19560/16;33300/16

THIRD SECTION CASE OF MONAKHOV AND SILVERSTOV v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 19560/16 and 33300/16)             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG 1 December 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Monakhov and Silverstov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Darian Pavli, President,  Ioannis Ktistakis,  Andreas Zünd, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 10 November 2022, 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 inhuman or degrading treatment and the authorities’ failure to investigate the matter. THE LAW 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. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 of the Convention 6.  The applicants complained of ill-treatment by police officers during dispersal of public assemblies and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. 7.  Despite the medical and other evidence furnished by the applicants, the authorities refused to open a criminal case into the matter relying on the statements of the implicated police officer and without either assessing the proportionality of the use of force in question or providing an alternative explanation of the injuries’ cause (see Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, § 69, 13 October 2020). To this end, the Court reiterates that the authorities’ refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment is indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129 and 132-36, 24 July 2014). 8.  Given that the Government’s submission before the Court stems from the results of the superficial pre-investigative inquiries, they cannot be considered satisfactory or convincing. Thus, the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the account of events provided by the applicants (see Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 83-85, 2 May 2017, and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 102 04, 12 December 2017). Having regard to the applicants’ injuries, the Court finds that the police subjected them to inhuman and degrading treatment. 9.  The Court finds that the complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under both substantive and procedural limbs. In the light of this finding, it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 10.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 11.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Zagaynov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 5666/07 and 4 others, 15 June 2021), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 12.  The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention admissible and finds that it is not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, under both substantive and procedural limbs, in relation to the applicants’ inhuman or degrading treatment; 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 December 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 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 relating to arrest 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 Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     19560/16 05/04/2016 Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV Sharapov Ilnur Ilgizovich Moscow 18/07/2013 (at around 7 p.m.)   Beating following an arrest at a manifestation in Moscow Abrasions and bruises on the head, neck, back, chest, upper and lower limbs, brain concussion possibly inflicted on 18/07/2013.   18/07/2013 Photos taken in the police bus   18/07/2013 Hospital medical report   19/07/2013 Hospital medical report   14/08/2013 Forensic medical examination report no. 5562м/6679 (examination conducted on the basis of the documents) 25/07/2013 First complaint to the investigative committee   27/03/2015 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the physical force was used to overcome the applicant’s resistance, but the police officers did not injure the applicant, the applicant tried to break away, could have slipped over the bus stairs and injured himself) 25/02/2016 Moscow City Court Neither administrative nor criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant 23,000         33300/16 03/06/2016 Oleg Aleksandrovich SILVERSTOV Sadovskaya Olga Aleksandrovna Nizhniy Novgorod 10/03/2012 (at around 3 p.m.)   Beating following an arrest at a manifestation in Nizhniy Novgorod Bruises on the head, chest and lower back, an abrasion on the face, brain concussion possibly inflicted on 10/03/2012   10/03/2012 Hospital medical report   04/05/2012 Forensic medical examination report no. 1048/2137 Д (examination conducted on the basis of the documents) 13/08/2012 Forensic medical examination report no. 1927 ДОП/131 (examination conducted on the basis of the documents)   02/09/2013 Forensic medical examination report no. 2156 доп/178 доп (examination conducted on the basis of the documents) 13/03/2012 First complaint to the investigative committee   09/04/2015 Latest refusal to open a criminal case   (the physical force was used in accordance with the law only to bring the applicant to the police bus, but the police officers did not injure the applicant, he could have slipped over the bus stairs and injured himself) 07/12/2015 Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court Neither administrative nor criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant 26,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.