European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

THIRD SECTION

 

 

 

 

CASE OF GOROKH v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 7415/09)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 May 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gorokh v. Russia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Darian Pavli, President,
          Dmitry Dedov,
          Peeter Roosma, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 7415/09) 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 a Russian national, Mr Gennadiy Aleksandrovich Gorokh (“the applicant”), on 4 December 2008;

the decision to give notice to the Russian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment by the police, the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint and the use at his trial of his confession statements, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 30 March 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1.  The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police, the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint and the use at his trial of his confession statements.

THE FACTS

2.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Novosibirsk. The applicant was represented by Ms V.G. Merkuryeva, a lawyer practising in Novosibirsk.

3.  The Government were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Government to the European Court of Human Rights, and subsequently by Mr M. Galperin, his successor in that office.

4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

I.         Applicant’s arrest and alleged ill-treatment

5.  According to the applicant, from 5 to 7 October 2006, at the Tatarskiy district police department of the Novosibirsk Region, police officers from the Tatarskiy and Barabinskiy district police departments subjected him to violence in order to force him to confess to various thefts and murders. They allegedly punched and kicked him many times all over his body. Having knocked the applicant down to the floor, and while restraining his arms and legs, they allegedly took off his underwear and inserted the end of a chair leg into his anus. According to the applicant, he lost consciousness from the shock of the pain. He gave confession statements as dictated by the police officers.

6.  The following facts were established in the Novosibirsk regional police department’s internal inquiry report of 16 November 2006 and in a refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued by the Tatarskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office on 10 December 2006 (both documents concerning the applicant’s complaints of his alleged ill‑treatment by police), as well as in the Novosibirsk regional police department’s report of 5 February 2007 in relation to the applicant’s complaint concerning an investigation into various thefts allegedly committed by him.

7.  At 4.20 p.m. on 5 October 2006 the applicant was apprehended on suspicion of having committed a number of thefts in the Tatarskiy and other districts of the Novosibirsk Region. He was taken to the Tatarskiy district police department. The car in which he was apprehended was searched and items which could have been instruments used to carry out thefts were seized, along with stolen items. The applicant was interviewed by an acting head of the department and later by officers from the criminal search unit of the department. He gave detailed confession statements about five episodes of theft.

8.  On 6 October 2006 the applicant was interviewed by officers from the Barabinskiy district police department. The interviews took place at the Tatarskiy district police department and were aimed at establishing the applicant’s involvement in various thefts in the Barabinskiy district and in the murder of a police officer and another person in 2004. The applicant confessed to the thefts.

9.  On the same day, during questioning by an investigator from the Tatarskiy district police department, the applicant gave confession statements in relation to a theft in the Tatarskiy district. The investigator then took him to the scene of the theft for verification of his statements on the spot.

10.  On 7 October 2006 during questioning by an investigator from the Novosibirsk regional police department, the applicant confessed to a theft in the Vengerovskiy district.

11.  The case file indicates that on 8 October 2006 a police officer from the Tatarskiy district police department, drew up six records of “statements of surrender and confession” (явка с повинной) made by the applicant, in which he confessed to twelve episodes of theft in six districts of the Novosibirsk Region. The records were signed by a State-appointed lawyer.

12.  According to a police record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect, both the arrest and the drawing-up of the record took place at 10 a.m. on 10 October 2006. During questioning later that day the applicant gave self‑incriminating statements in relation to the thefts, in the presence of a State‑appointed lawyer.

13.  On 11 October 2006 the applicant had a meeting with a lawyer of his own choosing. On the same day the lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the Tatarskiy inter‑district prosecutor’s office about the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police and by an investigator during the applicant’s questioning as a suspect. She also made a request for the applicant to have a forensic medical examination, noting that the applicant was suffering from constant pain in his abdominal region and anus, in addition to experiencing bleeding in the same area.

14.  According to an investigator, the applicant’s forensic medical expert examination was ordered on the same day (11 October 2006). However, it was allegedly not possible to carry it out in the Tatarskiy district forensic medical bureau, because the applicant had been transported to the Vengerovskiy district police department for investigative actions.

15.  On 11 October 2006 the applicant was detained on remand.

16.  On 13 October 2006 the applicant, who had previously been held in the temporary detention facility (“the IVS”) of the Tatarskiy district police department, was placed in the IVS at the Vengerovskiy district police department, where he attempted to commit suicide by cutting a vein in his left hand. He was provided with medical attention.

17.  On the same day a forensic medical examination of the applicant was conducted at the Vengerovskiy district forensic medical bureau following an order by an investigator issued that day.

