5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Novyy, Tatarstan Republic, Russia. 6.  The domestic authorities opened a criminal investigation in relation to the murder of G. committed on 7 September 2002. The applicant’s husband, Zhavdet Khayrullin, was identified in the course of the investigation as a possible eyewitness. A certain Mr V. was a suspect. 7.  On 13 September 2002 the applicant’s husband was taken to Tukayevskiy police station. The exact timing of this, various other circumstances, and the legal grounds and reasons for his detention were the subject of conflicting accounts at domestic level (see, for instance, paragraphs 8 and 23 below). 8.  It is apparent from a copy of the police logbook submitted by the applicant that her late husband was taken to the police station by officers Ag. and Na. at around 1 p.m., according to the record, for the purpose of verifying his identity; this verification was completed and he was released at 1.30 p.m. It is also apparent from the evidential material that between 4.15 and 4.45 p.m. the applicant’s husband was in an office, apparently on the fifth floor, where he was interviewed by investigator R. According to the material in the case file record, the applicant’s husband stated during the interview that he and V. had left the house of victim G. after drinking vodka together. Subsequent to this interview, for unspecified reasons the applicant’s husband was interviewed again, this time by field officer (оперуполномоченный) Kh., and made a written statement affirming that V. had punched G. during a quarrel. It appears that the applicant’s husband was thereupon required to come for another interview on 14 September 2002. 9.  On the same date, 13 September 2002, V. was taken to the police station and made a spontaneous confession regarding the murder. According to the applicant, V. heard the applicant’s husband screaming (allegedly in pain) in the neighbouring room during the evening of 13 September 2002 (however, for V.’s amended statement in 2010, see paragraph 38 below). 10.  According to the applicant, V. had been beaten up and ill-treated whilst at the police station, in particular by suffocation inflicted through the application of a gas mask. 11.  According to the authorities, the applicant’s husband left Kh.’s office at 8 p.m. and attempted to commit suicide on a balcony located on the fifth floor of the police station. The same evening he was found unconscious and was admitted to hospital. 12.  On an unspecified date a pre-investigation inquiry was opened in relation to the above events (see also paragraph 16 below), apparently within the framework of the investigation into G.’s murder (see paragraph 6 above). According to the applicant, during this inquiry investigative measures were carried out by unspecified officers from Tukayevskiy police station. 13.  Officer Kh. stated during the inquiry that he had collected a statement from the applicant’s husband and had seen him leave his office at 8 p.m. Soon thereafter Kh. had left for home. 14.  Ga., the deputy chief officer of the police station, stated that after hearing some noise and seeing officers on the fifth floor balcony, he had gone there and had seen Officers F., Va. and Kha. providing medical assistance to an unconscious man. 15.  It also appears that Gar., another deputy chief officer, carried out an internal inquiry and concluded that no official had committed any offence. 16.  On 21 September 2002, referring to the ongoing murder investigation into G.’s death (see paragraph 6 above), an assistant to the district prosecutor issued a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against any officers on account of Mr Khayrullin’s attempted suicide or incitement to suicide. Having summarised the above testimonies and referring to the conclusions of the internal inquiry, the assistant to the prosecutor concluded that no criminal offence had been committed. 17.  This decision was annulled by the higher prosecutor and the inquiry was reassigned to another investigator. 18.  On 13 December 2002 the applicant’s husband died, apparently without ever regaining consciousness. On the same day the investigator commissioned a forensic medical examination of the victim’s body. The expert was asked to clarify the cause of death, to identify any injuries and to specify their origin, in particular whether they had been sustained before death and whether they were linked to his subsequent death, and whether the victim could have continued to be active after the injuries. 19.  According to the autopsy report issued on 17 January 2003, the victim died of asphyxia resulting from strangulation. 20.  On 3 February 2003 the district prosecutor issued an order for the opening of a criminal investigation into an offence under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (actions committed by a public official manifestly outside the scope of his powers, causing significant damage to a person’s rights and freedoms, and entailing serious consequences). In his order the prosecutor stated, inter alia, that “acting manifestly beyond the scope of their powers, unspecified officers unlawfully placed [the victim] in an interrogation room”. The criminal investigation was opened against unspecified officers, and was then assigned to investigator R. 21.  The investigator interviewed paramedic A., who stated that upon arrival at the police station he and his colleagues had been taken to a detention cell; one of the officers explained to him that during a routine check of cells they had had difficulty opening the door of one of the cells and had discovered that it was blocked by the body of an unconscious detainee with a jacket tied around his neck; he had not seen any injuries on the visible part of the body, only on the neck. A similar statement was made by paramedics Zh. and Gi. A reanimation medical professional B. stated that the victim had had no other visible injuries. 