PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 40852/05) 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 Sergey Anatolyevich Shlychkov (“the applicant”), on 16 September 2005.

2.  The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms O. Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Georgy Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

3.  The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated in custody by the police, that there had been no effective investigation into the alleged illtreatment and that his conviction had been based on a confession obtained under duress.

4.  On 26 February 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Naro-Fominsk in the Moscow region. He is currently serving his sentence in IK-4 detention facility in the village of Udarnyy in the Republic of Mordovia.

A.  Background events

6.  At 8.20 p.m. on 6 March 2004 Ms E. was robbed in the street and was stabbed through the heart. She died of the wound shortly afterwards. The assailant took a mobile phone and 2,500 Russian roubles (RUB) from the victim’s purse.

7.  The Naro-Fominsk town prosecutor’s office (“the town prosecutor’s office”) instituted a criminal investigation into E.’s killing. Having obtained from the mobile phone operator the call logs in respect of the victim’s phone, the investigators established that at 9.50 pm on 6 March 2004 a phone call had been made to a number belonging to Ms A. from E.’s phone using the applicant’s SIM card.

B.  The applicant’s arrest

1.  The applicant’s account

8.  At 11 a.m. on 18 March 2004 the police arrived at the applicant’s flat and ordered him to follow them to the police station.

9.  Once at the police station, the applicant explained that on 6 March 2004 he had bought a used mobile phone from a stranger because a friend of his had earlier expressed an interest in purchasing a second-hand phone. In order to test the phone, he had inserted his SIM card and made a call to his then girlfriend, Ms A. He also claimed that on the same day he had played slot machines and won RUB 2,500. Then the officers questioning him showed him a call log from Ms E.’s phone, informed him of the killing and suggested that he confess to mitigate his sentence. The applicant refused to admit to the crime.

10.  The officers proceeded to hit and kick him on his head, chest and flanks. The applicant fainted several times. The beatings went on for twelve hours. Eventually the applicant gave in and agreed to write down a “statement of surrender and confession” (явка с повинной), as dictated by the officers, admitting to the robbery and murder of Ms E.

11.  An investigator of the town prosecutor’s office, Mr A., questioned the applicant as a suspect and later went to the applicant’s flat to seize a few items including the mobile phone contract for the applicant’s SIM card.

12.  The applicant was not provided with legal assistance on 18 March 2004.

2.  The Government’s account

13.  The applicant was brought to the police station at 10 p.m. on 18 March 2004. Upon arrival the police officers asked him how he had obtained Ms E.’s phone and then showed him the call log. The applicant looked at the log and then asked the officers to leave him alone in the room. He then wrote a statement of surrender and confession describing the circumstances of the crime. No physical force was applied to the applicant.

14.  In the Government’s submission, on 18 March 2004 the applicant complained to the town prosecutor’s office; however, he did not raise the issue of ill-treatment.

14.  In the Government’s submission, on 18 March 2004 the applicant complained to the town prosecutor’s office; however, he did not raise the issue of ill-treatment.

15.  At 12.30 p.m. on 19 March 2004 an arrest record was drawn up. It contained a handwritten note by the applicant that read as follows: “[I] agree with the arrest, rights are understood, [I have] no statement to make”.

15.  At 12.30 p.m. on 19 March 2004 an arrest record was drawn up. It contained a handwritten note by the applicant that read as follows: “[I] agree with the arrest, rights are understood, [I have] no statement to make”.

16.  A handwritten statement signed by the applicant and dated 19 March 2004 affirmed that the applicant’s rights had been explained to him; that he did not require legal assistance; that the “bodily injuries visible at [that] moment on [his] face and body [had been] inflicted on 11 March 2004 by [his] roommate Dima”; and that police officers had not used force against him.

C.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant and complaints about the alleged ill-treatment

C.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant and complaints about the alleged ill-treatment

C.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant and complaints about the alleged ill-treatment

C.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant and complaints about the alleged ill-treatment

17.  Between 12.40 a.m and 2.55 a.m on 19 March 2004 the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present.

17.  Between 12.40 a.m and 2.55 a.m on 19 March 2004 the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present.

18.  In the early morning on 19 March 2004 the applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre (Изолятор временного содержания, hereinafter “IVS”). According to the Government, when placed in the IVS, the applicant did not make any healthrelated complaints. He had a bruise under his right eye. An entry in the IVS logbook was made by an ambulance doctor stating that the applicant was “in a post-epileptic-fit state”.

18.  In the early morning on 19 March 2004 the applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre (Изолятор временного содержания, hereinafter “IVS”). According to the Government, when placed in the IVS, the applicant did not make any healthrelated complaints. He had a bruise under his right eye. An entry in the IVS logbook was made by an ambulance doctor stating that the applicant was “in a post-epileptic-fit state”.

19.  Between 11.10 a.m. and 12.50 p.m. on 19 March 2004 the applicant was questioned in the presence of Mr B., a legal-aid lawyer. According to the Government, in the course of the interview he described how he had committed the crime. The record of the interview reads that the applicant found the knife used as the murder weapon at a market after a fire.

20.  On 20 or 22 March 2004 the investigators carried out an investigative re-enactment. In the applicant’s submission, the re-enactment was limited to bringing him to the crime scene and photographing him there. According to the Government, during the visit the applicant confirmed his statement made in the presence of the lawyer in the course of the second interview of 19 March 2004. He also selected a knife similar to that used to stab Ms E. from a selection of four knives available at a local shop.

