CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 30 August 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no. 43664/16 Tatyana Vladimirovna SHMELEVA against Russia lodged on 25 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant complained about her son having been tortured by police officers after his arrest, about his death in a hospital where he had been taken in a critical state from the police station on the day following his arrest and about the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the events. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES   1.     Having regard to the applicant’s complaint that after her son’s, Mr   Vyrzhikovskiy, arrest on 1 October 2010 he had been beaten and tortured by police officers, Mr S. and Mr G., in Moskovskiy District police department in St Petersburg and in view of a number of expert reports, including that of autopsy examination no. 285/210 performed between 12   October and 29   November 2010, recording numerous massive antemortem bruises, injuries, lacerations and fractures on Mr   Vyrzhikovskiy’s body, has the latter been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v.   France [GC], no.   25803/94, §   87, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; and, among recent authorities, Razzakov v. Russia , no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015; and Gorshchuk v. Russia , no.   31316/09, 6   October 2015)? If the response is negative, the Government are invited to discharge their burden of proof to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the applicant (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §   83 and further, ECHR 2015).   2.     In view of the fact that the applicant’s son, Mr Vyrzhikovskiy, had died on 12 October 2010 in St. Petersburg City hospital no. 2 where he had been taken directly from the police department and that the cause of death, as confirmed by autopsy report no. 285/210, was in the direct causal relation to Mr Vyrzhikovskiy’s injuries, has his right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did the applicant’s son’s death result from the use of force which was absolutely necessary?   3.     Having regard to the investigation authorities’ decision of 2   March 2015, as upheld by the Russian courts on 12 November 2015 and 27   January 2016, to suspend the investigation for failure to establish the identity of persons to be charged with Mr Vyrzhikovskiy’s murder, did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§   125-40, 24 July 2014; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII)?