THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ILUPIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Application no. 76797/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 March 2026
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ilupin and Others 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 15 October 2013. 2. The applicants were represented by Memorial Human Rights Centre, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 3. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. 4. The Government and the applicants lodged written observations. THE FACTS
5. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 6. Some applicants complained of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW        Jurisdiction

7. 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
8. The first, second and fourth applicants complained principally of the ineffective investigation into allegations of ill-treatment committed by private individuals. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention. 9. 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). 10. In the leading cases of Denis Vasilyev, cited above; Tyagunova v. Russia, no. 19433/07, 31 July 2012; Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, 9 July 2019; and Romanov and Others v. Russia, nos. 58358/14 and 5 others, §§ 75-80, 12 September 2023, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11. 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 investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness. 12. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
13. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended 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 the light of its well-established case-law (see the appended table). REMAINING COMPLAINTS
14. Some applicants raised a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. In view of the findings under Article 3, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with this complaint. 15. The applicants also raised complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Court has examined them and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The Court awards 7,000 euros (EUR) to each of the first, second and fourth applicants and EUR 4,000 to the third applicant in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court also considers it reasonable to award EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. 18. The Court dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Outcome for Article 11: violation