THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ZARIPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

(Applications nos. 26955/20 and 6 others –

see appended list)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

6 February 2025

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.


In the case of Zaripov and Others v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
 Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

  1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

  1. Jurisdiction

6.  The Court observes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).

 

  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention

7.  The applicants complained principally of the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and absence of an effective investigation on the part of the authorities into the events in question. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 3 of the Convention.

8.  The Court held in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015), that presumptions of fact was in favour of applicants claiming to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, if they demonstrate that the alleged ill-treatment was inflicted when they were under the control of the police or a similar authority. Moreover, in the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in detention are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities have a duty to protect their physical well-being and that any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the applicants’ own conduct diminishes human dignity and in principle constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006). The burden of proof rests on the Government to show that the use of force by State agents, which resulted in the applicants’ injuries, was not excessive (see, for example, Dzwonkowski v. Poland, no. 46702/99, § 51, 12 April 2007, and compare with Kursish and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 62003/08 and 5 others, § 84, 5 July 2022).

9.  Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128‑40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities’ refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the State agents were indicative of the State’s failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention. This is all the more so in cases where the authorities have refused to either carry-out an official inquiry into the applicants’ allegations or officially register the applicants’ complaints (see the appended table).

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. The Court therefore finds these complaints admissible and decides that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of all the applicants.

  1. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, in the light of the well‑established case-law of the Court (see the attached table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013; Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 106‑225, 26 April 2016; Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36 and §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019, Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018 and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, §§ 74-76, 13 October 2020.

  1. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  Some applicants also submitted additional complaints under various Convention provisions. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it has already determined the main legal issues in those applications (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above) and that accordingly there is no need to examine these complaints separately (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014; Aleksandr Andreyev v. Russia, no. 2281/06, § 71, 23 February 2016; and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, § 86, 11 October 2016).

  1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, its case-law (see, for similar situations, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021, and Dauberkov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 60844/11 and 2 others, § 64, 22 March 2022) and making its assessment on an equitable basis (see Bouyid, cited above, § 138), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

  1. Decides to join the applications;
  2. Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with these applications as they relate to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;
  3. Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation into the events, and other complaints raised under well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table) admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separate the remainder of the applications;
  4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation into the events in question;
  5. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
  6. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

 


APPENDIX

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

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros)[1]

  1.    

26955/20

07/04/2020

Ildar Khatipovich ZARIPOV

1987

 

 

On 22/11/2018 the applicant was detained in Ukhta on the suspicion of a drug-related crime and was subjected to punches by four arresting police officers before being taken to the temporary detention centre (the IVS) at the Ukhta police station.

On 23/11/2018 report of the IVS: abrasion on the lips, abrasions on the fingers of the right hand.

Forensic expert report (based on the applicant’s medical records) of 25/03/2019 by the Ukhta Forensics Bureau: consequences of an old head trauma (unconfirmed).

 

On 23/11/2018 complaint lodged/Between 09/01/2019 and 30/10/2019 the Ukhta investigative committee issued five refusals to open a criminal case having stated that the applicant’s injuries had been self-inflicted by hitting his head against his own knees and biting hard on the lips and/or that the use of force and handcuffing had been justified by the applicant’s behaviour. Each of the refusals, except for the last one of 30/10/2019, was overruled by the investigators’ superiors as deficient.

 

The applicant appealed against the last refusal to open a criminal case/On 26/11/2019 the Ukhta Town Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in a summary formula/On 17/01/2020 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld that decision on appeal.

 

6,500

  1.    

30334/21

11/05/2021

Georgiy Sergeyevich GRACHEV

2001

Zboroshenko Nikolay Sergeyevich

Mytishchi

On 23/01/2021 the applicant participated in a rally in support of Navalnyy in Moscow, during which officers from the Russian Guards Service hit him several times with batons on the head and body. At 4.23 p.m. on the same day, the applicant was hospitalised.

Medical assessment report of 23/01/2021 issued by the Sklifosovskiy medical emergency institute in Moscow: compound wound of the head, injury of the left elbow.

Photo of the applicant with bloody head standing among servicemen and rally participants.

