On October 25, 2022, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee.

Заголовок: On October 25, 2022, the case was won in the UN Human Rights Committee. Сведения: 2024-04-20 15:15:06

The case of Dmitry Voronkov v. the Russian Federation. The views of the UN Human Rights Committee dated October 25, 2022. Communication No. 2951/2017.

In 2017, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Russian Federation.

The Committee has established facts of unjustified use of force by law enforcement officials against the author of the communication, as well as the failure to conduct an effective investigation of these facts. There has been a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

As seen from the text of the Views, the author claimed that his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, were violated when he was beaten by police officers, as well as due to the lack of an effective investigation of his allegations regarding these events. The author stated that his rights under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant were violated by the police when the police arbitrarily subjected him to administrative arrest in order to conceal the beatings and injuries inflicted on him during his detention. The author claimed a violation of his rights under article 9, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, since the national courts did not properly consider the grounds for his arrest and its extension and authorized his detention without any grounds. The author claimed that the State party violated his rights under article 9, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, because he was not present at the court hearings when the court extended his detention. He also noted: The court did not consider the grounds for his arrest (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.4 of the Considerations).

The Committee's legal position: according to the Basic Principles of the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, law enforcement officials in the performance of their duties, as far as possible, use non-violent means before the forced use of force (paragraph 4). If the use of force or firearms by law enforcement officials results in injury or death, they immediately inform their superiors (paragraph 6). Governments shall ensure that the arbitrary or malicious use of force or firearms by law enforcement officials is punishable under their law as a criminal offence (paragraph 7) (paragraph 10.3 of the Considerations).

The use of force by the police, which may be justified in certain circumstances, may be considered contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in circumstances where the use of such force appears excessive (paragraph 10.3 of the Considerations).

With regard to the State party's obligation to properly investigate the author's allegations of torture and ill-treatment, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that criminal investigation and subsequent prosecution are necessary means of restoring violated human rights, such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also recalls that when a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 is received, the State party must investigate it promptly and impartially in order to provide an effective remedy (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).

The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it has taken note of the author's claim that on 2 June 2012 he was arrested on suspicion of selling drugs and taken to the police station. On the way to the police station and while there, he was beaten by several policemen. The Committee noted that the author had provided a detailed description of the treatment he claimed to have been subjected to and supporting medical certificates. According to a report compiled by the medical institution where the author was tested for drug and alcohol use, at the time he was taken for testing a few hours after his arrest, he had a fresh hematoma around his left eye. In addition, the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee for the Krasnodar Territory on April 3, 2017 appointed a forensic medical examination of the author on the basis of medical documents dated June 3, 2012 and, according to these documents, the author was diagnosed with a bruise and fracture of the medial wall of the left eye socket. It was also noted that he had a hematoma in his left eye and a subconjunctival hemorrhage. The Committee took note of the State party's argument that the injuries could have been sustained during the author's detention, since the police officers used physical force against the author when he tried to escape from them after they presented their police identification cards (paragraph 10.2 of the Views).

The Committee noted that, according to the testimony of the staff provided to the Investigative Committee, upon seeing the police, the author ran for about 100 meters, after which he stumbled and fell, hitting his head on the ground. Then the police had to use force, including fighting techniques and special means, to detain the author. The Committee drew attention to the fact that the police officers did not provide any information about why they were forced to use fighting techniques and special devices, which led to a fracture of the medial wall of the author's left eye socket and a hematoma if the author did not actively resist arrest, and especially after he fell and hit his head on the earth. In the absence of any specific explanation from the State party as to exactly how the above-mentioned injuries were inflicted on the author, and in contrast to his allegations, the Committee considered that due weight should be given to the author's allegations (paragraph 10.3 of the Views).

The Committee pointed out that in the present case, the initial complaint of torture to which the author was subjected was filed on 27 September 2012 to Investigator D. during his interrogation. This information was reflected in the interrogation protocol, but the investigator did not take any action regarding the complaint and did not report it to her superiors, as required by article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee stated that the author later complained about the beatings by the police to the court of first instance and requested that the court request his medical documents to confirm his complaint, but the court rejected the author's request and explained that he could file a complaint with the relevant law enforcement agencies. The Committee noted that when the author filed a complaint with the Investigative Committee, the decision not to initiate an investigation into the author's allegations was based solely on the testimony given by the police officers against whom the author filed his complaint. The Committee took note of the State party's argument that, since 29 April 2013, the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee conducted several investigations into the author's allegations, and all of them ended with the refusal to charge the police officers due to the lack of corpus delicti in their actions. The Committee noted that both refusals have almost identical texts and are based on the same testimony of the police officers who detained the author. In addition, despite the fact that the author complained of beatings in 2012, the Investigative Committee appointed a forensic examination of the author only in 2017, while the author himself was not personally examined by forensic experts and was not subjected to any tests or X-rays. The Committee considered that nothing in the case file allowed it to conclude that the investigation of the author's allegations was conducted by the authorities promptly or effectively (paragraph 10.5 of the Views).

The Committee's conclusions: The facts presented indicated a violation by the State party of the author's rights under article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant (paragraph 11 of the Views).



© 2011-2018 Юридическая помощь в составлении жалоб в Европейский суд по правам человека. Юрист (представитель) ЕСПЧ.