21.  On 20 March 2004 a judge of the Naro-Fominsk Town Court (“the Town Court”) placed the applicant in custody. The applicant complained to the judge about his ill-treatment; she refused to take note of the allegations, however, stating that they could be examined in the course of the trial against the applicant.

22.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant was formally charged with murder and robbery. He retracted his confession.

23.  On 26 March 2004 the police transported the applicant to a remand prison. However, the staff on duty refused to admit the applicant as he had visible injuries. The applicant was returned to the IVS. On 29 March 2004 the police again tried to transfer him to the remand prison and were refused for the second time.

23.  On 26 March 2004 the police transported the applicant to a remand prison. However, the staff on duty refused to admit the applicant as he had visible injuries. The applicant was returned to the IVS. On 29 March 2004 the police again tried to transfer him to the remand prison and were refused for the second time.

24.  On 30 March 2004 the police brought the applicant to the NaroFominsk polyclinic where he underwent an X-ray examination which showed that there were fractures to three ribs with signs that the bones were beginning to heal. The following day the applicant was admitted to the remand prison.

25.  According to the applicant, once in the remand prison, he complained about his illtreatment to the town prosecutor’s office.

26.  According to the Government, the applicant raised the ill-treatment complaint on 17 June 2004. The town prosecutor’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry on the basis of the complaint.

26.  According to the Government, the applicant raised the ill-treatment complaint on 17 June 2004. The town prosecutor’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry on the basis of the complaint.

27.  On 18 June 2004 Mr A., an investigator with the town prosecutor’s office, refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the alleged ill-treatment. He observed that upon arrival at the IVS the applicant had had a bruise under his right eye and yet had made no complaints about his state of health, and noted that, according to the IVS logbook, an ambulance had been called for the applicant on account of an epileptic fit.

28.  On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial before the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).

29.  The applicant first took cognisance of the decision of 18 June 2004 on 29 June 2004 while studying the case file in the criminal case against him.

30.  The applicant complained about the town prosecutor’s office’s refusal of 18 June 2004 to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, which forwarded it for examination by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Moscow region. The latter forwarded the complaint to the town prosecutor’s office (against which the complaint was directed). The applicant received no reply.

31.  The applicant did not attempt to institute any judicial review proceedings, considering that they would be futile on account of the judge’s reply of 20 March 2004.

32.  On 27 July 2004 the Regional Court scheduled a trial hearing on 9 August 2004.

33.  The applicant raised the matter of ill-treatment before the Regional Court at his trial.

33.  The applicant raised the matter of ill-treatment before the Regional Court at his trial.

34.  On 20 October 2004 the Regional Court ordered an expert medical examination of the X-ray of 30 March 2004. It can be seen from the trial record of that date that N. informed the judge that he was not an expert in interpreting Xrays and asked for a period of two weeks to consult a colleague; the judge acceded to the request. On 4 November 2004 N. drew up a report stating that the rib fractures had been caused by blunt objects; by 30 March 2004 the knitting together of the fractures had commenced; the fractures had been “considerably old” and “no injuries corresponding to [those of] 11 and 18 March 2004 [had been] identified”. The judge rejected the applicant’s request for another expert report.

35.  The Regional Court dismissed the record of the first interview of 19 March 2004 as inadmissible evidence for the reason that the interview had been conducted without a lawyer present.

36.  On 3 December 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court referred to the applicant’s pre-trial confession, the record of his questioning by the investigator, his statements at the investigative reenactment and other physical evidence.

36.  On 3 December 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. The court referred to the applicant’s pre-trial confession, the record of his questioning by the investigator, his statements at the investigative reenactment and other physical evidence.

37.  The trial judge also examined in detail the evidence presented by the parties in relation to the allegation of illtreatment, including the decision of 18 June 2004 and the expert medical report ordered in respect of the X-ray. The judge also heard evidence from an expert, N., as well as investigator Mr A. and several police officers. The judge refused to examine the IVS logbook which, according to the applicant, would support his assertion that there were injuries. Instead, the judge examined a letter from the deputy director of the IVS, according to which on his arrival there the applicant only had had a black eye which he had explained as having received before the arrest. The deputy director had also noted that the logbook entry concerning the call for an ambulance had been made for another person. The judge dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and declared the relevant evidence (the confession statement, the interview record and the investigative re-enactment record) admissible.

38.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal reiterating the issue of his confession under duress without a lawyer present, as well as the weakness of the prosecution’s case against him. He insisted on his innocence.

39.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant lodged an additional appeal in which he claimed that the Regional Court had wrongly considered his previous conviction as an aggravating factor and yet had chosen to regard the surrender and confession as a mitigating factor. He asked for the firstinstance judgment to be quashed on the grounds given in his appeal of 6 December 2004.

40.  On the same date the applicant (through his counsel) lodged an appeal in which he insisted that the statement of surrender and confession had not been genuine as he had been forcibly brought to the police station and detained there for twelve hours with no access to a lawyer.

41.  On 16 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the firstinstance judgment in a summary fashion.

42.  The applicant further unsuccessfully sought supervisory review of his conviction.

43.  On 5 April 2005 the applicant sent another complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office, which was forwarded to the town prosecutor’s office.