18.  According to a report of 22 October 2006 the applicant complained of pain in the area of the rectum and in the area of the thoracic cage, where he had contusions. He explained that on 6 October 2006, when at the police station, he had been knocked down to the floor and received multiple blows to the head and body from four persons. Those same four persons had then inserted the end of a chair leg into his anus, which had made him faint. On 7 October 2006 two of those persons had again beaten him up, delivering multiple blows to his head and body.

19.  An expert recorded that (apart from self-inflicted wounds on the left arm) the applicant had the following injuries: a bruise measuring 7 cm by 3 cm on the right side of the thoracic cage; a bruise of 1 cm in diameter on the left side of the thoracic cage; and a bruise of 3 cm in diameter on the front side of the chest, each of which had originated from a blow to the chest with a hard, blunt object or from a collision with a hard, blunt object approximately seven days before the examination.

20.  A surgeon carried out visual and rectal examinations of the applicant’s anus and did not observe any injuries. After an enema had been administered, a proctoscopy - recommended by the surgeon to exclude injuries to the rectum - was carried out on the applicant by an endoscopist. In a section describing that procedure, the experts’ report stated that “liquid with faecal matter” had been observed. In a section setting out the experts’ conclusions, the report stated that there were no injuries in the area of the applicant’s anus.

21.  On 16 October 2006 the applicant’s lawyer requested another forensic medical examination of the applicant at the Novosibirsk regional forensic medical bureau, complaining that the applicant’s examination had been delayed and that it had not been carried out properly. In particular, the applicant had had no possibility to cleanse his intestines in preparation for the examination. The lawyer requested, inter alia, an examination by a colorectal surgeon in relation to any injuries to the rectum. According to the lawyer, she had been present during the applicant’s examination by the expert on 13 October 2006 and had heard the applicant complaining about bleeding during defecation. Furthermore, he had also complained about headaches, nausea, dizziness, drowsiness and weakness, and an examination by specialists was needed to determine whether he had concussion or cerebral contusion as a result of receiving blows to the head.

22.  On 25 October 2006 the Tatarskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office of the Novosibirsk Region refused to open a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment by police, on the basis of a pre‑investigation inquiry. It transpires from a complaint lodged by the applicant’s stepdaughter in relation to the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment by police (and dismissed on 25 December 2006 by a deputy prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhniy district of Novosibirsk) that a similar decision not to open a criminal case into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police had been issued by the Tatarskiy prosecutor’s office on 13 October 2006.

23.  A police officer from the Novosibirsk regional police department’s own security division carried out an internal inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police officers of the Tatarskiy and Barabinskiy district police departments. On 16 November 2006 he issued a report which was approved by the head of the department on 17 November 2006. In view of the facts established on the basis of statements by the police officers, who denied any violence against the applicant, the report concluded that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed. The report referred to the refusal of the Tatarskiy inter‑district prosecutor’s office to open a criminal case. The report was forwarded to the Novosibirsk regional prosecutor’s office for a decision. The issue of whether the police officers should be subject to disciplinary sanctions was postponed until such a decision was taken. The report offered no explanation as to how the applicant’s injuries had arisen.

24.  On 20 November 2006 a deputy prosecutor of the Novosibirsk Region revoked the refusal to open a criminal case of 25 October 2006 and ordered an additional pre-investigation inquiry.

25.  After reiterating several times her request for an additional forensic medical examination, the applicant’s lawyer was informed on 20 November 2006 by an investigator, that her request had been granted on that day.

26.  On 10 December 2006 an investigator from the Tatarskiy inter‑district prosecutor’s office issued a new refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in question, on account of the absence of the event of the alleged crimes (namely driving someone to suicide and committing sexual assault with violence) and the absence of the constituent elements of the alleged crimes (exceeding authority and coercing someone into giving statements) in respect of the police officers’ actions.

27.  The investigator found that the applicant’s allegations had not been confirmed. He relied on statements by the police officers denying any violence against the applicant. He stated that while the forensic medical expert’s report had confirmed the presence of injuries on the applicant, it had not been proved that the injuries had been inflicted by the police officers. The investigator also relied on the fact that the applicant’s allegations had been dismissed as a result of the internal police inquiry giving rise to the Novosibirsk regional police department’s report of 16 November 2006.

28.  The investigator also referred to other elements obtained as a result of the pre-investigation inquiry. He stated that the very presence of third parties (namely, electricians who had stated not having witnessed any violence against the applicant during their presence in the office where he had been interviewed, and a State‑appointed lawyer who had signed the records of the applicant’s “statements of surrender and confession”) meant that any possibility of violence against the applicant was ruled out. The office in which the applicant had been interviewed had been examined and no damage to the walls, floor or furniture had been observed. A detainee who had allegedly been held together with the applicant in a cell at the IVS at the Tatarskiy district police department at an unspecified time had stated that he had not seen any injuries on the applicant and had not heard him complaining of any violence. During his detention at the Tatarskiy district police IVS, the applicant had not lodged any complaints.