On 15/04/2021 the applicant complained to the Tverskoy Investigative Committee in Moscow. By a letter of 27/04/2021 the authority replied that since the rally had not been duly authorised, the servicemen actions were lawful, and it refused to conduct any inquiry into the matter.

The applicant appealed against the authorities’ inaction to the Tverskoy District Court. On 30/11/2021 the court dismissed the complaint/on 06/06/2022 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision, having noted that the use of force was lawful and that in any case, on 26/04/2021, the applicant’s complaint had been transferred to the Russian Guards Service for examination.

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty: escorting to the police station for the purpose of drawing up a record of administrative offence, detention in excess of 3 hours and without “exceptional circumstances”, from 10.00 p.m. on 02/02/2021 until the hearing in the applicant’s administrative-offence case on 03/02/2021;

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - final decisions: Moscow City Court, 09/02/2021;

 

 Art. 11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - 1) on 23/01/2021, in Moscow, rally to support Mr A. Navalnyy, article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, fine of RUB 20,000, final decision: Moscow City Court, 21/09/2021,

2) on 02/02/2021, in Moscow, rally to support Mr A. Navalnyy, article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO, administrative detention of 10 days, final decision: Moscow City Court, 09/02/2021

16,000

  1.    

1576/22

18/12/2021

Anatoliy Viktorovich KALASHNIKOV

1972

Yastrebova Natalya Viktorovna

Rostov-on-Don

At 00.30 a.m. on 15/05/2021 the applicant was detained by the Border Control Service of the FSB in Rostov-on-Don on suspicion of smuggling tobacco goods. He was subjected to beatings on various parts of the body and electrocuted by a stun gun with the aim of extracting information. At 11.30 a.m. on the same day he was taken to a police station for drafting administrative offense reports and then to the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court in Rostov-on-Don, where he was convicted under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced to 5 days of detention.

Expert examination report no. 14 of 28/05/2021 by the 111th Main Centre of Forensics of the Ministry of Defence on the examination carried out on 20/05/2021: multiple focal epithelialized spots on the outer surface of the thumb with a transition to the lower third of the forearm, spots on the left lumbar region, haemorrhage on the right forearm, two bruises on the right forearm. The injuries occurred 4-10 days before the examination.

On 20/05/2021 complaint to the 314th military investigations department/on 31/05/2021 and 05/07/2021 refusals to open a criminal case as no crime had taken place: the inquirer interviewed the applicant, who had maintained his allegations and the implicated officers, who had either denied using any physical force (officer I.) or stated that the force had been used due to the applicant’s resistance (officers B., S., F. and G.). No assessment of necessity or proportionality of the use of force was made.

On 15/10/2021 the Rostov-on-Don Garrison Military Court rejected the applicant’s appeal contesting the last refusal/on 10/12/2021 the Southern Military Circuit Court upheld that decision.

 

26,000

  1.    

31736/22

15/06/2022

Vadim Nikolayevich ZABOLOTSKIKH

1973

Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

On 21/04/2021 the applicant was subjected to shoving, tasing and kicks by the police officers at the demonstration in support of Navalnyy in St Petersburg.

Medical examination certificate of 23/04/2021 by St Petersburg clinical hospital no. 27: contusion of the lumbar spine, contusion of the chin.

Forensic examination of 27/04/2021 by the St Petersburg clinical hospital no. 48: abrasion to the chin and outer surface of the left shoulder. Areas of pinpoint hypermia on the inner surface of the right thigh. The injuries were sustained as a result of, inter alia, tasing, in the circumstances described by the applicant.

 

On 30/04/2021 the applicant lodged ill‑treatment complaint with the Admiralteyskiy department of the investigative committee in St Petersburg/On 04/05/2021 the complaint transferred to the Admiralteyskiy police department, which refused to register it for the lack of evidence of a crime.

 

On 30/08/2021 the applicant challenged the authorities’ inaction before the Oktyabrskiy District Court in St Petersburg/ On 05/10/2021 the court refused to examine the complaint for the lack of subject matter as no procedural decision amenable to appeal had been issued/On 15/12/2021 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that decision.

 

16,000

  1.    

