CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } Published on 30 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   2504/19 David Aleksandrovich FRENKEL against Russia and 9 other applications (see list appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the applications on 5 October 2023, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the applications should be given to the Government of Russia. In the applications marked by an asterisk, other complaints were raised. This part of the applications has been struck out of the Court’s list of cases or declared inadmissible by the Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, assisted by a rapporteur as provided for in Article 24 § 2 of the Convention. In the enclosed list of applications, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The applications concern complaints raised under Article 3 of the Convention relating to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014 and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20   November 2018).   APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Factual information 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law     2504/19* 25/12/2018 David Aleksandrovich FRENKEL 1991 Regina Fargatovna Gayazova Kazan On 11/12/2016 the applicant, a journalist, was attempting to take photographs at a rally of the National Liberation Movement in St Petersburg when a participant attacked him, trying to knock out his camera and making anti-Semitic remarks. The incident was filmed by another journalist. The applicant called the police, who on their arrival let the other man go and took the applicant to police station no. 78. At the station, the deputy head of the station, Officer M., asked the applicant to turn off his telephone, which he refused to do. A hostile argument ensued, after which the officer called an emergency psychiatric team for the applicant. The three medical personnel, including Doctor K., without asking the applicant any questions, immediately used physical force against him by applying a chokehold and forcibly putting a rubber tourniquet to his hands. For three hours, while the applicant remained tied up, the doctor spoke to the applicant’s father, who had arrived at the police station, and then to officer M. The doctor then ordered the paramedics to release the applicant. The entire incident was registered by the police station’s CCTV. Medical certificate no.   5693 issued by trauma unit of outpatient clinic no. 37 on 11/12/2016: bruises and abrasions on the left side of the neck, bruises on the anterior surface of both forearms, both wrist joints, abrasions on the nail phalanges of two fingers. On 15/12/2016 complaint of ill-treatment against the police officers and the medical personnel/On 10/02/2017 refusal to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti. On 10/09/2018 the Dzerzhinsky District Court in St   Petersburg rejected the applicant’s appeal against the refusal/On 30/10/2018 the decision was upheld by St Petersburg City Court. The courts failed to examine the applicant’s argument that the call for the psychiatric emergency team was unnecessary and that it was caused by officer M.’s hostile attitude towards the applicant.         34970/19 20/06/2019 Magomed Ziyaudinovich MUTSOLGOV 1987 Ruslan Zuyatdinovich YANDIYEV 1900   Vanessa Kogan Moscow On 17/11/2018 the applicants were beaten by the police in Magas during a manifestation against the authorities’ decision concerning the delimitation of the territory between Chechnya and Ingushetia. They were detained on the same day and subjected to administrative arrest for 5   days. Applicant 1: on 20/11/2018 medical examination at the trauma unit of the Akhushkova hospital in Magas: abrasions on both elbow joints. Applicant 2: on 20/11/2018 medical examination at the trauma unit of the Akhushkova hospital: haematoma on the scalp, abrasion on the right eye and right hand, bruises on both knee joints, contusion of the cervical spine. On 26 and 27 /11/2018 the applicants complained of ill-treatment to the Ingushetia investigative committee / On 29/12/2018 refusal to open a criminal case. The video of the beating was not examined, the witnesses to the incident were not questioned. On 21/02/2019 the applicants appealed against the refusal to the Magas Town Court / On 01/03/2019 the court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated/On 16/04/2019 the Ingushetia Supreme Court upheld that decision on appeal.   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 17/11/2018 for compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine at the trial police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based.     