine neither the time of their infliction nor individual characteristics of the traumatic objects. 05/09/2011 1st complaint to the investigative committee about the abduction by the police on 19/08/2011 and subsequent ill‐treatment to extort confession. 05/10/2011- refusal to open a criminal case
21/05/2012 Moscow City Court
upheld the refusal
On 07/05/2013 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentence upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia, 04/12/2013
20,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.