CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2017

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s749B70D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s4D98C120 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 }   Communicated on 13 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no 42900/14 Denis Nikolayevich DRUZHKOV against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A.     The circumstances of the cases The applicants are all Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Between 2006 and 2015 the applicants were arrested by different law ‑ enforcement authorities, and, except in Mr Verbitskiy’s case (application no. 31915/14), prosecuted for and subsequently convicted of different types of criminal offences. For example six applicants were convicted of drug related offences. The police officers used physical force and/or special means (handcuffs, rubber truncheons) during the applicants’ arrest. According to the applicants the use of force was excessive because they did not resist the arrest. All applicants submitted medical certificates drawn up shortly after their respective arrests and demonstrating the existence of bodily injuries of different types and severity. Mr Nakagutov (application no. 42417/13), Mr Vasilyev (application no.   42438/15), Mr Verbitskiy (application no. 31915/14) and Mr Sokolov (application no. 45235/16) alleged in addition that they had also been beaten up while in police custody. The applicants unsuccessfully complained about the excessive use of force to the domestic authorities. In all cases, except two, the prosecutors or investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings and their refusals were subsequently upheld by the domestic courts. In the Mr Latypov’s case (application no. 48121/13), the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa found such refusal to be unlawful and unsubstantiated on the ground that the investigator failed to interview the applicant and to conduct a forensic medical examination. In the Mr Vasilyev’s case (application no. 42438/15), the applicant’s complaint about the ill-treatment in the course of the arrest and in police custody was first examined and rejected during his trial, after that the applicant initiated separate proceedings to open a criminal case against the police officers, but to no avail. The applicants’ personal details as well as other relevant information about the circumstances of their respective arrests and their attempts to complain about ill-treatment at domestic level are summarised in the Appendix. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     The Police Act Sections 18-20 of the Police Act 2011 (Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7   February 2011) provide that -     a police officer may use physical force, special means or a weapon during the arrest, -     a police officer shall ensure that a person injured receives first aid, -     once the physical force used resulted in the damage to health, and once the special means or a weapon are used a police officer shall submit a report about the use of physical force, special means or a weapon to his supervisor within twenty-four hours. The Police Act 1991 (Federal Law no. 1026-I of 18 April 1991) and respective by-laws contained similar provisions. 2.     Other by-laws The Instruction on the police officers’ execution of their obligations and rights in the police departments of the Ministry of the Interior after the persons are taken to the police custody (approved by the order no. 389 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation on 30 April 2012) provides that -     a police officer on duty in the police custody shall inform his superior about all the cases when an arrested and taken to the police custody person has visible wounds, injuries or is in the state that requires urgent medical intervention; -     a police officer is to call an ambulance or take a person to a nearby hospital; -     a police officer is to find out the reasons and circumstances of the injuries sustained by the person concerned. In case the person concerned reports about violent actions that resulted in his injuries then the police officer is to receive a criminal complaint from the person, if not, then to draw up a reasoned report and register it in the Register of the criminal complaints. The named instruction repeated the rules that were in force before its adoption. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that the police officers used excessive force in the course of their arrest and under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal. Mr Latypov (application no. 48121/13) in addition complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that it took the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan one year, six months and six days to examine his appeal lodged against the detention order issued by the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa (detention order issued on 29 October 2012 and appeal decision adopted on 6 May 2014).   COMMON QUESTIONS to the parties 1.     Regard being had to the medical certificates submitted by the applicants (for more details see the Appendix), were they subjected to ill ‑ treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of police?   As regards the Government’s burden of proof   (a)     have the domestic authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation on how the applicants’ injuries   had been caused (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR   1999 ‑ V, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII)? In particular, -     did the police officers report to their supervisor about the use of physical force or/and special means during the arrest (see Shamardakov v.   Russia , no. 13810/04, § 133, 30 April 2015)? -     if so, did the reports provide detailed explanation about the circumstances of the applicants’ arrest, including the use of force against them (see Türkan v. Turkey , no. 33086/04, § 48, 18 September 2008)? -     does the Russian legislation and/or regulatory framework provide for an obligation to take an apprehended person without delay before a medical professional, notably with a view of recording the injuries sustained by an apprehended person prior or during the arrest? -     if so, had this obligation been complied with in the present cases ( Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 34445/04, § 65, 11 January 2007)?   