29.  On 25 January, 30 January and 2 February 2007 the applicant was taken from his detention facility to the town’s polyclinic no. 1 for examination by a colorectal surgeon. She carried out a rectal examination and recorded an absence of any injuries in the area of the applicant’s anus. She stated that it was impossible to carry out an endoscopic examination of the rectum because the applicant’s intestine had not been prepared for that (the applicant was unsuccessfully administered with an enema on 24 January 2007 and given a medicine before his examinations on 30 January and 2 February 2007, which he had difficulties swallowing and which had brought on vomiting).

30.  On 9 February 2007 the investigator, ordered a second forensic medical examination, which was conducted between 14 and 28 February 2007 at the Novosibirsk regional forensic medical bureau. In their report of 28 February 2007 the experts reiterated the conclusions from the previous expert report about the injuries to the thoracic cage, adding that they might have been inflicted some seven to nine days before the applicant’s examination on 13 October 2006.

31.  The experts further examined the applicant’s medical records, the report on the previous forensic medical examination, and statements by the colorectal surgeon and the surgeon concerning their examination of the applicant.

32.  The experts’ conclusion in the report of 28 February 2007 was that no injuries in the area of the applicant’s anus had been observed, and that a deeper examination of the rectum had not been carried out because of the applicant’s unpreparedness for that examination.

33.  The experts further noted in their report that during his examination on 14 February 2007 the applicant had complained of occasional headaches and dizziness, weakness and drowsiness. He had been examined by a neurosurgeon, who observed differences in the tendon reflexes on the right and the left side. The experts noted that during his previous forensic medical examination, the applicant had not been found to have had concussion or cerebral contusion. The experts found it impossible to establish any connection between the applicant’s alleged beatings by the police officers in October 2006 and the changes to his neurological status (the differences in the tendon reflexes) because the applicant had not been examined by a neuropathologist shortly after his alleged ill-treatment.

II.      Criminal proceedings against the applicant

34.  During his trial before the Vengerovskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region, the applicant pleaded not guilty. He complained that he had been subjected to violence by police officers and, as a result, had written the “statements of surrender and confession” on 8 October 2006 as dictated by them, and had signed the records of his examination as a suspect together with his confession statements on 10 October 2006.

35.  The trial court examined and dismissed the applicant’s complaint of police ill-treatment.

36.  It heard five police officers from the Tatarskiy district police department and a police officer from the Barabinskiy district police department, who had interviewed or seen the applicant at the police station during the period from 5 to 8 October 2006. They had all stated that the applicant had given his confession statements voluntarily and that he had not been subjected to any violence.

37.  The court held that their statements had been confirmed by the report on the internal police inquiry of 16 November 2006 and the refusal to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of police ill-treatment, issued by the prosecutor’s office on 10 December 2006.

38.  The court also heard the experts who had carried out the applicant’s forensic medical examination on 13 October 2006. According to their statements, if the end of a chair leg had been inserted into the applicant’s anus this would have caused injuries, which neither of them had observed during their examinations. One of the experts also stated that the bruises on the applicant’s chest could have been caused by somebody other than the applicant or could have been self-inflicted.

39.  The court concluded that the forensic medical expert reports, together with the statements by the expert and other evidence, had confirmed that the applicant had had bruises on his thoracic cage. However, it had not been proved that those bruises had been caused by the police officers. As regards the applicant’s allegations of sexual abuse, the court dismissed them as unsubstantiated.

40.  In a separate decision of 21 May 2007 the trial court dismissed a request by the applicant to exclude his six “statements of surrender and confession” in respect of twelve episodes of theft as inadmissible evidence, for the following reasons. It noted that according to the records of the statements, they had been obtained by the police in the presence of a State‑appointed lawyer without any physical or psychological pressure on the applicant by police officers. The law on criminal procedure allowed any individual to surrender and voluntarily confess to a crime he had committed. The applicant’s allegations of police ill-treatment had been refuted by: the forensic medical expert’s reports and the experts’ statements, in particular that the bruises on the applicant’s body could have been self‑inflicted; the statements by the police officers from the Tatarskiy and Barabinskiy district police departments; the report on the internal police inquiry of 16 November 2006, which had not established any unlawful actions on the part of the police officers; and the refusal of 10 December 2006 of the prosecutor’s office to institute criminal proceedings.