44.  On 12 May 2005 the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of 18 June 2004 and issued an instruction to carry out an additional preinvestigation inquiry.

45.  On 15 May 2005 S., an investigator with the town prosecutor’s office, refused to institute an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. He found it established that on 12 March 2004 a police officer in Naro-Fominsk had received a report of a violent fight; on 13 March 2004 he had invited the applicant to come in for a “preventative talk” and had noticed two bruises under the applicant’s eyes. S. concluded that the bruise under the applicant’s right eye had been a result of the injury inflicted long before the arrest. He also pointed out that the Regional Court had “carefully examined” the applicant’s version of ill-treatment by police officers. The issue of the fractured ribs was not examined.

II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

.  For the summary of relevant domestic law see Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014).

III.  RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”)

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”)

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”)

47.  The CPT Standards 2002 (revised in 2011) (CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1Rev. 2011) contain the following provisions (Extract from the 2nd General Report [CPT/Inf (92) 3]):

“36.  The CPT attaches particular importance to three rights for persons detained by the police: the right of the person concerned to have the fact of his detention notified to a third party of his choice (family member, friend, consulate), the right of access to a lawyer, and the right to request a medical examination by a doctor of his choice (in addition to any medical examination carried out by a doctor called by the police authorities). They are, in the CPT’s opinion, three fundamental safeguards against the ill-treatment of detained persons which should apply as from the very outset of deprivation of liberty, regardless of how it may be described under the legal system concerned (apprehension, arrest, etc.).

37.  Persons taken into police custody should be expressly informed without delay of all their rights, including those referred to in paragraph 36. Further, any possibilities offered to the authorities to delay the exercise of one or other of the latter rights in order to protect the interests of justice should be clearly defined and their application strictly limited in time. As regards more particularly the rights of access to a lawyer and to request a medical examination by a doctor other than one called by the police, systems whereby, exceptionally, lawyers and doctors can be chosen from preestablished lists drawn up in agreement with the relevant professional organisations should remove any need to delay the exercise of these rights.

38.  Access to a lawyer for persons in police custody should include the right to contact and to be visited by the lawyer (in both cases under conditions guaranteeing the confidentiality of their discussions) as well as, in principle, the right for the person concerned to have the lawyer present during interrogation.

As regards the medical examination of persons in police custody, all such examinations should be conducted out of the hearing, and preferably out of the sight, of police officers. Further, the results of every examination as well as relevant statements by the detainee and the doctor’s conclusions should be formally recorded by the doctor and made available to the detainee and his lawyer.”

.  The relevant part of the CPT’s country report, following its visit to the Russian Federation of 21 May to 4 June 2012 (CPT/Inf (2013) 41), reads as follows:

“39. As repeatedly stressed by the CPT in the past, the prompt and proper medical examination of persons admitted to IVS establishments is essential, in particular in order to facilitate any subsequent investigative measures related to allegations of illtreatment.

The Committee once again calls upon the Russian authorities to take immediate steps to ensure that:

-  all persons admitted to IVS establishments are properly interviewed and physically examined by qualified health-care staff on the day of their admission or the following day; the same approach should be adopted each time a person returns to an IVS cell after having been taken out by operational officers (even for a short period of time);

-  all medical examinations (whether they are carried out in hospitals or in law enforcement facilities) are conducted out of the hearing and – unless the health-care professional concerned expressly requests otherwise in a given case – out of the sight of law enforcement officials;

-  the record drawn up following the medical examination of a detained person in a hospital or law enforcement establishment contains: (i) a full account of statements made by the person concerned which are relevant to the medical examination (including his/her description of his/her state of health and any allegations of ill-treatment), (ii) a full account of objective medical findings based on a thorough examination, and (iii) as far as possible, the health-care professional’s conclusions as to the consistency between injuries observed and any allegations of ill-treatment made by the person concerned;

-  whenever injuries are recorded which are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment made by a detained person (or which, even in the absence of allegations, are indicative of ill-treatment), the record is systematically brought to the attention of the competent investigative authorities, regardless of the wishes of the person concerned. Detained persons and their lawyers should be entitled to receive a copy of that record at the same time.”

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

49.  The applicant complained that on 18 March 2004 he had been illtreated by police officers and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the alleged ill-treatment. 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.”

50.  The Government submitted at the outset that the applicant had failed to exhaust the effective domestic remedies available to him as he had not challenged the town prosecutor’s office’s refusal to investigate the alleged ill-treatment of 18 June 2004 before a court. They further stated that the applicant’s allegations had not been supported by any medical certificates or other evidence and that the applicant had described the events in vague terms. The bruise under the applicant’s right eye noted upon arrival at the IVS on 19 March 2004 had been a result of the fight with “Dima”. They concluded that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded.

51.  The applicant insisted that he had exhausted the domestic remedies available to him in the circumstances of the case referring to the following: firstly, he had learned of the refusal of 18 June 2004 on 29 June 2004 while studying the criminal case file shortly before the commencement of the trial against him; secondly, the Regional Court had examined the allegations of ill-treatment in detail – in particular, it had requested an expert medical report and had questioned several witnesses including the police officers allegedly involved; lastly, the issue of illtreatment had been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of Russia on appeal. The applicant further maintained his complaint about the ill-treatment and emphasised the lack of an effective investigation into it pointing out, in particular, that the investigative authorities had not even attempted to establish which injuries had been inflicted in the course of the fight with “Dima”.