22.  The investigator also questioned the victim’s son. The latter had received a telephone call from the victim on the evening of 13 September 2002 in which his father had told him that he was to be interviewed and would be let go next morning. On arriving at the police station the next day, he had been told that his father would be released in the afternoon. 23.  Field officers Na. and Ag. told the investigator that, while on patrol checking permits for firearms, they had spotted the applicant’s husband, who had looked suspicious. They had therefore taken him to the police station to check his identity; having checked it, this person had been allowed to leave the police station. 24.  According to Officer F., the victim was found sitting on the floor with his back against the balcony bars, with one part of his jacket tied around his neck and the other attached to the balcony bars. 25.  On 3 May 2003 investigator R. issued a decision discontinuing the criminal investigation for absence of any criminal event, while noting that “unidentified officers from the police station had manifestly exceeded their powers when placing [the victim] in an investigation room”. Having listed the summaries of various testimonies mentioned above, the investigator concluded that the victim had attempted suicide. 26.  On 20 June 2003 the district prosecutor ordered that the investigation was to be continued in order to examine the instructions relating to the placement of detainees in designated rooms or cells, to determine who exactly had placed the victim in the cell or investigation room, and who had opened the doors. It was also to deal with contradictory statements made by the officers Na. and Ag., on one hand, and by other officers and the victim’s relatives on the other. It was also to properly examine the testimonies given by the paramedics, in particular as regards the place where the victim had been discovered. 27.  It appears that the criminal investigation was reassigned to another investigator, I., who suspended it on 20 July 2003. On 22 July 2003 the regional deputy prosecutor issued an order requesting further investigation and on 23 July 2003 the acting district prosecutor quashed the suspension and ordered the investigation to be continued. 28.  On 23 August 2003 investigator R. issued a decision discontinuing the criminal investigation in terms that were similar to the decision of 3 May 2003. On 12 September 2003 the district prosecutor stated that the requirements made on 22 July 2003 had not been complied with, and that the investigation must be continued. 29.  On 12 October 2003 investigator I. issued a decision to discontinue the criminal investigation. 30.  On 10 November 2003 the deputy regional prosecutor quashed this decision, finding that (i) it remained necessary to interview officer F. again and to give a more detailed assessment of the circumstances in which the victim’s body had been discovered by this officer. In particular, it was important to clarify whether the officer had seen the victim in the state of strangulation, what was the body’s position, where the “noose” had been and who had removed it, and (ii) it was necessary to interview V. who allegedly heard the victim screaming, to interview the victim’s next of kin in relation to the circumstances in which the victim had been apprehended and taken to the police station, and in particular to interview the victim’s wife, who had allegedly seen signs of bleeding around the victim’s wrists resulting from the use of handcuffs. 31.  A fresh discontinuation decision was issued by the investigator on 10 December 2003. 32.  This decision was subsequently quashed and other similar decisions were issued and quashed on several occasions. For instance, on 10 December 2008 an investigator issued a decision to discontinue the criminal case, concluding that the applicant’s husband had attempted to commit suicide. 33.  On an unspecified date, the investigating officer asked expert Va., who had issued the report of 17 January 2003 (see paragraph 19 above) to express his opinion. Expert Va. stated that the constriction mark on the victim’s neck could have been caused by soft pressure such a fabric jacket. Various types of mechanical asphyxia such as hanging or asphyxia in an enclosed space (by way of placing a gas mask a person’s head) entail the same pathological process arising from a sudden insufficiency of oxygen inflow into blood and tissues. 34.  On 28 January 2010 the investigator issued a decision to discontinue the criminal case because of the absence of a criminal event. 35.  The applicant sought judicial review of the discontinuation decision. On 10 June 2010 the Tukayevskiy District Court of the Tatarstan Republic allowed her complaint. On 10 June 2010 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. 36.  On 25 August 2010 the decision of 28 January 2010 was revoked and the investigation was resumed. 37.  A new refusal was issued on 25 September 2010. It was quashed on 1 November 2010 because the circumstances in which the victim had been taken to the police station and possible reasons leading to the attempted suicide had not been clarified. 38.  On 23 November 2010 the most recent discontinuation decision was issued, which read as follows:
“On 13 September 2002 Khayrullin was taken to the police station for questioning as a witness. During an interview he stated that he and V. had gone to G.’s home, where they had consumed vodka and had then left.