43709/19* 30/07/2019 Tatyana Vyacheslavovna POPOVA 1981 Mariya Vladimirovna MOROZOVA 2015   Vladimir Gennadyevich Morozov Volgograd On 08/12/2017 a teacher at municipal educational institution nursery school no. 135 in Volgograd hit the second applicant, 1 year and 11 months old at the time of the events, to the face. M.M. told her parents (the first applicant and the father) that a teacher had hit her. The second applicant developed fear of nurses and was refusing to go to school. She had been supervised by a neurologist by the time of lodging the application. A certificate and a medical record of 08/12/2017 by the State Emergency Hospital no.15 of Volgograd (bruise to the face, brain concussion); Certificate of 11/12/2017 by a neurologist of the State Children Pout-Patient Clinic no. 16 of Volgograd (brain concussion); Forensic medical expert report no. 5400 of 18/12/2017 (bruise to the right zygomatic region, could have been caused by a solid blunt object); Forensic medical examination report no. 2105 of 21/06/2018 (bruise to the face; expert not competent to establish whether the injury could have been caused by a fall from the applicant’s height, or by an impact of a pacifier, or by hitting against a car’s hood). On 08/12/2017 State Emergency Hospital no.15 of Volgograd sent information about the second applicant’s injuries to the 8th police station in Volgograd. On 11/12/2017 the applicants lodged complaints to the above Department of Interior about the beatings and requested institution of criminal proceedings against the director of the nursery school and the teacher. Between 05/01/2018 and 03/07/2019 seven refusals to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti were all set aside by the investigators’ superiors as incomplete. Defects identified in the latest decisions to quash the refusal: failure to examine the scene; to question other employees of the nursery school; to question a forensic expert. The applicants appealed against the refusal of 09/01/2019 to the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court in Volgograd; on 22/07/2019 the court refused to examine the appeal as the impugned refusal had been overruled by the investigators’ superiors and the inquiry had been reopened.         38872/21* 12/07/2021 Dmitriy Aleksandrovich SHUMEYEV 1994 Darya Dmitriyevna Aksenova Kolomna Around 6 p.m. on 23/01/2021, officers of the Russian Guards Service stopped the applicant near Trubnaya metro station in Moscow during a manifestation in support of Navalnyy and subjected him to beatings. According to the applicant, the officers hit him all over his body with a truncheon numerous times and then took him to the police bus. The beatings were recorded on video. On 24/01/2021 the applicant sought medical help in Sklifosovskiy hospital. Medical history extract issued by the emergency department of the Sklifosovskiy hospital on 24/01/2021: bruises of the soft tissues of the head, bruise of the thorax, injury of the left shoulder and elbow joints. On 04/02/2021 complaint to the Main Investigative Department in Moscow/ According to their letter dated 19/03/2021, the inquiry had not identified any breaches of law by the officers and the complaint had been transferred to the Russian Guards Service. The Tverskoy District Court in Moscow on 19/04/2022 rejected the applicant’s complaint of the authorities’ inaction for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decisions had been taken in respect of the ill-treatment complaint/upheld by the Moscow City Court on 27/06/2022.   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to the police station on 23/01/2021 for compiling an offence report;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - in the proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO/ final decision Moscow City Court 13/05/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial police officers on whose written statements the conviction was based in the proceedings under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO/ final decision Moscow City Court 13/05/2021;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO for participation in the unauthorised rally in support of A. Navalnyy on 23/01/2021 / final decision Moscow City Court 13/05/2021.     44648/21* 01/07/2021 Kseniya Mikhaylovna MASLOVA 1989 Nikolay Sergeyevich Zboroshenko Mytishchi On 23/01/2021 the applicant was allegedly beaten by the officers of Russian Guards Service with truncheons when she took part in the opposition rally “Free Navalnyy”. Forensic medical examination certificate / Administrative Detention Centre no. 2 of Ministry of Interior in Moscow / 27/01/2021: hematomas on a right knee, right hip, the right part of a lower back. Medical Certificate / Trauma Department of Town Clinical Hospital no. 67 of Moscow / 02/02/2021: hematomas on the right buttock, [illegible] of the right hip.   On 07/04/2021 the first complaint to the Preobrazhenskiy Inter-district investigative department in Moscow about the ill-treatment. On 25/11/2022, after the applicant’s appeal of the investigators’ inaction to domestic courts, the investigators refused to open a criminal case. On 27/07/2021 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court found that no procedural steps had been taken by the investigative body officials in connection with the applicant’s complaint (no pre-investigation inquiry carried out, no procedural decision taken) and ordered them to correct those violations. On 19/08/2021 that decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court. The applicant’s repeated subsequent appeals to the same courts were to no avail. The last relevant decision: on 30/01/2023 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s 3rd complaint against the inaction of the investigative body and on14/03/2023 the Moscow City Court confirmed that ruling.   Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - escorting to and detention at the police station for compiling an offence record and detention there between 11.40 p.m. on 23/01/2021 and 1:00 p.m. on 25/01/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings – final decision; Moscow City Court 20/02/2021;   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in the trial the police officers on whose written statements the applicant’s conviction was based - final decision; Moscow City Court 20/02/2021;   Prot. 7 Art. 4 - right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings - the applicant complains that she was punished twice for essentially the same actions first under Article 20.2 § 5 of CAO (participation in the unauthorised rally) and, secondly, under Article 19.3 § 1 of CAO (failure to obey the lawful order of the police to cease participation in the unauthorized rally and disperse) - final decision; Moscow City Court 20/02/2021;   Art. 3 - inadequate conditions of detention during transport - conditions of transfer in a police van on 23/01/2021 between 9:30   p.m. and 11:40 p.m.: overcrowding (25-30 persons, standing room only); no heating, low temperature inside; no access to a toilet, water or food;   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of inadequate conditions of detention during transport;   Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Rally "Free Navalnyy" / Moscow on 23/01/2021 / article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO, article 19.3 § 1 of CAO / final decision: Moscow City Court 20/02/2021 / detention for 10 days     46513/21* 15/09/2021 Maksim Vasilyevich VASILYEV 1995 Edgar Slavikovich Terbalyan Tomsk On 28/12/2016 the police broke into the applicant’s house for a search. The applicant, who was not under arrest and did not have an arm on him, was sitting at a desk and opened the door by a remote control. The officers pulled the applicant out of the desk, shoved him to the ground, pressed him against the floor and twisted his arms behind his back. An officer then administered at least eight blows on different parts of the applicant’s body. The incident was filmed on video. Medical certificate of the Tomsk emergency care hospital of 28/12/2016: hematomas on the face, contusion of the right side of the ribcage, hematomas on the right hip. On 13/03/2017, upon the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint, a criminal case was opened. On 07/08/2019 the police officer B. who had used the physical force against the applicant was convicted by the Oktyabrskiy District Court in Tomsk of unlawful use of force. The decision was based on the statements of, inter alia, four of police officers. On 21/10/2019 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed that decision and acquitted officer B. for the lack of corpus delicti in his actions. The appellate court re-examined the facts and found that the use of force was proportionate and justified - it gave different assessment of the evidence, without the direct assessment of the video recording of the incident and did not provide reasons for the difference in its assessment of the evidence in comparison to the District Court. The decision of 21/10/2019 was upheld on appeal by the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction on 13/05/2021.   Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - The applicant complains of assessment of evidence by the second instance court, in particular, the lack of the assessment of necessity and proportionality of the use of force by officer B.     54427/21* 20/10/2021 Yegor Sergeyevich KOLOSOV 1997 Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev Kazan At 22.25 p.m. on 21/04/2021, police officers at the mobile unit of Russian Guards Service stopped the applicant in the street in St Petersburg and without introducing themselves subjected him to beatings. According to the applicant the policemen shoved him to the ground, pressed their feet on his neck to suffocate him, hit him multiple times with a rubber truncheon on various parts of the body, bound his hands behind his back injuring his shoulder, pulled his hair, hit his face and head with elbows and knees and attempted to pull out his dental braces. The beating was recorded on video by the applicant’s friends. Then the applicant was taken to police station No. 9 in the Krasnoselskiy District in St Petersburg to compile an administrative offence record for participation in public protests. At 2.56 a.m. on 22/04/2021 the applicant was taken by the ambulance to City Hospital No. 26 where a number of injuries were identified. Later on that day, he visited the traumatology department of City Hospital No. 27 where further injuries were identified and recorded. 1) Hospital release certificate issued by City Hospital No. 26 on 22/04/2021: bruises on the head, bruises and hematomas on the left side of the chest, bruises and abrasions on the left wrist and hand, vestibular syndrome. 2) Medical certificate issued by the traumatology department of City Hospital No. 27 on 22/04/2021: bruises and hematomas of the face, the right ear, the left side of the chest, the left and right wrists, and hands. On 27/04/2021 complaint to the Admiralteyskiy District investigative department in St Petersburg/ According to their letters dated 30/04/2021 and 01/10/2021, the internal inquiry into the applicant’s claims was ongoing / no decision issued. On 16/06/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St Petersburg refused to accept the applicant’s appeal against the letter from the investigative department contesting the authorities’ inaction, since it was merely an "informational reply" and not a formal decision on the applicant’s criminal complaint. On 19/08/2021 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that decision on appeal.         