A.  Admissibility

52.  Turning to the Government’s plea of non-exhaustion, the Court observes that the applicant indeed failed to seek judicial review of the town prosecutor’s office’s refusal to investigate the alleged ill-treatment of 18 June 2004.  It reiterates, however, that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996IV).

53.  It has not been disputed between the parties that the applicant raised his complaints of ill-treatment before the Regional Court during the trial proceedings against him, complaining of police brutality and the prosecutor’s indifference to his claims. The Regional Court did not refuse to entertain his complaints for failure to comply with any formal requirements: it took cognisance of the merits of those complaints by examining the applicant, the police officers and other witnesses and examining the inquiry materials, and upheld the conclusions of the prosecutor’s office. The Supreme Court of Russia endorsed the Regional Court’s findings in that respect. The Government did not argue that in pursuing this avenue of judicial review, the applicant had removed from the domestic courts the option of examining the relevant issues. In those circumstances, where the courts have already embarked on the analysis of an applicant’s complaints, the Court does not find it unreasonable that the applicant did not lodge the same complaints with the same courts (see Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, §§ 31-32, 2 October 2008; Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, §§ 4749, 30 July 2009; and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 107, 13 July 2010). In such circumstances the Court dismisses the Government’s objection.

54.  The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

1.  General principles

55.  The Court has stated on many occasions that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999V).

56.  Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, among many other authorities, Keller v. Russia, no. 26824/04, § 114, 17 October 2013). To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 82, 28 September 2015).

57.  In relation to detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see, with further references, Bobrov v. Russia, no. 33856/05, § 33, 23 October 2014). Where an individual claims to have been injured as a result of illtreatment in custody, the Government are under an obligation to provide a complete and sufficient explanation as to how the injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336). In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, with further references, Bouyid, cited above, § 83).

58.  The Court further recalls that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such State agents unlawfully and in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, that provision – read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to “secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention” – requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998VIII).

59.  An obligation to investigate “is not an obligation of result, but of means”: not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant’s account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Zelenin v. Russia, no. 21120/07, § 42, 15 January 2015).

60.  An investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be thorough. This means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or illfounded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis for their decisions (see Assenov and Others, cited above, §§ 103 et seq.). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and so forth (see, with further references, Korobov and Others v. Estonia, no. 10195/08, § 113, 28 March 2013). 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 (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 108, 26 January 2006).

61.  Furthermore, the investigation must be expeditious. In cases examined under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of an official investigation is at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita, cited above, §§ 133 et seq.). Consideration has been given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtaş v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).

2.  Application of the general principles to the present case

62.  The Court observes at the outset that the events of 18 March 2004, the date on which the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment, are disputed between the parties. However, it is common ground between them that the X-ray of 30 March 2004 showed that the applicant had three fractured ribs (see paragraph 24 above).

.  The Court notes that in the course of the proceedings before it the Government have not put forward any explanation as to the origin of the fractures in question as they chose to comment only on the bruise under the applicant’s right eye. That compels the Court to establish the facts, drawing such inferences as it deems appropriate from that attitude (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 132, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

64.  The Court observes at the outset that the materials in its possession demonstrate that the applicant was not examined by a doctor or other medical professional upon placement in the IVS despite the fact that he had visible bruising on his face which was noted, in particular, by the deputy head of the facility (see paragraphs 18, 27 and 37 above). It emphasises in this connection that the CPT regards a right of access to a doctor for detained persons during their custody by law-enforcement agencies as one of the three fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment (see paragraph 47 above). In the absence of any explanation for such an omission put forward by the respondent Government, the Court cannot but conclude that the failure on the part of the IVS personnel to ensure that the applicant’s injuries were immediately examined and documented by a doctor divested the applicant of an important safeguard against a breach of Article 3 of the Convention (compare İlhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000VII; Barabanshchikov v. Russia, no. 36220/02, § 46, 8 January 2009; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 95, 30 May 2013; and Zayev v. Russia, no. 36552/05, §§ 85-86, 16 April 2015).

.  The Court further notes that the only medical evidence available in the present case, namely the X-ray examination of 30 March 2004, showed fractures of three ribs in an early stage of recovery (see paragraph 24 above). When dismissing the allegations of ill-treatment, the Regional Court relied heavily on the findings of N. who had concluded that the fact that the rib fractures had begun to knit by 30 March 2004 to be sufficient to refute the applicant’s version of the events of 18 March 2004. The Court observes, however, that the Regional Court was made aware of the fact that N. regarded his expertise in reading Xrays insufficient to assess the rib fractures without external assistance (see paragraph 34 above). Moreover, N.’s assessment of the fractures as “considerably old” does not appear to be sufficiently precise to dismiss with certainty the claim that the applicant had sustained injuries twelve days prior to the X-ray.

.  In view of the above considerations, the Court concludes that the applicant presented a sufficiently detailed and consistent account of the beatings by the police officers on 18 March 2004 and, accordingly, raised an arguable claim of alleged ill-treatment.