54964/22

05/11/2022

Yekaterina Konstantinovna KATSUN

1998

 

 

The applicant participated in an anti‑war protest in Moscow on 06/03/2022; she was arrested at the venue and taken to the Brateyevo police station. There she was subjected to ill‑treatment by the officers (kicked in the legs several times, hit in the head and hit in the face with a water bottle), the officers also sprayed her face with antiseptic and pulled her hair.

 

On 07/03/2022 and 09/03/2022 medical examination at Moscow hospital no. 17: contusion of the soft tissue of the nose, contusion and hematomas on the right hip and right shin.

Medical examination on 10/03/2022 at Moscow hospital no. 212: contusion of the soft tissues of the head, nose and lower jaw.

 

On 31 /03/2022 the applicant lodged complaint with the Nagatinskiy investigative committee/On 29/04/2022 she received a reply stating that her complaint had been forwarded to the Police Department of the Southern district of Moscow.

On 05/05/2022 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow challenging the inaction of the investigating authorities. On 26/09/2022 the court examined and rejected it stating that there were no reasons to believe that a crime had been committed/On 08/11/2022 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment.

Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty - the applicant complained of being taken to a police station as an administrative suspect: there is no evidence/assessment that it was impossible to draw up an offence record on the spot.

The applicant remained in detention for more than three hours after the offence record was drawn up without any justification: she was detained at 3.30 p.m. on 06/03/2022 and released at 11 p.m. on 06/03/2022; the complaint raised in the domestic proceedings.

 

Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - The final decision in the administrative proceedings against the applicant was given on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 05/07/2022

 

 

16,000

  1.    

26642/23

19/06/2023

Yevgeniy Vladimirovich LASTIN

1983

Zadorozhnaya Mariya Aleksandrovna

Nizhniy Novgorod

On 30/10/2020 two police officers subjected the applicant to punches and handcuffing during his arrest on the suspicion of theft. The incident was recorded on video.

On 31/10/2020 medical examination no. 891-5011 by Krasnodar hospital no. 3: contusion and hematomas of both forearms and shins. The information on the results of the examination was reported to the police.

Forensic medical examination of the Krasnodar Regional Forensics Bureau no. 5248/2020 of 03/11/2020: haemorrhage in the face, bruises in the torso, upper and lower limbs, abrasions in the upper right limb.

 

 

The information on the results of the applicant’s examination at Krasnodar hospital no. 3 was reported to the police on 31/10/2020/Between 10/12/2020 and 20/11/2021 the Krasnodar investigative committee issued four refusals to open a criminal case for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. The decisions were based on the statements of the implicated officers and did not reflect the contents of the video recording of the incident.

On 16/12/2021 the applicant complained against the last refusal, the one of 20/11/2021, to the Prikubanskiy District Court in Krasnodar/On 13/01/2022 the court rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated/On 10/06/2022 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Krasnodar Regional Court.

The appeal was lost at the court’s registry and the applicant had to re-lodge his appeal. Only on 20/02/2023 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the decision of 13/01/2022.

 

16,000

  1.    

27820/23

30/06/2023

Aleksandra Aleksandrovna KALUZHSKIKH

1995

Nurgaleyev Danil Ilnurovich

Kazan

The applicant participated in an anti-war protest in Moscow on 06/03/2022; she was arrested at the venue and taken to Brateyevo police station, where she was subjected to ill-treatment by four police officers there (kicked in the shin, hit in the back of the head, poured water over and struck in the head by the water bottle).

On 07/03/2022 medical examination by city hospital no. 218 in Moscow: soft tissue contusions to the head, face and upper right tibia, possible brain concussion.

On 08/03/2022 and 11/03/2022 examinations at the Medical Diagnostic Centre no. 6 in Moscow: cerebrovascular disease, disorder of the vegetative nervous system, syndrome of vegetative vascular dystonia

On 01/04/2022 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Nagatinskiy investigator’s office and asked to open investigation into her alleged ill-treatment. On 29/04/2022 she received a reply dated 13/04/2022 from the head of the investigator’s office stating that her complaint had been forwarded to the Police Department of the Southern district of Moscow

On 06/05/2022 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow challenging the inaction of the investigating authorities. Only on 13/12/2022 the court examined her complaint and rejected it stating that there were no reasons to believe that a crime had been committed/On 14/03/2023 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment.

 

16,000

 

 

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.