The Government are invited to produce documentary evidence, including the reports drawn up by police officers about the circumstances of the applicants’ arrests and the medical evidence.   As regards the necessity and the proportionality of the force used   (b)     had the recourse to physical force been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct (see Rizvanov   v.   Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06, §   49, 17 April 2012)? In particular, -     did the State agents plan the arrest operations in advance? -     did they have sufficient time to evaluate the possible risks and to take all necessary measures for carrying out the arrest (see Rehbock v. Slovenia , no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000 ‑ XII; Grigoryev v. Russia , no. 22663/06, §   83, 23 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia , no. 8810/05, § 90, 30 May 2013, Minikayev v. Russia , no. 630/08, §§ 59-60, 5 January 2016)?   2.     Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment in the course of their arrest and in police custody as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV, Lyapin v. Russia , no.   46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)? In particular,   (a)     in cases in which the applicants’ arrests were carried out by masked officers, did they display visibly some anonymous signs allowing their identification and questioning in the event of challenges to the manner in which the operation was conducted (see Hristovi v. Bulgaria , no. 42697/05, § 92, 11 October 2011, and Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria , no.   51284/09, § 73, 30 September 2014)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION Application no. 48121/13   Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Mamedova v. Russia , no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, Butusov v.   Russia , no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22 December 2009, and Pichugin v.   Russia , no.   38623/03, §§ 148-56, 23   October 2012)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality represented by Details about arrest, location of the police station, arrest record (if available)   Report drawn up by the police officers about the circumstances of the arrest and the use of force   Medical evidence: date of examination, document type (date of the document) Applicants’ complaints about ill ‑ treatment to the domestic authorities (reasons for refusals) Applicants’ trial and appeal courts’ judgments 1. 42900/14 02/10/2014   Denis Nikolayevich DRUZHKOV 31/05/1980   Murmashi   Russian     14/01/2013 (at 11 p.m.)   Arrest at the applicant’s flat by the police officers of the special security unit ( ОМОН ) in masks after several test purchases   Police department, Kola, Murmansk Region ( ОМВД по Кольскому району )   No information about when the arrest record was drawn up   No information 15/01/2013 Medical certificate of the ambulance   31/01/2013 Medical examination act   28/02/2013 Forensic medical examination report 15/01/2013 First complaint to the prosecutor   20/10/2013 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   11/09/2014 Murmansk Regional Court   (it is not excluded that the applicant was injured during the arrest, but the police officers acted in accordance with the law without intention to injure the applicant)     24/01/2014 Kolskiy District Court   15/04/2014 Murmansk Regional Court   Convicted of attempted drug-dealing                           2. 44541/08 12/08/2008   Aleksey Nikolayevich ALAYEV 04/04/1961   Nizhniy Novgorod   Russian   COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE 10/03/2006 (at around 4 p.m.)   Arrest by the 3 plainclothes police officers of the Nizhniy Novgorod Department of the Federal Drug Control Service ( УФСКН по Нижегородской области ) at his flat following a number of test purchases   Nizhniy Novgorod Department of the FSKN ( УФСКН по Нижегородской области)         10/03/2006     11/03/2006 SIZO medical certificate   11/04/2006 Forensic medical examination report no.   982 (26/04/2006)   21/03/2006 First complaint to the prosecutor   14/05/2007 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   04/03/2008 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   (the physical force was used during the arrest to overcome the applicant’s resistance, the police officers did not exceed their authority during the arrest)   The domestic courts that convicted the applicant examined his plea about ill-treatment   03/07/2006 Sormovskiy District Court   (the applicant was injured during the arrest to overcome his resistance, police officers’ actions were provoked by the necessity, circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, no indication that the measures taken were excessive)   03/07/2006 Sormovskiy District Court   15/09/2006 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court   Convicted of attempted drug-dealing 3. 61817/11 14/09/2011 Konstantin Aleksandrovich TSYKALO 02/07/1972   Moscow   Russian   Sergey Ivanovich KIRYUKHIN   29/09/2009 (at around 4.30 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the special unit Orenburg Regional Department of the Federal Security Service in Orsk ( УФСБ России по Оренбургской области в г. Орск ) 29/09/2009 Arrest record drawn up No information 29/09/2009 Medical examination act no. 3913 (30/09/2009)     12/03/2010 Medical examination act no. 935 (19/10/2010)   No information about first complaint   16/05/2011 Latest refusal to open a criminal case     15/07/2011 Military Court of the Privolzhsk Command   (the physical force was used during the arrest to overcome the applicant’s resistance, no grounds to consider the force used as excessive)     28/09/2009 Orenburg Regional Court   Convicted of bribe-taking   4. 