.  Since no credible account of how the fractures to the applicant’s ribs had been caused was given either at the domestic pre-investigation inquiry stage or before the Court, it considers that the respondent Government failed to discharge their burden of proof and that it was not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s account of events was inaccurate or otherwise erroneous (see Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, § 74, 14 November 2013, and Zelenin, cited above, § 49). In such circumstances the Court does not deem it necessary to assess the Government’s assertion that the injuries could have been inflicted in the fight with “Dima” on 11 March 2004.

68.  Bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, the Court concludes that the applicant’s injuries, at least in part, were the result of treatment he underwent while in police custody for which the respondent State bore responsibility.

68.  Bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, the Court concludes that the applicant’s injuries, at least in part, were the result of treatment he underwent while in police custody for which the respondent State bore responsibility.

69.  Having regard to all the circumstances of the ill-treatment, its physical and mental effects and the applicant’s health, the Court finds that the accumulation of the acts of physical violence inflicted on the applicant amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

69.  Having regard to all the circumstances of the ill-treatment, its physical and mental effects and the applicant’s health, the Court finds that the accumulation of the acts of physical violence inflicted on the applicant amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

70.  There has therefore been a violation of the above provision under its substantive limb.

.  The Court observes that it is not disputed by the parties that the State was under a procedural obligation, arising from Article 3 of the Convention, to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of illtreatment.

.  The Court notes that the town prosecutor’s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry into the applicant’s allegations. It is not convinced, however, that the inquiry in question was sufficiently thorough and effective to meet the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

.  Indeed, the Court has previously ruled that in the context of the Russian legal system a “preinvestigation inquiry” alone is not capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible, since the opening of a criminal case and a criminal investigation are prerequisites for bringing charges against the alleged perpetrators which may then be examined by a court. The Court drew strong inferences from the mere fact that the investigative authority had refused to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of serious illtreatment in police custody, regarding it as indicative of the State’s failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 135-36, 24 July 2014). Moreover, the Court found that as a result of their refusals to open a criminal case, the town prosecutor’s office had never conducted a proper criminal investigation in which the whole range of investigative measures could be carried out, including questioning, confrontation, identification parade, search and seizure, and crime reconstruction (ibid., § 132).

.  In view of the above, the Court also considers in the instant case that the refusal to open a criminal case into the applicant’s credible allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of the police officers on 18 March 2004 amounted to a failure to carry out an effective investigation as required by Article 3 of the Convention. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for the Court to examine in detail the preinvestigation inquiry conducted in the applicant’s case, with a view to identifying specific deficiencies and omissions on the part of the investigators (see Zelenin, cited above, § 59).

.  The above considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION

76.  The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been convicted on the basis of his confession given under duress and without a lawyer present. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 §§1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, provides:

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

...

3.  Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require ...”

77.  The Government submitted that the record of the first interview of 19 March 2004 conducted without a lawyer present (see paragraph 17 above) had been declared inadmissible evidence by the Regional Court and that accordingly in that part of the applicant’s complaint was manifestly illfounded. With regard to the statement of surrender and confession, the Government admitted that it had been made without a lawyer present; they noted, however, that the applicant had waived the right to legal assistance in writing and that in his appeal of 14 December 2004 he had invoked the fact of surrender and confession as a mitigating circumstance. The Government stated that the applicant’s conviction had been based on various pieces of evidence, in particular, the record of the second interview of 19 March 2004 (see paragraph 19 above), the investigative re-enactment record, witnesses’ statements and other unspecified evidence. They concluded that the applicant’s complaint was manifestly ill-founded.

78.  The applicant alleged that, because of the ill-treatment he had sustained at the hands of the police, he could not be said to have waived his right to legal assistance on 19 March 2004. Moreover, the statement of surrender and confession had been written on 18 March 2004, that is to say before the statement declining legal assistance had been put in writing. He concluded that there had been no clear and unequivocal waiver of his right to legal assistance in his case and that, consequently, his Convention right of access to a lawyer had been breached. He further pointed out that the selfincriminatory statement made under duress without the benefit of legal advice had served as the sole evidence of his guilt.

A.  Admissibility

79.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

.  The Court reiterates that it is not the role of the Court to determine, as a matter of principle, whether particular types of evidence – for example, evidence obtained unlawfully in terms of domestic law – may be admissible. The question which must be answered is whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was obtained, were fair. This involves an examination of the unlawfulness in question and, where the violation of another Convention right is concerned, the nature of the violation found (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 163, ECHR 2010).

.  The right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 of the Convention. Their rationale lies, inter alia, in the protection of the accused against improper compulsion by the authorities, thereby contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6 of the Convention. The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006IX).

.  Confession statements obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention are inherently unreliable. Furthermore, their use in criminal proceedings is often a reason for which the acts of ill-treatment are committed in the first place. Taking such statements into consideration in finding a person guilty is incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, § 122, 21 September 2006).

.  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007III; Levinţa v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012), or of other illtreatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Söylemez, cited above, §§ 107 and 12224; Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012; and Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 98-100, 18 July 2013) as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair. The use of evidence secured as a result of a violation of one of the core and absolute rights guaranteed by the Convention always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing a conviction (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 165).

.  In the present case, it is not disputed between the parties that the self-incriminating statement of surrender and confession made by the applicant without a lawyer present, following his arrest and placement in police custody, formed part of the evidence adduced against him in the course of the criminal proceedings. The Regional Court did not find the statement inadmissible and referred to it when finding the applicant guilty and convicting him.

