European Court to issue new Judgment on torture by police

On 01 July, the European Court of Human Rights will announce two new Judgments on Russian cases: “Nikiforov v. Russia” (application no. 42837/04) and “Nedayborshch v. Russia” (application no. 42255/04). Both cases concern violations of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — the beating of the first applicant by police officers and the lack of an effective investigation into this fact, as well as the conditions of detention of the second applicant, respectively.

“Nikiforov v. Russia”

The applicant in the first case, Viacheslav Alexandrovich Nikiforov, who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the city of Kostroma, appealed to the European Court of Human Rights with a complaint regarding his beating by officers of the Nerekhta City Department of Internal Affairs (city of Nerekhta, Kostroma region) for the purpose of obtaining a confession for committing a robbery.

The circumstances of the case were presented by the applicant as follows.

On 28 December 2003, he was picked up in a drunken state on the railway tracks by officers of the linear police post of Nerekhta station and taken to the Nerekhta City Department of Internal Affairs, where they showed him a young man and a woman, asking if he knew them. The applicant replied that the woman was familiar to him. A stain of a substance resembling blood was found on the sleeve of the applicant’s jacket, so the jacket was seized and attached to the case file as material evidence.

After a night spent in the cell for administratively detained persons, a police officer who did not identify himself brought the applicant into one of the offices of the City Department of Internal Affairs, where he suggested he give a confession. The applicant refused to do so. Then the police officer left and returned with his colleague, together with whom they began to beat Viacheslav Alexandrovich. After this, he was again thrown into the cell for administratively detained persons, and later the same day taken to a magistrate, who found him guilty of committing petty hooliganism and imposed a penalty of administrative arrest for a period of five days.

The next day, the applicant was interrogated as a witness in the robbery case. He refused to testify and demanded that the traces of the beating be recorded and a criminal case initiated regarding the fact of his beating.

On 31 December 2003, the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination to determine the causes of the injuries the applicant had. On 19 February 2004, the doctor who examined the applicant came to the following conclusions: “Nikiforov was found to have a fracture of the nasal bones, abrasions, and a bruise on the face (measuring 7 by 4 cm). These injuries could have been obtained as a result of the impact of a blunt hard object or beating with such objects... Determining the duration of the nasal bone fracture is not possible due to the fact that Nikiforov requested an X-ray too late...”.

On 20 February 2004, the prosecutor’s office investigator issued a resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case regarding the allegedly committed beating of the applicant. The investigator indicated that the discovery of bloodstains on the applicant’s jacket at the time of his delivery to the internal affairs department testifies to the fact that the recorded injuries were obtained by him earlier.

On 12 May 2004, the said resolution was overturned by the prosecutor, who pointed out the need to interview the police officers who carried out the applicant’s detention, as well as to attach internal police department documents to the investigation materials.

On 16 May 2004, the investigator again issued a resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case on the grounds that, according to the information he discovered, at 8:30 a.m. on 29 December 2003, the applicant was indeed taken from the cell for administratively detained persons by police officer A., who placed him back at 9:20 a.m., however, he denied the use of force against the applicant.

On 25 June 2004, the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kostroma region overturned the resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case and indicated, in particular, the need to interview the operational duty officer of the City Department of Internal Affairs regarding the presence of bodily injuries on the applicant at the moment of his delivery to the police department.

On 04 July 2004, the investigator for the third time issued a resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case, in which he literally reproduced the previously issued resolution, adding that the operational duty officer did not notice any visible injuries on the applicant at the moment of his delivery.

On 05 August 2004, as a result of the consideration of the relevant complaint of the applicant, the district prosecutor overturned the investigator’s resolution and pointed out the need to verify the origin of the bloodstains found on his jacket.

On 28 January 2005, the investigator issued a fourth resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case. In its motivational part, an indication appeared regarding the words of another police officer, who reported that he did not remember whether the applicant was held at the City Department of Internal Affairs on 29 and 30 December 2003.

On 23 May 2005, the district prosecutor overturned the resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case, indicating that the investigator had not established the origin of the injuries found on the applicant, and also had not interviewed the applicant’s cellmates.

On 28 May 2005, the investigator issued a fifth resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case, which was overturned on 27 September 2005 due to the need to conduct an additional check.

On 25 November 2005, a sixth resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case was issued by the investigator, which was overturned by the district prosecutor on the very same day.

On 25 January 2006, a seventh resolution refusing to initiate a criminal case was issued by the Deputy District Prosecutor. Referring to the explanations of the investigator, the applicant’s girlfriend and his sister, who saw Viacheslav Alexandrovich with a swollen nose and a bruise on his face on the morning of 29 December 2003, and also admitting that he had been caused minor health damage after delivery to the City Department of Internal Affairs, the Deputy Prosecutor indicated that the two-year statute of limitations for criminal prosecution for the commission of this crime had expired.

The applicant appealed to the court. On 30 March 2006, the Nerekhta City Court supported the applicant’s complaint and recognised that the check on his application was incomplete, and the investigating authorities, having found out that he had been beaten at the City Department of Internal Affairs, did not make all the necessary efforts to identify the perpetrators. This decision was upheld by the Kostroma Regional Court.

In parallel with this, the applicant was found guilty of committing a robbery and was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.

The European Court of Human Rights on 01 July 2010 will issue a Judgment in which, in particular, it will assess the applicant’s complaints regarding the violation of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in connection with his beating by officers of the police department and the inefficiency of the investigation into this fact.

“Nedayborshch v. Russia”

Sergei Anatolyevich Nedayborshch appealed to the European Court of Human Rights with a complaint about the conditions of detention in the temporary detention facility of the city of Kopeysk (Chelyabinsk region), which, in the applicant’s opinion, violated his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.