41.  On 1 April 2008 the Vengerovskiy District Court convicted the applicant on fifteen counts of theft based, inter alia, on his “statements of surrender and confession” and the record of his examination as a suspect on 10 October 2006. It sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment, complaining of police ill‑treatment and the use of his self-incriminating statements in evidence, and insisting that his forensic medical examination in October 2006 had not been carried out properly as it had been delayed and he had not been prepared for it.

42.  On 25 July 2008 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of the trial court, fully endorsing its findings that the police officers had not caused the applicant any injuries and that there had been no legal obstacles to using his self-incriminating statements, which had been obtained in accordance with the law.

43.  On 14 August 2009 the Presidium of the Novosibirsk Regional Court, on supervisory review, excluded recidivism as an aggravating circumstance and reduced the applicant’s prison sentence to nine years. It found no violations of the criminal procedural law in the remaining part of the judgments of the lower courts.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

44.  The applicant complained that he had been subjected to violence by police officers and that no effective investigation had been carried out into his allegations. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

45.  The Government denied a violation of Article 3, relying on the findings of the domestic authorities.

A.    Admissibility

46.  The Government noted that the applicant had not appealed to a court under Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the refusal of 10 December 2006 to institute criminal proceedings.

47.  The Court notes that before refusing to institute criminal proceedings on 10 December 2006, the Tatarskiy inter-district prosecutor’s office issued a similar decision on 25 October 2006 and, apparently, another one on 13 October 2006 (see paragraph 22 above). Those decisions were revoked and an additional pre-investigation inquiry was ordered (see paragraph 24 above in respect of the refusal of 25 October 2006). An appeal to a court, if successful, would only have had the same effect. Furthermore, the applicant raised the complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment by police at his trial. The Vengerovskiy District Court examined the substance of his claim and dismissed it on the basis of its examination and assessment of the evidence, having regard to the refusal of 10 December 2006 of the prosecutor’s office to open a criminal case. The District Court’s decision in relation to the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police was upheld by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on appeal. It cannot therefore be said that in pursuing this avenue of judicial review, the applicant had removed from the courts the option of examining the relevant issues (see Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, §§ 49-50, 30 July 2009). The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case the applicant cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Government’s objection is therefore dismissed.

48.  The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.    Merits

49.  The Court observes that it was established by the domestic authorities that the applicant had been apprehended on suspicion of having committed various thefts and had been interviewed about his involvement in the crimes on 5, 6 and 7 October 2006. The interviews were conducted by police officers and investigators, who obtained the applicant’s confessions to the thefts. The confessions were recorded by the police on 8 October 2006 and during the applicant’s examination as a suspect on 10 October 2006 after his formal arrest.

50.  During the police interviews the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment for the purpose of obtaining his confession, of which he complained in details. On 13 October 2006 - that is, between six and eight days after the alleged ill-treatment - the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, who recorded bruises on his chest, and concluded that they had arisen from blows administered some seven to nine days before the applicant’s examination (see paragraph 19 above). The Court considers that the injuries could arguably have resulted from the applicant’s alleged ill‑treatment by police officers, in particular as a result of being punched and kicked.

51.  The above factors are sufficient to give rise to a presumption in favour of the applicant’s account of events and to satisfy the Court that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody were credible.

52.  The fact that during the period of alleged ill-treatment the applicant was held at the police station without a record of his arrest on suspicion of theft having been drawn up, and was interviewed by police officers without being able to avail himself of access to a lawyer of his own choosing and other rights of suspects in criminal proceedings, attests to the applicant’s particular vulnerability vis-à-vis the police officers. It weighs heavily in favour of the applicant’s account of events and reinforces the presumption referred to in the previous paragraph (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 116‑17, 24 July 2014; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, § 65, 6 October 2015; and Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 77‑79, 2 May 2017).

53.  The Court further observes that the applicant’s allegations of police ill‑treatment were dismissed by the investigating authority, which offered no explanation for the origin of the applicant’s injuries.

54.  The investigating authority based its findings on the results of the pre-investigation inquiry, which is the initial stage in dealing with a criminal complaint under Russian law and should normally be followed by the opening of a criminal case and the carrying-out of an investigation if the information gathered has disclosed elements of a criminal offence (see Lyapin, cited above, § 129). The mere carrying-out of a pre-investigation inquiry under Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is insufficient if the authorities are to comply with the standards established under Article 3 of the Convention for an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. It is incumbent on the authorities to institute criminal proceedings and to conduct a proper criminal investigation in which the whole range of investigative measures may be carried out, including the questioning of witnesses, confrontations and identification parades (ibid., §§ 132-37).

