detention of the complainant and the medical care provided in the facility were in line with
the requirements of the relevant national legislation. The complainant was not subjected to
coercion, special measures or disciplinary sanctions during his detention.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility
On 5 August 2015, the complainant informed the Committee that the European
Court of Human Rights had found his applications inadmissible on procedural grounds,
without considering them in substance. Thus, his submission should thus be declared
admissible in accordance with article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention.
The complainant submits that his original submission to the Committee concerned
ill-treatment by the police to extract forced confessions at the investigation stage of his
criminal case, and that the State party’s observations on the conditions of detention in SIZO
No. 1 are therefore irrelevant to the case.
State party’s observations on the merits
6.1 On 22 June 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the case.
It recalls that the complainant was arrested on 22 September 2007 at 7 a.m. at a crime scene.
He made no complaints at the time of arrest. He was searched in the presence of two
witnesses and signed the arrest record without complaints or remarks. His parents were
duly informed about the arrest. As it transpired from the arrest documentation, there was an
exchange of gunfire between the suspects and the police, and the complainant may have
received bodily injuries during the process of arrest.
The complainant underwent a medical examination on 22 September 2007, at the
Department of Internal Affairs in Ponomarevka, in the presence of two witnesses. The
following injuries were recorded on that occasion: a purple-bluish bruise on the lower
eyelid of his left eye, measuring 3 x 2 cm; an abrasion with a brownish sunken lower layer
of unclear shape on the left side of his forehead, measuring 1 cm2; and purple-bluish bruises
measuring between 25 x 10 cm and 3 x 2 cm, on the back, in the middle third of the left
shoulder, in the middle third of the left thigh and on the dorsum of the left foot.
On 22 September 2007, the complainant was interrogated as a suspect, in the
presence of a lawyer, N. He stated that there had been a shooting during the arrest and that
he had wounded a police officer in the leg. Both the complainant and his lawyer signed the
arrest record, without making any observations or objections. On 23 September 2007, the
complainant was interrogated as an accused person, in the presence of the same lawyer. He
gave similar statements and signed the record without making any complaints.
The complainant confirmed his statements on 11 December 2007, when presented
with the final charges. The record was again signed by him and his lawyer and no
complaints were made.
The criminal case materials show that neither the complainant nor his
representatives reported beatings and torture until February 2009. On 11 February 2009, the
parents of the accused persons submitted a claim to the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan
regarding inadmissibility of the statements of the co-accused, including the complainant, as
the statements had allegedly been made under torture, during the arrest and in detention.
Similar complaints were then filed with other authorities in April 2009. No complaints were
made by the complainant at the stage of the pretrial investigation.
On 13 April 2009, in the absence of the jury, the accused were questioned on the
allegations of torture. They refused to answer the questions of the prosecutor. The court
found that the complainant’s injuries had been inflicted by the police during the arrest
because of the armed resistance to the police by the complainant and his co-accused. The
court decided to retain as evidence the initial statements of the complainant given at the
According to the answer from the prosecutor’s office in Bashkortostan to the
complainant’s mother, dated 3 April 2009, during the arrest the complainant and the rest of
the group were ordered to remove their clothes on account of security considerations, in
order to guarantee the safety of the police officers and prevent the possibility of a terrorist