CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 janvier 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDD7CB8CD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:7pt }     Communicated on 7 January 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28361/14 Vladimir Mikhaylovich NAUMOV against Russia lodged on 7 June 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Naumov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1973 and is detained in Krasnoyarsk. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     Criminal proceedings in the applicant’s case 1.     Arrest and detention in police custody On 19   March 2007 M., a five-year old girl, was reported missing. The applicant, a prior sex offender, was repeatedly questioned by police in this connection. On 24   March 2008 at 8.30 p.m. the applicant was taken by two police officers to a local police station. Some ten to twelve police officers questioned the applicant urging him to confess that he had raped and killed M. They took away his mobile phone and other personal effects and handcuffed him. They yelled at him and threatened to put him in a cell where other inmates would beat and rape him. The police officers kicked and punched him in the belly, liver and kidneys. For fear of being exposed to the threatened treatment, the applicant confessed. On the same date at approximately 11 p.m. investigator B. questioned the applicant in the presence of Mazh., court-appointed counsel for the applicant. The applicant confessed to the crimes he was suspected of. Allegedly, he told to his lawyer that the police officers had forced him to confess. After the questioning, the applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre and placed in cell no.   27. Z., an inmate who was also being held in the same cell, advised the applicant not to retract his confession. He claimed to be a police informant and relayed to the applicant the policemen’s threats that, should he claim to be innocent, he would be tortured with electric shocks. On 28   March 2008 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. When asked by the forensic expert, the applicant denied that he had been subjected to ill-treatment. The expert documented the following injuries: a healed scar of the healed wound on the right cheek, and two scars on the left knee and the chin (the injury had probably been caused some one to one and a half months prior to the examination). The expert considered that the injuries might have been caused by the impact of an unidentified blunt object. 2.     Transfer to a remand prison and suicide attempt On 4   April 2008 the applicant was transferred to a remand prison. In August 2008 he was held in cell no.   116 with K., Mal. and F. On 12   August 2008 Mal. and F. severely beat the applicant urging him to provide further detail as regards the crimes he was charged with. F. injured the applicant’s right kidney and Mal. broke one of his left ribs. On 13 August 2008 the applicant tried to commit suicide. He locked himself up in the bathroom and slashed the veins on his legs, his right arm and his neck. He lost consciousness and subsequently regained it in the medical ward. He received the necessary treatment for his injuries and told the paramedic that he had severe headaches and a pain in the chest and kidneys. Then he was questioned and threatened by police officers and put in a cell with two other inmates who beat him again for fifteen minutes. After that police officers questioned the applicant again. They threatened to rape his wife; the applicant promised to write a statement explaining the circumstances of how he had allegedly taken M. to his residence and held her there. On 14   August 2008 the applicant attended a court hearing where the judged extended his pre-trial detention. The applicant was too frightened to tell the judge about the ill-treatment and explained that he had sustained injuries as a result of a fall from the bunk bed. He told the truth to his lawyer. However, he was afraid to lodge an official complaint about the ill ‑ treatment. On 17   August 2008 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the remand prison. 3.     Investigation of the applicant’s suicide attempt On an unspecified date in August 2008 the Department for Investigation of Particularly Serious Crimes conducted an investigation into the applicant’s suicide attempt. An investigator questioned the applicant, B (a police investigator), the police officers who had arrested and questioned the applicant at the police station, and inmates K., Mal., and F. All of them denied the applicant’s allegations. B. submitted that the applicant had not complained to him of being submitted to any form of ill-treatment or that the police had put physical or psychological pressure on him. When the applicant had undergone a forensic psychiatric examination, he had claimed that he had confessed under coercion. However, he had retracted those allegations later. On 26   August 2008 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. The medical expert documented the scars resulting from the applicant’s suicide attempt and several bruises on the applicant’s arms. When questioned by the medical expert, the applicant explained that he had sustained the bruises when he had fallen off a bunk bed on 13   August 2008 and that he had slashed his veins. On 8   September 2008 it was decided not to open a criminal investigation into the matter. The applicant did not appeal against said decision. 4.     Trial On an unspecified date the investigation in the applicant’s case was completed and it was transferred to the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court for trial. On 24   May 2010 the jury delivered a guilty verdict in the applicant’s case. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment. On an unspecified date the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the verdict on appeal. B.     The applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and ensuing investigation On 4   May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint about his ill-treatment in police custody and in the remand prison. In response to the applicant’s complaint, the Prison Service of the Krasnoyarsk Region carried out an investigation. According to the report of 23   July 2009, Captain V.K., who was in charge of the investigation, questioned the prison officers of the remand prison and K., F., A. and Mal., the applicant’s fellow inmates. All the persons questioned denied the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. V.K. found no case to answer against the officers. On 13   July 2009 the applicant lodged another complaint about ill ‑ treatment in custody. On 13   August 2009 an investigator, Mukh., refused to open a criminal investigation in response to the applicant’s complaint. On 18   August 2009 the investigator’s superior quashed the decision of 13   August 2009 and ordered further enquiries. Investigator Mukh. conducted further enquiries. He questioned the applicant, the police officers who investigated M.’s rape and murder and questioned the applicant in that connection, and remand prison officers. According to the investigator, it was not possible to identify the inmates who had been detained with the applicant in the remand prison. Nor could he question Z. as his whereabouts were unknown. On 8 September 2009 investigator Mukh. conducted another investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. Relying on the evidence gathered in the previous inquiries, he ruled that the alleged perpetrators had no case to answer. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 8   September 2009. On 19   July 2013 the Krasnoyarsk Tsentralnyy District Court upheld the decision of 8   September 2009 noting that investigator Mukh. had taken all necessary measures to verify the applicant’s allegations. On 23   January 2014 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 19   July 2013 on appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and in detention pending trial and that the ensuing investigation was not effective.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant been subjected, while in police custody and detention pending trial, to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     What was the investigating authority’s explanation, in its latest decision on the applicant’s complaint, as to how the applicants’ injuries were caused? Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §   87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V, and Salman v.   Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII)?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v.   Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§   125-140, 24 July 2014)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   5.     The Government are invited to submit documents containing the following information   in respect of the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody:   (a)     the time of arrival and stay at the police station, the temporary detention facilities (IVS), the remand prison (SIZO), the medical institutions (ambulance, traumatology centre, hospital, forensic medical examination bureau, and so forth), where applicable;   (b)     the applicant’s injuries and/or his state of health, as recorded in the places listed above in paragraph 5(a);   (c)     the time when (i) the applicant was recognised as a suspect in the criminal proceedings and informed of his relevant rights, (ii) the authorities informed his family about his detention, and (iii) the applicant had access to a lawyer;   (d)     the forensic medical experts’ conclusions about the applicant’s injuries, investigators’ decisions ordering forensic medical examinations of the applicant in respect of each forensic medical expert’s report, and explanations by the applicant and the police officers as to the origin of the injuries, on the basis of which the experts’ opinions were sought;   (e)     a summary of the information from the above list (paragraphs 5(a) to (d)).   6.     As regards the investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, the Government are invited to submit:   (a)     a numbered list of all decisions by investigating authorities in chronological order (name of the relevant authority, date, the grounds for the refusal to open a criminal case, that is to say Article 24 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and – in relation to each decision – the relevant decision to revoke it or set it aside (with the name of the relevant authority, date, and the reason for the revocation or setting aside);   (b)     a numbered list of all court decisions on the applicant’s appeals against the investigators’ decisions in chronological order (court, date and outcome);   (c)     copies of the above decisions by the investigating authorities and the courts in the same order.