61043/21* 27/11/2021 Aleksandr Denisovich SHADRIN 1999 Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev Kazan At 8.30 p.m. on 21/04/2021, officers of the Russian Guards Service stopped the applicant in the street in St   Petersburg during a manifestation in support of Navalnyy and subjected him to beatings. According to the applicant, the officers shoved him to the ground, hit him at least three times on the face, lifted and pushed him in the direction of a bus for arrested persons, hit him at least two more times on the body and face, and tasered him prior to putting in the bus. The beating was recorded on video. Medical history extract issued by the traumatology department of City Polyclinic No. 37 on 22/04/2021: hematomas of the face and head. On 29/04/2021 complaint to the Admiralteyskiy District Investigative Department in St Petersburg/ According to their letters dated 04/05/2021 and 27/08/2021, the internal inquiry into the applicant’s allegations was to be initiated /no decision issued. On 16/06/2021 the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St   Petersburg refused to accept the applicant’s complaint concerning inaction of the investigators, since the letter of 04/05/2021 was not a "procedural decision" and, therefore, not a formal decision on the applicant’s criminal complaint/On 22/09/2021 the St   Petersburg City Court upheld that decision on appeal.         61047/21* 27/11/2021 Boris Anatolyevich KANTOROVICH 1992 Danil Ilnurovich Nurgaleyev Kazan At 5.30 p.m. on 27/07/2019 at a rally for free elections in Moscow the applicant tried to prevent the arrest of a third person by officers of the Russian Guards Service and was subjected by them to beatings. According to the applicant, officer K. hit him numerous time with a truncheon until the truncheon broke and officer Ki. forced the applicant’s hands behind the back and took him to the bus for the arrested persons, where an unidentified officer took him by the hair and slammed the applicant’s head against the doorframe. The beating was recorded on video. While in the bus, the applicant asked the officers to call an ambulance and, having his request refused, called the ambulance himself to the Presninskiy District police station. The ambulance took the applicant to the Botkin Hospital in Moscow, where he was hospitalised until 29/07/2019. Hospital release certificate issued by the Botkin Hospital in Moscow on 29/07/2021: blunt traumas of the chest, right arm, head and neck, multiple hematomas and bruises on the head, neck, upper-back, right arm. On 02/08/2019 complaint to the Meshchanskiy District Investigative Department in Moscow / According to their letter dated 06/09/2019, the inquiry identified no breach of law by the officers and the complaint was transferred to the Russian Guards Service. On 11/01/2020 the latter informed the applicant that no "unjustified use of force" had been established. Meshchanskiy District Court on 25/02/2021 rejected the applicant’s complaint of the authorities’ inaction for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decisions had been taken in respect of the ill-treatment complaint/upheld by the Moscow City Court on 15/07/2021.       17285/22 10/03/2022 Murad Asadulayevich DINGAYEV 1996 Arsen Khidirnabiyevich Shabanov Makhachkala On 25/03/2017 the applicant was apprehended by officers of the Dagestan Investigative department, taken to an unknown location and subjected to beatings and electrocution via his fingers to make him to confess to leading an illegal armed group. On the same day the applicant confessed under pressure. The IVS medical examination of 26/03/2017: petechial haemorrhages in the phalanges of the fingers of both hands.   The applicant raised the ill-treatment complaint during his interrogation on 14/11/2017 and then during his trial on 15/02/2018. On 05/03/2020 the Dagestan Human Rights Ombudsman demanded opening of a criminal case against the police officers, alleging that they had ill-treated the applicant on 25 and 26/03/2017/Refusals to open a criminal case: 12/03/2020, 20/05/2020, 02/08/2020, each decision was overruled by the investigators’ superiors as deficient. The last refusal was issued on 01/10/2020. Medical evidence of the applicant’s ill-treatment was completely ignored. The complaint was raised and examined during the trial and then during the appeal proceedings/the latest decision by the Fifth Cassation Court, 29/09/2021. On 16/10/2020 the applicant was convicted of organising an illegal armed group, trafficking of firearms and explosives and sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment and a fine of RUB 200,000. The latest decision – the Fifth Cassation Court, 29/09/2021. Art. 6 (1) - unfair trial – complaint that the applicant’s incriminating statements obtained under duress were used as the basis for his conviction (Anikeyev and Yermakova v. Russia (dec), nos.   1311/21 and 10219/21, 13   April 2021)