84284/17

THIRD SECTION CASE OF MOKHOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 84284/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 March 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mokhov v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,  Mateja Đurović,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 5 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 December 2017. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr S.V. Badamshin, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. THE LAW        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 application (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, §§ 68‑73, 17 January 2023).      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 7.  The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 8.  The Court reiterates that the absence of any direct State responsibility for acts of violence that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from all obligations under this provision. The obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals. Admittedly, it goes without saying that the obligation cannot be interpreted as requiring the State to guarantee through its legal system that inhuman or degrading treatment is never inflicted by one individual on another or, if it has been, that criminal proceedings should necessarily lead to a particular sanction. What Article 3 does require is that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill‑treatment even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals. For the investigation to be regarded as “effective”, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but one of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention where the effectiveness of the official investigation has been at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time. Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see, among other authorities, Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 98-100, 17 December 2009). 9.  In the leading cases of Denis Vasilyev, cited above, Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, 31 July 2012 and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 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. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the investigations failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness. 11.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.    APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Pobokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 30726/14, §§ 27-29, 6 April 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Holds that it has jurisdiction to deal with this application as it relates to facts that took place before 16 September 2022;      Declares the application admissible;      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill‑treatment committed by private individuals;      Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 26 March 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh  Acting Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 § 2 of the Convention (ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Factual information, including medical evidence and domestic proceedings Specific grievances Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] 84284/17 08/12/2017 Sergey Viktorovich MOKHOV   On 25/11/2016 the applicant was assaulted near his home: a stranger allegedly injected him with an unknown substance, which caused dizziness, heaviness in his legs, and slurred speech. Emergency doctors he had called, as well as a doctor he consulted on the next day, found a painful puncture mark but no other injuries or health issues. A urine test also showed no traces of toxic substances or poison. The applicant’s lawyer was able to get footage from surveillance cameras showing the moment of the attack. On a number of occasions (on 24/12/2016, 25/01/2017, 10/03/2017, 10/04/2017, and 30/01/2018), the investigator from the Donskoy district police in Moscow refused to open a criminal investigation, citing the absence of a corpus delicti. Those refusals were overturned by a prosecutor on 26/12/2016, 09/02/2017, 13/03/2017, 09/06/2017, and 05/02/2018, with orders to continue investigating. Finally, on 15/06/2018, the Simonovsky District Court in Moscow ruled in favour of the applicant, recognising that the investigator’s failure to follow the prosecutor’s orders for further investigation was unlawful, and instructed the police to correct the violations. As follows from the casefile, no further actions have been taken by the domestic authorities. Repeated refusals to open criminal investigation (Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, § 94, 9 July 2019),   Shortcomings recognised by national authorities (Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, § 71, 31 July 2012) 5,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.