FIRST SECTION Application no. 5666/07 by Denis Leonidovich ZAGAYNOV and Others against Russia

8 December 2010

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 5666/07
by Denis Leonidovich ZAGAYNOV and Others
against Russia
lodged on 19 January 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicants are seven Russian nationals residing in the town of Yoshkar-Ola. They are:

1.  Mr Denis Leonidovich Zagaynov, born in 1979;

2.  Mr Nikolay Nikolayevich Kuznetsov, born in 1976;

3.  Mr Vasiliy Valeriyevich Yakovlev, born in 1978;

4.  Mr Viktor Ivanovich Kondratyev, born in 1964;

5.  Mr Sergey Aleksandrovich Maltsev, born in 1980;

6.  Mr Aleksey Gennadyevich Golovin, born in 1971;

7.  Mr Aleksey Nikolayevich Vecherov, born in 1979.

At the relevant time, they all served their respective sentences in the tenth company of prison IK-6 of the Federal Service of Enforcement of Sentences of the Russian Ministry of Justice in the town of Yoshkar-Ola.

They are represented before the Court by Mr I.M. Voronov and Mr S.V. Poduzov, lawyers practising in Yoshkar-Ola.

The circumstances of the case

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

1.  Incident of 20 December 2005

It appears that on 20 December 2005 the applicants were detained together in a cell with “strict conditions for serving the sentences of imprisonment”.

At around 8 a.m. on that day a number of prison officials, including deputy head B. and a team of special operations “Yastreb” (“Hawk”) of the Federal Service of Enforcement of Sentences of the Russian Ministry of Justice, entered the cell.

The applicants were forcefully moved from the cell outside to an open air and were not allowed to dress themselves in winter clothes. They were beaten with truncheons and kicked multiple times and then the officials put the applicants against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back and forced them to stand in this position for a few hours.

2.  Subsequent investigation

On 21 December 2005 the applicants complained about this episode to a local NGO “Chelovek i Zakon” (“Man and Law”), which in turn filed a complaint to a local prosecutor’s office.

On 16 February 2006 the Town Prosecutor of Yoshkar-Ola examined and rejected the complaint, having refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the incident. The prosecutor considered that the allegation of ill-treatment made by the applicant had been unsubstantiated. According to the decision, the applicants had refused the invitation of the prison officials to leave their cell. In response, the officials forced the applicants out. The prosecutor admitted the existence of numerous bruises, scratches and other injuries on the applicants, but considered that the use of the physical force had been lawful and justified in the circumstances. The decision did not respond to the complaint in part concerning the officials’ alleged refusal to allow the applicants to dress themselves in winter clothes.

On 26 February 2006 the applicants’ counsel requested the prosecutor’s permission to see the prosecutor’s case file and to make copies. It appears that the counsel was allowed to see the file, but was not allowed to make copies.

On 28 March 2006 the counsel asked the Town Court of Yoshkar-Ola to grant him permission to make copies of documents in the case file.

On the next day the Town Court refused to answer the request. This decision was confirmed on appeal on 4 May 2006 by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mari-El.

On 22 May 2006 the applicants’ counsel filed an appeal to the Town Court of Yoshkar-Ola.

By judgment of 16 June 2006 the Town Court of Yoshkarola rejected the appeal. The court responded to the applicants’ argument concerning the officials’ alleged refusal to allow the applicants to dress up. It noted that the prison officials had in fact been allowed to put their winter clothes on.

On 9 August 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mari-El upheld the judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention about incident of 20 December 2005 and the lack of proper investigation in this connection.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Were the applicants subjected to a treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention during their detention on 20 December 2005? The reference in being made to the applicants’ allegations of the use of rubber truncheons and kicks by the prison officials as well as the allegedly prolonged stay outdoors without winter clothes and in stretched position.

2.  Have the authorities complied with their positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the events? In particular, can it be said that the applicants had proper access to the investigation case file? Did the domestic authorities conduct a proper and thorough investigation in respect of each of the applicants and can it be said that each and every instance of the use of force by the prison officials was justified?

3.  The Respondent Government are invited to submit to the Court a copy of the entire domestic case file.

ZAGAYNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS

ZAGAYNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS

Оставить Ответ

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

*
*