11587/12 05/12/2011   Yevgeniy Yuryevich KULEMIN 24/10/1971   Sorda   Russian   20/04/2011 (at around 8 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors immediately after the “test purchase”   Police station of Novoulyanovsk ( ОМ при ОВД по МО «Город Новоульяновск» и «Ульяновский район» Ульяновской области ) 20/04/2011 (at 11.58 p.m.) Arrest registered   20/04/2011   (at 11.58. p.m.) Arrest record drawn up   20/04/2011 21/04/2011 Report from IVS (03/06/2011)     April 2011 First complaint to the investigative committee   09/01/2012 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   19/03/2012 Ulyanovsk District Court   (the physical force was used during the arrest to overcome the applicant’s resistance, no grounds to consider the force used as illegal)     16/08/2011 Ulyanovskiy District Court   10/04/2013 Ulyanovsk Regional Court   Convicted of attempted drug-dealing 5. 10031/13 16/01/2013   Aleksey Aleksandrovich PALATOV 03/12/1980   Pskov   Russian   18/10/2009 (at around 11.40 p.m.)   Arrest at his fiend’s flat   Police department no. 3, Pskov ( 3 ГОМ УВД по г. Псков )     No information 20/10/2009 SIZO medical examination act   26/11/2009 Medical examination act no. 2739   06/11/2009 First complaint to the investigative committee   05/10/2012 Latest refusal to open a criminal a case   05/09/2013 Pskov Regional Court   (the applicant could have been injured during his arrest to overcome his resistance, the use of special means (a rubber truncheon) corresponded to the applicant’s behaviour and was justified; the police officer violated the law as they did not draw up the record on the use of special means during the arrest)   28/01/2010 Pskovskiy Town Court   Convicted of robbery     6. 42417/13 27/05/2013   Aleksandr Viktorovich NAKAGUTOV 14/03/1968   Yekaterinburg   Russian   20/12/2012   Arrest at home   Police department no. 7, Yekaterinburg ( отделение полиции № 7, Екатеринбург)   21/12/2012 Arrest record drawn up     No information 21/12/2012 Forensic medical examination report no. 12435 (29/01/2013)   01/02/2013 First complaint to the investigative committee   19/05/2013 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   09/09/2013 Sverdlovsk Regional Court   (the applicant could have been injured during his arrest to prevent his possible sexual assault of minor, no indication that the physical force used was excessive; at the same time the possibility that the applicant had been injured before the arrest is not excluded)   24/02/2014 Sverdlovsk Regional Court   04/06/2014 Supreme Court of the Russian Federation   Convicted of sexual assault of a minor   7. 48121/13 18/06/2013   Marat Rifovich LATYPOV 22/08/1976   Ufa   Russian   09/12/2011   Arrest outdoors in the evening during an undercover operation “surveillance”   Police department no. 7, Ufa ( отделение полиции № 7 по г. Уфа )   10/12/2011 (at 6.30 p.m.) Arrest record drawn up   No information 10/12/2011 Certificate of the traumatology centre   12/12/2011 SIZO records (14/06/2012)     No information about first complaint   20/11/2012 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   03/03/2014 Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan   quashed the refusal (the applicant was not interviewed and a forensic medical examination was not conducted)   25/06/2014 Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan   Convicted of illegal storage of drugs 8. 31915/14 31/03/2014   Yaroslav Yuryevich VERBITSKIY 29/05/1987   St Petersburg   Russian   01/02/2011 (at around 10 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors by the police officers of the Saint-Petersburg department of the FSKN ( УФСКН России по Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области ) in masks with guns and hammers   Before the applicant’s arrest an undercover operation “test purchase” was conducted in respect of his brother, the authorities mistook the applicant for his brother   Saint-Petersburg department of the FSKN 02/02/2011 (at around 6 a.m.) Release No information 02/02/2011 Certificate of the traumatology centre (14/02/2011)   09/09/2011 Consulting report no. 1761     04/02/2011 First complaint to the prosecutor   19/02/2014 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   04/03/2014 St Petersburg City Court   (the applicant could have been injured during his arrest to overcome his resistance)         Neither administrative nor criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant 9. 42438/15 05/08/2015   Vladimir Igorevich VASILYEV 20/01/1988   Rybinsk   Russian   28/03/2014 (at around 2 p.m.)   Arrest during an undercover operation “surveillance” outdoors   Several days before the applicant’s arrest an undercover operation “test purchase” was conducted in respect of the applicant     Criminal investigations service of the Yaroslavl Region Department of Interior ( УУР УМВД по Ярославской области )   28/03/2014 (at 7 p.m.)   Arrest record drawn up   No information 29/03/2014 SIZO report     No information about first complaint   The domestic courts that convicted the applicant examined his plea about ill-treatment   12/10/2015 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   21/06/2016 Yaroslavl Regional Court   (the applicant’s injuries could be explained by the force used during his arrest and escort or by some other circumstances) 27/06/2014 Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl   25/08/2014 Yaroslavl Regional Court   11/02/2015 Presidium of the Yaroslavl Regional Court   Convicted of attempted drug-dealing 10. 45235/16 20/07/2016   Vitaliy Vitalyevich SOKOLOV 25/02/1972   Asino   Russian   11/02/2015 (at around 3 p.m.)   Arrest outdoors   Police department “Asinovskiy”, Asino, Tomsk Region ( МО МВД России «Асиновский» УМВД России по Томской области )   No information 13/02/2015 SIZO medical certificate   12/02/2015 Testimonies of the applicant’s SIZO cellmates (01/05/2016)   Undated extract from the applicant’s medical card   04/03/2015 First complaint to the prosecutor   28/03/2016 Latest refusal to open a criminal case     (the police officers had to use physical force during the applicant’s arrest as the applicant tried to run away, the police officers did not exceed their authority)   13/04/2015 Asinovskiy Town Court of the Tomsk Region   Convicted of illegal acquisition and storage of drugs