Пытки полицией детей. ЕСПЧ выиграно 30 дело адвокатом Труновым! Полицейские избили подростка Воротникова УВД Щукино 20.04.2011г.  – закрытая черепно-мозговая травма, сотрясение головного мозга, ушибы мягких тканей лица, разрыв связок правого голеностопного сустава. Уголовное дело в отношении полицейских возбуждать отказались, МВД подали в суд на его семью о взыскании 20 тысяч руб. за моральный вред. ЕСПЧ признал нарушение ст. 13 Право на эффективные правовые средства защиты и ст. 3 Запрещение пыток. Взыскал с России в пользу семьи подростка 29 тысяч евро. Готовится иск к МВД РФ.

European Court of Human Rights. STRASBOURG Страсбург Решение суда от 5.10.2021

Represented Moscow Russian Attorney Igor Leonidovich TRUNOV. THIRD SECTION CASE OF VOROTNIKOV v. RUSSIA, APPLICATION No. 68536/12 – 17.10.2012

Awarded by the Court Non-pecuniary damage EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros) EUR. Costs and expenses 3,000 (three thousand euros).

4. The events of 20 April 2011 at about 4.30 p.m., the applicant, who was a minor at the time, was arrested together with his friend, K., in a street in Moscow by two police officers patrolling the area. According to the applicant, when he refused to get into the police car, the police officers started to push and pull him inside, punched him in the abdomen and on the face and kicked him on the right ankle. According to the applicant, when he fell to the ground, the police officers continued to beat him, then handcuffed him and threw him into the car.  The applicant and K. were escorted to the police department in the Shchukino District in Moscow (ОВД по району Щукино г. Москвы).

At 4.56 p.m. a police officer for juvenile affairs called an ambulance for the applicant. The applicant was examined by an ambulance doctor who diagnosed him with a blunt-trauma abdominal injury, closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion, soft-tissue bruises on the head and a closed fracture of the right ankle. At about 5.40 p.m. the applicant was taken to City Clinical Hospital no. 1 (ГКБ № 1 им. Н.И. Пирогова). According to medical file no. 12140 of 20 April 2011, the applicant underwent an X-ray examination and was examined by a neurologist, a traumatologist and a surgeon. At 10.30 p.m. he was admitted to the surgery unit of the hospital for inpatient treatment. On 21 April 2011 the applicant underwent an MRI which showed blood in both maxillary sinuses. On 26 April 2011 he was transferred to the traumatology unit for further treatment. According to the discharge report of 10 May 2011, on that date the applicant was discharged from the hospital with the following final diagnosis: closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion,

bilateral hemosinus, rupture of the talofibular ligament of the right ankle and multiple soft-tissue bruises on the head and front abdomen.  On 20 April 2011 one of the police officers drew up a report about the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest. In it he stated, in particular, that the applicant had been refusing to obey their orders and get into the police car, and they had had to use physical force against him. The report did not contain any description of the physical force used against the applicant.

Official inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

On 20 April 2011 the applicant’s mother and the hospital reported the incident to the police.  On 21 April 2011 the investigating authorities launched an inquiry into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police officers.  On 25 April 2011 the investigating officer in charge of the inquiry ordered a forensic medical expert examination of the applicant. According to expert report no. 1186/6519 of 26 April 2011, in view of his mother’s refusal, the applicant was not examined by a medical expert and, therefore, the latter was not able to make any conclusions about his injuries. On 15 May 2011 the investigating officer ordered another forensic medical expert examination. On 21 May 2011 the investigating officer refused to institute criminal proceedings. On 23 May 2011 that refusal was quashed.  According to expert report no. 7420м/8448 of 30 May 2011, the applicant’s closed craniocerebral injury, soft-tissue contusions to the face and back of the head, abrasions on the chin and brain concussion could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects at the time of his arrest and qualified as damage of mild severity to his health. The abrasions on the applicant’s limbs and body and the contusion on his right hand could also have been inflicted by hard blunt objects and did not qualify as damage to the applicant’s health. The medical expert refused to draw any conclusions as to the abrasion and contusion on the applicant’s right ankle and the rupture of the talofibular ligament due to the lack of an additional MRI and ultrasound examinations. The diagnosed bruise on the right side of the applicant’s chest and multiple bruises on the abdominal wall were not subject to expert examination due to the absence of a detailed description of them in the medical documents; the same went for the diagnosed hemosinus which had not been confirmed by an X-ray examination.  On 23 June 2011 the investigating officer issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings. On 24 June 2011 that refusal was quashed. On 24 June 2011 the investigating officer ordered an additional forensic medical expert examination. According to expert report no. 9691м/10611 of 30 June 2011, the medical expert came to the same conclusions as in the report of 30 May 2011.  On 25 July 2011 the investigating officer issued the most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings. The refusal was based, inter alia, on the testimony of the police officers who had carried out the applicant’s arrest. The police officers stated that they had bent the applicant’s head and forced him into the car as he had been refusing to obey their orders, and denied having used any other physical force against him. The refusal also relied on the testimony of a bystander, M., who had witnessed the applicant pushing the police officers away during his arrest. M. stated that the three of them had eventually fallen to the ground, after which the police officers had kept the applicant lying there for some time, and then they had all got into the police car. That testimony was confirmed by two other eyewitnesses.

The refusal also cited the testimony given by K., who confirmed the applicant’s version of events. The investigating officer concluded that the physical force used by the police officers, namely forcing the applicant into the police car, had been lawful and necessary to overcome his resistance.

The investigating officer also noted, relying on the testimony of the police officers and the video-footage from the police department, that after his arrival at the police department the applicant had been moving around on his own and that, therefore, he could have injured his ankle after being escorted there.  On 15 August 2011 the applicant challenged the refusal of 25 July 2011 under Article 125 of the CCrP. On 13 March 2012 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed his complaint. On 18 April 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance decision in cassation. The domestic courts held that the investigating authorities had conducted a comprehensive inquiry into the applicant’s complaint, had collected and examined all relevant pieces of evidence, and that the conclusions made in the refusal of 25 July 2011 were lawful and well founded.

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