CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2018

.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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 75926/17 Turana Apkarovna VARZHABETYAN against Russia lodged on 26 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case belongs to a group of applications lodged after the suppression of the “March of Millions”, a public manifestation held in Moscow on 6   May 2012, initially peacefully, but ending up with a stand-off and clashes between the police and protesters. The applicant is a disabled person who was 67 at the time of the events. She complains about the alleged ill ‑ treatment by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration, without her consecutive arrest and prosecution in the administrative or criminal proceedings. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Regard being had to the medical certificates submitted by the applicant, was she subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 6 May 2012? In particular,   (a)     have the domestic authorities provided a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicant’s injuries were caused (see, mutatis mutandis , Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 87, ECHR   1999 ‑ V, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, §   100, ECHR   2000 ‑ VII)?   (b)     was the recourse to physical force made strictly necessary by the applicant’s own conduct (see Balçık and Others v. Turkey , no. 25/02, §§   32 ‑ 33, 29 November 2007; Saya and Others v. Turkey , no. 4327/02, §   21, 7 October 2008; Muradova v. Azerbaijan , no. 22684/05, § 133, 2 April 2009; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06, § 49, 17 April 2012)?   2.     Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during the dispersal of the demonstration, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV)?   3.     Having regard to the applicant’s allegation that the police had used force against her during the dispersal of the demonstration, has there been an interference with the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention (see Balçık and Others , cited above, § 41, and Saya and Others , cited above, § 39)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Articles 10 § 2 and   11 § 2 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for her complaints under Articles 3, 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13?   The Government are invited to submit documentary evidence, if any, including: (a)     the reports drawn up by police officers about the circumstances of the use of force against the applicant; (b)     medical evidence; (c)     decisions by the investigating authorities concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police; (d)     the corresponding decisions which overruled or set aside the above ‑ mentioned decisions; (e)     court decisions at both levels of jurisdictions concerning the applicant’s complaints about the investigator’s decisions.