.  The Government, however, asserted that the applicant had waived his procedural rights, relying on his written statements of 19 March 2004 (see paragraphs 1516 above). The Court reiterates in this connection that a waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention – in so far as it is permissible – must not run counter to any important public interest, must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to the waiver’s importance (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II). In the circumstances of the present case it finds it impossible to agree with the Government’s waiver claim as the written statements of 19 March 2004 were clearly made after the statement of surrender and confession had been drawn up on 18 March 2004. Most importantly, the applicant cannot be said to have validly waived his privilege against self-incrimination in view of the Court’s finding in paragraph 69 above that he had sustained the ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

86.  The Court therefore finds that the domestic courts’ use of the applicant’s surrender and confession statement as evidence in establishing the applicant’s guilt – irrespective of the probative value of that statement and irrespective of whether its use was decisive in securing the applicant’s conviction – has rendered the applicant’s trial unfair.

.  There has therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

.  In view of the above, the Court does not deem it necessary to examine separately the part of the applicant’s complaint concerning lack of access to a lawyer.

III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

89.  The applicant raised a number of other complaints under various Convention provisions. Having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

90.  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.”

A.  Damage

91.  The applicant claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage for the cost of medical treatment that he would require as a result of the ill-treatment. In particular, he claimed that his hearing had been impaired and that he had developed heart pains. He also requested EUR 6,000 allegedly embezzled from him by a lawyer previously retained by him.

92.  He further claimed EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the ill-treatment. He also claimed EUR 650,000 in compensation for his detention.

93.  The Government stated that the claims in respect of pecuniary damage were not supported by evidence. They further asserted that the claims in respect of nonpecuniary damage were excessive.

94.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have suffered nonpecuniary damage on account of the breaches of his Convention rights which cannot be compensated for by mere findings of violations and awards the applicant EUR 19,500 under that head.

B.  Costs and expenses

95.  The applicant also claimed EUR 1,640 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court corresponding to 24.5 hours’ work on the part of his representative. An itemised schedule of these costs was submitted.

96.  The Government asserted that the applicant’s claims under this head were not supported by evidence.

97.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, and bearing in mind that the applicant was granted EUR 850 in legal aid for his representation by Ms Preobrazhenskaya, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 790 for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before it.

C.  Default interest

98.  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 complaints about alleged ill-treatment in police custody, the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation and the use at the trial of the coerced confession obtained without a lawyer present admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

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

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb;

4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the use of the applicant’s surrender and confession statement as evidence;

5.  Holds that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning lack of access to a lawyer;

6.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.


PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 25597/07) against the  lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Ms Sirpa Marita Taavitsainen (“the applicant”), on 13 June 2007.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr Jaakko Tuutti, a lawyer practising in . The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

3.  On 10 November 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in .

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  On 16 June 2001 the police searched the applicant's apartment on account of a suspicion that it had been used for procuring. On 26 June 2001 she was questioned as a suspect. On 11 August 2001 the pre-trial investigation was completed.

6.  On 23 August 2001 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant for procuring, allegedly committed during the period from 4 to 11 June 2001.

7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was summoned to appear before the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) at a hearing which was to take place on 6 March 2002.

8.  However, the hearing was cancelled owing to the fact that Ms H., a witness, had failed to appear before the court although lawfully summoned to do so. Another witness, Ms M., had not been summoned. Both witnesses were Estonian citizens. The hearing of the case was postponed until 12 August 2002 and Ms H. was summoned to appear before the court on pain of a fine of 650 euros (EUR).

9.  On 12 August 2002 the District Court noted that the above-mentioned witnesses had failed to appear before it although lawfully summoned. The court adjourned the case until 11 December 2002 and decided to summon the witnesses on pain of a fine of EUR 800 each.

10.  On 11 December 2002 the District Court noted that the witnesses had not been summoned, postponed the hearing of the case until 1 December 2003 and decided that the witnesses should be summoned to appear before it on pain of a fine of EUR 800 each. The court also issued warrants for their arrest.

11.  On 1 December 2003 the District Court again noted that the witnesses had not been summoned, adjourned the case until 26 May 2004 and decided that the witnesses should be summoned to appear on pain of a fine of EUR 800 each. The court also issued warrants for their arrest.

12.  On 26 May 2004 the District court noted that Ms M. had not been summoned and that Ms H. had been summoned but failed to appear. It postponed the hearing of the case until 8 December 2004, issued warrants for their arrest and decided that they should be brought to court.

13.  On 8 December 2004 the District Court noted that the witnesses had not been found. The case was adjourned until further notice.

14.  According to the Government, seven more attempts were made by the District Court to hold an oral hearing between 2005 and 2008. These attempts proved unsuccessful, as the witnesses could not be brought before the court in .

15.  In January 2008 the District Court contacted the Finnish liaison prosecutor in  to explore the possibility of arranging the hearing of the witnesses through a video link.

16.  In the autumn of 2008 the District Court received video-conferencing equipment. On 9 January 2009 the District Court issued a request for international legal assistance to  to have the hearing by video link arranged.

17.  On 23 February 2009 the District Court held its oral hearing. The applicant argued that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time and were thus in breach of the Convention. In consequence, the charges against her should be dismissed. The court rejected the applicant's argument. It acknowledged that the proceedings had been delayed but noted that the delay had resulted from the unsuccessful attempts to bring the crucial witnesses before the court. It was only after the Tampere District Court was provided with video-conferencing equipment that the hearing could be held and the court was able to receive testimony from the witnesses in their own country.

