THIRD SECTION
CASE OF DAURBEKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 60844/11 and 2 others – 
see appended list)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 March 2022
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Daurbekov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Peeter Roosma,
 Mikhail Lobov, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 60844/11 and 2 others) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by three Russian nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decisions to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants and the lack of due investigation and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 March 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applications concern, among other things, alleged ill-treatment of the applicants at the hands of State officials and the lack of a proper investigation in that regard. THE FACTS
2. The applicants are Russian nationals who live in different regions of Russia. A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were initially represented by Mr M. Galperin, the then Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and lately by Mr M. Vinogradov, his successor in that office. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
daurbekov v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 60844/11Alleged ill-treatment

5. According to the applicant, on 14 May 2010 he was summoned to a police station in Achkhoy-Martan, the Republic of Chechnya, on suspicion of having committed a rape and robbery. Upon his arrival, in order to obtain his confession, several police officers beat him on different parts of his body and threatened to rape him. The applicant subsequently confessed. 6. On 16 May 2010 a medical examination conducted upon the applicant’s transfer at the detention facility found no injuries. 7. On 17 May 2010 the applicant was brought back to the police station. In order to obtain his confession to other crimes, police officers hung him by the arms tied behind his back on a bar fixed between two tables. The applicant confessed. 8. On the next day the applicant jumped through a window at the police station. He was apprehended and beaten. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
9. On 25 May 2010 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment. 10. On the next day a forensic medical examination of the applicant established bruising and abrasions on the upper and lower limbs inflicted with a blunt object “more than three or five days prior to the examination”. On the same day the applicant’s medical examination at the detention centre recorded bruises on the left hip, shin and shoulder. 11. On 11 June 2010 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings. He referred to explanations of the police officers who had denied the allegations. He further cited the forensic report of 26 May 2010 and concluded that the injuries had been inflicted “between three and five days prior to the examination, that is between 20 and 22 May 2010”, allegedly contradicting the applicant’s allegations. 12. On 16 August 2010 the investigator again refused to open criminal proceedings. Domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaints against the refusal. Akhmedov v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 43067/13Alleged ill-treatment

13. On 19 November 2007 several officers of the special security unit (ОМОN) arrested the applicant at a café in Grozny. According to the applicant, during his escorting to the OMON premises they beat him on different parts of the body and threatened him with firearms. Upon arrival, they hung the applicant from a tree by his arms tied behind his back and continued beating. They also burnt his skin with cigarettes. Then they placed the applicant in a basement and handcuffed him to a radiator and beat him again. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
14. On the next day the applicant complained about the ill-treatment. 15. On 26 November 2007 a forensic medical examination of the applicant established bruises under the left eye and right shoulder, abrasions on the left cheekbone, right shoulder and both shins inflicted with blunt objects within the timeframe he had described. 16. On 3 December 2007, that is thirteen days after the complaint had been lodged, the investigative authorities opened criminal proceedings. On 3 March 2008 it was suspended. 17. On 26 March 2008 a deputy head of the Leninskiy District Department of the Investigative Committee of Grozny annulled the decision to suspend the investigation. He further instructed the investigator, among other things, to question the police officers who had arrested the applicant. 18. Between 27 April and 25 August 2008 the investigator issued three decisions to suspend the investigation. They all were subsequently annulled as the investigation had not carried out the measures ordered on 26 March 2008. 19. On 11 October 2008 the investigator again suspended the investigation. On 26 November 2008 the deputy prosecutor of Chechnya found that the investigator still had not questioned the police officers and other relevant witnesses and ordered to remedy the deficiencies. On 10 December 2008 the suspension was annulled. 20. Between 11 January 2009 and 29 March 2012 the investigator issued three more decisions to suspend the investigation which were subsequently annulled as premature. Quashing the latest suspension, the deputy head of the Leninskiy District Department of the Investigative Committee of Grozny again ordered to question the police officers who had carried out the applicant’s arrest. 21. Between 9 May 2012 and 23 March 2013 the investigator issued three more decisions to suspend the investigation which were subsequently annulled as premature. 22. On 12 February 2013 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny rejected the applicant’s complaint about ineffectiveness of the investigation. On 19 March 2013 that decision was upheld on appeal. 23. On 22 May 2014 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny granted the applicant’s civil action regarding the ineffectiveness of the investigation and awarded a compensation of 15,000 Russian roubles (RUB). 24. Between 24 March 2016 and 26 August 2019 the investigator issued several more decisions to suspend the investigation.
berov v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 53922/15Alleged ill-treatment

25. On 6 March 2012 at around 5 p.m. police officers arrested the applicant in Nalchik at his workplace. According to the applicant, during the arrest they beat him on the head with rifle butts and threatened to rape him and his parents. At the police department, they continued beating him on different parts of the body and applied electric shocks to his thumbs. They also threated to kill him and “infect with AIDS”. The applicant was released at around 11 a.m. next morning. 26. A forensic medical examination of the applicant conducted on the next day established a spinal fracture, closed head injury, concussion, chest contusion, bruises and abrasions on the head, face, chest, upper and lower limbs and scrotum inflicted within one day prior to the examination with blunt objects such as fists or shod feet. It also confirmed that the applicant might have been subjected to electric shocks. Inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment
27. On 7 March 2012 the applicant complained about the ill-treatment to the prosecutor’s office of Nalchik. He informed the authorities that his arrest had been recorded on cameras at his workplace. 28. On 4 April 2012, that is almost one month later, the investigation instituted criminal proceedings. 29. On 4 April 2013 the investigation decided to suspend the investigation. On 29 April 2013 the suspension was annulled for incomplete inquiry. 30. In June 2013, that is more than one year after the investigation had started, the investigator questioned the police officers the applicant had identified as the perpetrators and conducted their confrontations. The officers denied the applicant’s allegations. 31. On 25 June 2013 the investigator again suspended the investigation. On 28 February 2014 the decision was annulled. 32. On 25 March 2014 the investigator examined the video footage of the applicant’s arrest. 33. Between 16 April and 1 November 2014 the investigator issued three decisions to suspend the investigation. They all were subsequently annulled. 34. Since 3 December 2014 the applicant had been repeatedly requesting access to the materials of the investigation but to no avail. 35. On 10 March 2015 the Nalchik Town Court found the applicant’s restricted access to the case-file unlawful. On 24 April 2015 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld that decision. It does not appear that the applicant subsequently acquired access to the materials of the investigation. 36. On 30 December 2015 the Nalchik Town Court found that the investigation had failed to carry out necessary investigative measures and to take into account forensic medical reports. It ordered to rectify the omission. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
37. For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014, and Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 48‑52, 14 November 2013. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
38. 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
39. The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill‑treatment by State officials and that the State had failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents. They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints of ill-treatment. The relevant parts of the Convention provisions read as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment ...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority ...”
Admissibility
40. The Court notes that the applications are neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. They must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ submissions

41. The applicants maintained their complaints, claiming that they had sustained the injuries as a result of their ill-treatment by the State officers. 42. The Government maintained the conclusions of the domestic inquiries.

Outcome for Article 3: violation