Khayrullin was then interviewed by field officer Kh. and stated that V. had struck several blows to G.’s face and had then run away. Khayrullin was required to attend a further interview and then left room no. 514 ...
It is apparent from the report of the medical expert that Khayrullin’s death was caused by a post-strangulation condition which had been caused by the squeezing of the neck by some kind of noose; this condition had been aggravated by an impact adversely affecting brain function. The medical documents show no indication of any bodily injuries when he was admitted to the hospital.
Paramedics A., Zh. and Gi. stated during their interviews that no bodily injuries (except for a faint, non-continuous strangulation mark on his neck) had been identified on the victim’s body when they attended to him in the police station.
Officer F. stated during his interview that around 11 p.m. on 13 September 2002 he had gone out to the balcony on the fifth floor for a smoke and had seen the victim sitting on the floor with his back to the railing; his neck had been encircled by a jacket, with a part of it being fixed to the railing. He had detached the jacket and had started to provide first aid to the victim. He had also alerted the duty-officers of the police station and had then helped to take the victim to the first floor. The victim had then been examined by a medical professional before being taken to hospital.
An investigative re-enactment was carried out on the basis of the above information. Medical expert Va. was interviewed in this connection and confirmed that it would have been possible for the hanging and the strangulation marks to have been created in the circumstances described by F.
Interviews were carried out with those police officers at the police station who had talked to the victim on 13 September 2002. They stated that ... the victim had been interviewed by the investigator; no questioning had been carried out prior to that ...
According to the expert reports and Va.’s statement during an interview, the strangulation mark could have been caused by the pressure of a soft “noose” such as might be left, for instance, by a jacket. Moreover, for other types of mechanical asphyxia, including hanging or asphyxia in a limited space (as by means of applying a gas mask) the same life-threatening pathological process occurs, which is caused by a sudden insufficiency of oxygen in the blood and tissues ...
Mrs Khayrullina stated that at 8 p.m. on 13 September 2002 she had received a telephone call from her husband who told her he would come home. His voice had been calm and cheerful.
Mr V. stated that around 8 p.m. he had been kept in one of the rooms on the fifth floor; he had heard the victim in a neighbouring room speaking indistinctly; there had been no screaming or any suspicious noise ...
In view of the above, all possible investigative measures have been completed ...
It is not possible to carry out expert examination of samples collected from the balcony or the jacket because [they] were lost ...
According to an additional medical report by an expert, a strangulation mark is produced by the pressure of some kind of “noose” on the neck; one can speak about the pressure by a soft “noose”, for instance made by a jacket such as the one given to the expert; in normal circumstances a gas mask the size of a person’s head would not exert excessive pressure on the neck and would not leave a strangulation mark ...
According to a further expert report dated 13 September 2010, the absence of macroscopic indications of mechanical asphyxiation in the available material means the cause of death cannot be determined, in particular whether it could have resulted from asphyxia following a hanging or the blocking of the airflow by an object ...
Furthermore, there were four forensic reports dated 14 December 2002, 17 January 2003, 4 December 2003 and 5 December 2004. None of them indicated any other bodily injuries.
There is thus insufficient evidence to consider that any official of the police station abused his or her power or acted in a manner pushing the victim to attempt suicide.
The available medical documents do not specify whether the victim had any bodily injuries when admitted for treatment to the hospital.” 39.  The applicant brought civil proceedings claiming 1,500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of compensation in connection with the unlawful arrest and detention of her late husband in the police station and his subsequent death following his ill-treatment at the police station. 40.  By a judgment of 5 December 2008 the Novo-Savinovskiy District Court of Kazan awarded her RUB 250,000 (equivalent to 7,066 euros (EUR) at the material time) against the Federal Ministry of Finance. Retracing the procedural history of the pre-investigation inquiry and the criminal investigation, the court held as follows:
“The court has established that Mr Khayrullin’s body was discovered at the police station after he had been taken there for questioning as a witness and that he had been unlawfully placed in an investigation room of the police station. The above has been confirmed by the investigating authority. As noted in the decision of 13 September 2002, unspecified officials of the police station had acted manifestly outside their powers when placing Mr Khayrullin in an investigation room.