18.  On 3 March 2009 the District Court gave its judgment. It found that, between 4 and 11 June 2001, the applicant had provided an apartment for the practice of prostitution for two women and gained from that arrangement. It convicted the applicant of procuring and sentenced her to 30 unit fines. It also ordered her to pay the State 1,681.87 euros (EUR) representing the proceeds of the offence.

19.  In assessing the gravity of the offence the court noted that the two women who had occupied the applicant's apartment had not been controlled by her, but had provided sexual services of their own free will. The court again acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, noting that it was not attributable to the applicant. Relying on Chapter 6, Article 7 of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen) it stated that she was entitled to redress for the delay, which could be awarded either by choosing a more lenient type of punishment or by reducing the sentence. The court went on to state that the applicant had been found guilty of fairly small-scale unorganised procuring. It also took into account the short period of time over which the offence had been committed and the small amount of proceeds obtained. For those reasons, and due to the length of the proceedings, the court concluded that the applicant should be sentenced to a fine. The court also took into account the delay in the proceedings in the amount of the unit fines, without specifying the reduction in the sentence.

20.  No appeals were filed with the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) and the judgment gained legal force on 11 March 2009.

II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW

21.  Chapter 6, Article 7 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 515/2003, which took effect on 1 January 2004, reads in relevant parts:

“In addition to what is provided above in Article 6, grounds for mitigating the sentence that are also to be taken into consideration are

...

(3) a considerably long period that has passed since the commission of the offence;

if the punishment that accords with established practice would for these reasons lead to an unreasonable or exceptionally detrimental result.”

22.  The sanction for procuring provided by the Penal Code runs from one unit fine to three years' imprisonment (Chapter 2a, Article 1(1) and Chapter 20, Article 9 (1)).

23.  Chapter 17, Article 34a of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken), as amended by Act no. 360/2003, which came into force on 1 October 2003, provides the following:

“A witness...may be heard in the oral hearing without his or her appearance in person with the use of a video conference of other appropriate technical means of communication, where the persons participating in the hearing have an audio and video link with one another, if the court deems that this is suitable and:

1) the person to be heard cannot, due to illness or another reason, appear in person in the oral hearing, or his or her personal appearance in proportion to the significance of the testimony would cause unreasonable costs or unreasonable inconvenience;

2) the credibility of the statement of the person to be heard can be reliably assessed without his or her personal appearance at the oral hearing;

3) the procedure is necessary in order to protect the person to be heard or a person related to him or her in the manner referred to in Chapter 15, Article 10 (2) of the Penal Code, from a threat directed at life or health; or

4) the person to be heard has not reached the age of 15 years or he or she is mentally incapacitated.

A party shall be given an opportunity to put questions to the person being heard.

In the cases referred to above in points 1 and 2 of paragraph 1, however, a telephone may also be used at the hearing.”

THE LAW

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

24.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

25.  The Government contested that argument.

26.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 16 June 2001 when the police searched the applicant's apartment and ended on 3 March 2009 when the District Court gave its judgment. It thus lasted seven years, eight months and 18 days for one level of jurisdiction.

A.  Admissibility

27.  The Government argued, firstly, that the applicant had received sufficient redress in that the District Court essentially mitigated the sentence due to the length factor, as provided by Chapter 6, Article 7 of the Penal Code. The court acknowledged the delay in the proceedings and stated that it was not attributable to the applicant. It followed that the applicant could no longer claim to be victim of the alleged breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. Secondly, the Government argued that the applicant failed to make use of the domestic remedies in that she did not appeal against the District Court's judgment. The Government concluded that, in any case, the application was manifestly ill-founded as the delay in the proceedings was not attributable to the State.

28.  The applicant pointed out that the punishment for procuring ranged from one unit fine to three years' imprisonment. The District Court had relied on several factors, favourable to the applicant, when fixing her sentence. The length factor did not stand out as the decisive factor in that respect. The sentence imposed on the applicant, 30 unit fines, might well have been an appropriate punishment for the offence in question, even excluding the mitigation. As the reduction in the sentence had not been made in a clear and measurable manner, the applicant had not lost her victim status. The applicant further contested the Government's other arguments.

29.  The Court points out that the mitigation of a sentence on the ground of the excessive length of proceedings does not in principle deprive the individual concerned of his or her status as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. However, this general rule is subject to an exception when the national authorities have acknowledged in a sufficiently clear way the failure to observe the reasonable time requirement and have afforded redress by reducing the sentence in an express and measurable manner (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51, § 66, Beck v. Norway, no. 26390/95, § 27, 26 June 2001 and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 77, ECHR 2006-...).

30.  In the present case, while it is true that the District Court stated that it was taking into account the length of proceedings in reducing the applicant's sentence, it is not apparent from its judgment what this reduction was. As the applicant pointed out, the District Court relied on several factors when fixing her sentence. It is clear from that court's reasoning that the applicant's offence was not considered grave. In the absence of any information from the Government on comparable sentencing practices (compare and contrast Beck v. Norway, cited above, §§ 17 and 28), the Court cannot but subscribe to the applicant's view that the appropriate punishment in her case might well have been at the lower end of the sentencing scale, even excluding the length factor.