55.  The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise in the present case. It also notes that there is an issue as regards the delay in conducting, and the completeness of, the applicant’s forensic medical examinations.

56.  In so far as the applicant complained about additional injuries that were not ultimately confirmed by the forensic examinations, the Court notes that the applicant consistently and timely complained that police officers had inserted the end of a chair leg into his anus, making him faint from the pain. The examinations carried out a week after the alleged ill-treatment did not detect any injuries. However, a proctoscopy - as recommended by a surgeon - was not carried out properly because of the applicant’s unpreparedness for that examination (see paragraph 20 above). Additional examinations were carried out after a delay of three months and with the same outcome, that is, although no injuries were detected, further examination was not possible because of the applicant’s unpreparedness (see paragraph 32 above). Given the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the applicant was held in detention from 5 October 2006 onwards, carrying the examinations speedily and in conditions that would allow traces of the alleged ill‑treatment to be detected was the responsibility of the authorities, a responsibility which they failed to assume. The situation was similar in respect of the applicant’s allegations of a head trauma. It took the authorities four months (after his lawyer’s complaint that his forensic medical examination on 13 October 2006 had not assessed whether he had suffered concussion or cerebral contusion) to carry out the applicant’s examination, only to conclude that it was impossible to establish any connection between his alleged beatings and some changes to his neurological status, because the applicant had not been examined by a specialist shortly after the alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 33 above).

57.  The Court finds that the investigating authority failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of police ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention.

58.  Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

59.  Given that the Government’s denial of State responsibility for the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment was based on the results of superficial pre-investigation inquiries, which fall short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court holds that the Government have failed to discharge their burden of proof and produce evidence capable of casting doubt on the applicant’s account of events. It finds that the applicant suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the police, which, in view of the evidence present in the file, the Court qualifies as inhuman and degrading treatment.

60.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention also under its substantive limb.

II.      ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

61.  The applicant complained that his conviction had been based on his confession statements obtained as a result of ill-treatment by police. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:

“1.  In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

62.  The Government contested that argument, referring to the findings of the domestic authorities. They pointed out that the disputed evidence was not the sole evidence on which the applicant’s conviction had been based, and that his self-incriminating statements had been obtained in accordance with the law and their admissibility had been thoroughly examined in the adversarial proceedings.

A.    Admissibility

63.  The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.    Merits

64.  The Court reiterates that the admission of confession statements obtained in violation of Article 3 renders the criminal proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, irrespective of the probative value of those statements and irrespective of whether their use was decisive in securing the defendant’s conviction (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 166 and 173, ECHR 2010, and, among other authorities, Turbylev, cited above, § 90).

65.  The Court has found that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody during the period from 5 to 7 October 2006. It observes that the applicant’s confession statements were recorded on 8 October 2006 by the police and on 10 October 2006 during his examination as a suspect. Those statements formed part of the evidence adduced against him. The Vengerovskiy District Court did not find them inadmissible and referred to them when finding the applicant guilty and convicting him. The court should have carried out its own independent assessment of the relevant medical and other evidence with a view to ascertaining whether there were reasons to exclude from evidence those statements, allegedly “tainted” by a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, so as to ensure the fairness of the trial. Instead, it relied on the police officers’ statements denying any violence against the applicant, the results of the internal police inquiry and the refusal of the investigating authority to open a criminal case, which the Court has found to have been based on an inquiry which did not meet the requirements of Article 3. In particular, the District Court concluded - repeating the findings of the investigating authority - that despite the evidence of the applicant’s injuries, it had not been proved that they had been caused by the police officers. The Court reiterates that where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of individuals within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83, ECHR 2015). This lack of a careful assessment of the quality of the impugned evidence and the circumstances in which it was obtained was not remedied by the Novosibirsk Regional Court.

66.  In these circumstances the Court concludes that, regardless of the impact which the applicant’s statements obtained under duress had on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him, their use in evidence rendered the applicant’s trial unfair.

67.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the present case.

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION of article 13 OF THE CONVENTION

68.  Lastly, the applicant complained that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint, failing to provide him with an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

69.  The Government argued that the applicant had availed himself of effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3.

70.  The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the issue raised under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

71.  In view of its finding of a violation of Article 3 under its procedural head, the Court does not find it necessary to examine separately, under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of an effective investigation into his ill‑treatment.

IV.   APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

72.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

73.  The applicant claimed 60,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

74.  The Government contested the claim.

75.  The Court awards the applicant EUR 26,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

76.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Declares the application admissible;

2.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs;

3.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the use in evidence of the applicant’s self-incriminating statements obtained as a result of his ill-treatment;

4.      Holds that there is no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;

5.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 May 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova                                                                    Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President