On the same day Mr Khayrillin attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself in the investigation room.
In contrast to this finding, according to the decision of 10 December 2002 setting aside the refusal to prosecute, it was noted that the victim had been discovered on the balcony on the fifth floor. Neither of the above decisions contains any explanation about the change in the circumstances in which the victim had been discovered ... At the same time, the refusal to prosecute dated 10 December 2003 clearly indicates as an established fact that Mr Khayrullin had attempted suicide at the balcony of the fifth floor ...
It is apparent from the available material that a criminal investigation was opened under Article 286 of the Criminal Code in respect of unidentified officials; this legal classification has not been changed since 2002; the investigation is ongoing.
Since the investigation is ongoing, this court − dealing with a civil case as it is − has no competence to question whether the legal classification is appropriate or whether there is a corpus delicti. However, this court finds it established that the damage to Mr Khayrullin’s health was caused on the premises of the police station.
This conclusion is based on the facts established in the present case, irrespective of the prosecutor’s office’s findings regarding the place where the body was discovered; the circumstances relating to his presence in the police station (that is his being taken there for questioning as a witness) remain unchanged ...
The court therefore finds it established that on 13 September 2002 Mr Khayrullin sustained injuries in the police station, entailing his death ...
The court considers that the grave consequences (Mr Khayrullin’s death) ensued as a result of unlawful actions on the part of public officials at the police station ...
As stated by the European Court in the case of Sheydayev v. Russia (application no. 65859/01, 7 December 2006), the national authorities are responsible for ensuring the physical inviolability of detained persons. Where a person was placed in custody in good health and had injuries when released, the national authorities must provide a plausible explanation for the injuries ...
The court accepts the claimant’s argument that the harm was caused by unlawful actions on the part of public officials at the police station ... Thus, the court finds it appropriate to grant the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage ...
The matters relating to the unlawful arrest and the ineffective investigation cannot form a basis for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage ... The court has not established that the mere arrest of Mr Khayrullin on 13 September 2002 entailed a violation of the claimant’s non-material rights or interests; any eventual violation might relate to Mr Khayrullin ...
The court considers that the suspension and resumption of the criminal investigation are legitimate procedural actions and thus, even if multiple, do not entail a conclusion of unlawfulness on the part of public officials ... The prosecution period for the offence under Article 286 of the Criminal Code has not yet expired. The court dismisses the claimant’s argument that non-pecuniary damage was caused by the ineffective investigation ...” 41.  The Ministry of Finance and the applicant appealed. The applicant argued that the first-instance judgment’s conclusion regarding her standing to seek compensation in relation to Mr Khayrullin’s arrest contradicted the Court’s case-law (Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006‑XIII (extracts), and Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007). It was acceptable for the next of kin of a deceased person to lodge a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention about that person’s deprivation of liberty; the Court has awarded next of kin just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained in relation to such deprivation of liberty. Moreover, it was open to next of kin to lodge a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention on the basis of their own suffering in relation to events relating to a relative who had died or disappeared in suspicious circumstances engaging the responsibility of the State. The applicant also argued that the award of RUB 250,000 was manifestly insufficient in view of the first-instance court’s findings relating to the responsibility of public officials in relation to Mr Khayrullin’s death. At the same time, the trial court did not adduce sufficient reasons for dismissing her monetary claim in relation to her argument about the ineffective investigation into her late husband’s death. 42.  On 22 January 2009 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld the judgment. The appellate court held as follows:
“When granting the claims in relation to the injuries sustained by the victim, the trial court rightly proceeded from the understanding that the injuries had been sustained in the police station on 13 September 2002 because the case file materials confirmed that public officials had committed actions exceeding their powers ...
Thus, as a result of actions on the part of public officials, the claimant had sustained psychological suffering on account of the death of a person close to her ...
When dismissing the remainder of the claim, the trial court rightly proceeded from the understanding that there was no evidence that the claimant had sustained psychological suffering on account of the ineffective investigation ... The investigation is ongoing; at present there is no criminal court judgment in respect of the officials at the police station. Moreover, their actions in relation to the arrest of the victim did not in any event impinge upon the claimant’s non-material rights or interests.” 43.  The applicant received the judicial award on 20 April 2009.