31.  The Court acknowledges the attempt by the District Court to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by affording the applicant redress for the excessive length of the proceedings. It is not, however, satisfied that the reduction of the sentence was measurable and had a decisive impact on the applicant's sentence. The Court thus finds that the applicant may still claim to be a victim.

32.  As to the Government's argument concerning the alleged failure by the applicant to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court considers it appropriate to examine that issue in connection with the complaint concerning the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

33.  Having regard to the above, the Court notes that the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B.  Merits

34.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

35.  The Government contended that the delay in the proceedings did not result from any inactivity of the District Court but rather from the failure of the witnesses to appear before that court. Several attempts were made to bring the witnesses to the hearing, but they proved unsuccessful. As the witnesses were citizens of another State, the court was not able to use coercive measures against them. The hearing could only be arranged after the court was provided with video-conferencing equipment and the witnesses were able to give testimony in their own country. The hearing of those witnesses constituted crucial evidence in the case.

36.  The applicant contested the Government's view. If the video-conferencing equipment was the only effective means for the successful handling of cases with international connections, it should be asked why the State did not provide the court with such equipment sooner.

37.  The Court finds the applicant's argument justified. It acknowledges the difficulty for the District Court to obtain the attendance of the two witnesses in the absence of the possibility to use coercive measures against them, both being foreign nationals. However, having regard to the District Court's reasoning, as summarised in paragraph 17 above, it seems that the only obstacle to the hearing of those witnesses by means of video conferencing was the lack of suitable equipment. The Court observes that the provision enabling the hearing of a witness by such means came into force on 1 October 2003. Yet the State did not provide the Tampere District Court with video-conferencing equipment until autumn 2008 thus, in practice, hindering the application of the above-mentioned provision. The Government have not claimed that there was any other impediment to the hearing of the witnesses via video link, such as lack of co-operation by the Estonian authorities or suitable video-conferencing equipment in that country. On the contrary, it appears that the Estonian authorities acceded to the District Court's request for international legal assistance once it was made, without delay. The Court thus finds that the delay in the proceedings at hand is attributable to the State.

38.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).

39.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

40.  The applicant also complained that there was no effective remedy at her disposal for her length complaint. She relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads:

“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.”

41.  The Government contested that argument.

42.  The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.

43.  As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an “arguable complaint” under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief. The scope of the Contracting States' obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], cited above, §§ 74-79, ECHR 2006-...).

44.  The Court reiterates that, under Finnish law, the applicant was at no stage of the proceedings able to request a domestic court to expedite the conduct of the proceedings or to file a claim for compensation either during their course or following their termination (see, for example, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 186, ECHR 2006). Moreover, given the uncertainty of whether the appellate court would eventually apply Chapter 6, Article 7 of the Penal Code and mitigate the sentence on the ground of the excessive length of the proceedings, to the extent of providing sufficient redress, the Court finds that the defendant cannot be expected to appeal against a lower court's judgment solely for that purpose. The remedy suggested by the Government also appears illusory in a situation where the proceedings have already exceeded a reasonable time. The Government have failed to substantiate the existence of any remedy whereby the applicant could have obtained redress for her complaint.

45.  It follows that the applicant did not have an effective remedy in the present case. There has thus been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

III.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

46.  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.”

A.  Damage

47.  The applicant claimed 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

48.  The Government contested the claim submitting that any compensation under that head should not exceed EUR 2,000.

49.  The Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.

B.  Costs and expenses

50.  The applicant also claimed EUR 2,305.80 (inclusive of value-added tax) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

51.  The Government contested the claim. Any award should not exceed EUR 1,400.

52.  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.

C.  Default interest

53.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that connection;

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:

(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 2,305.80 (two thousand three hundred and five euros and eighty cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 December 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.


PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table

2.  The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty). They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention

6.  The applicants complained that the administrative escorting and arrest procedures and their ensuing detention had been in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:

“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

...

(c)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; ...”

7.  The Court has previously examined complaints brought by persons arrested and detained in similar circumstances in Russia. Having examined the applicable domestic regulations, the Court established that, under the Russian law, the escorting to a police station and ensuing detention there for the purpose of preparing an administrative arrest record would be permissible only if such record could not be drawn up at the place where the alleged offence had been discovered. The law also required that such escorting and detention be an “exceptional case” and necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case or to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed (see, for example, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 71, 15 November 2018). The authorities’ failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court’s view, led to it finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019).

8.  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 (including by applying the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022)) and merits of these complaints. The Court discerns nothing in the official records submitted for it to conclude that recourse to such procedures was justified, as required by the Russian law. It concludes that that the national authorities failed to comply with applicable rules of domestic procedure and considers that the applicants’ arrest and detention were not “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”.

9.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

10.  The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see the appended table). These complaints are not manifestly illfounded 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 wellestablished case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018, concerning delayed review of the applicants’ sentence of administrative detention).

11.  In view of the above findings, the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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.”

13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its caselaw (see, in particular, Saidov v. Russia [Committee], no. 31872/19, § 23, 26 July 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

14.  The Court further 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,

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the complaints concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and decides that it is not necessary to examine separately the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning other aspects of the fairness of the proceedings and alleged restrictions on the right to examine witnesses;

Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty);

Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention and its Protocols as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

Holds

that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.