A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (application no. 44095/14)
 
Expulsion of criminal suspect to China would expose him to risk of facing the death penalty, in violation of the Convention
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (application no. 44095/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
that the applicant’s forcible return to China would give rise to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a detention centre for aliens and on account of the conditions of his detention at a police station.
The case concerned, in particular, the complaint by a man residing in Russia and wanted as a criminal suspect in China that if forcibly returned to China, he would be at risk of being convicted and sentenced to death.
The Court considered that, given that the exclusion order against the applicant mentioned explicitly that he would be deported if he did no leave Russia before the stated deadline and that his Russian passport had been seized, he was at imminent risk of deportation to China where he might be sentenced to death. Russia was bound by an obligation, under the Convention, not to expose him to such risk.

L.M. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14)
 
Expulsion from Russia to Syria would violate the European Convention on Human Rights
 
The case of L.M. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14) concerned the impending expulsion of three men to Syria from Russia and their detention pending expulsion in Russia.
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
that the applicants’ forced return to Syria would give rise to a violation of Article 2 (right to life)
and/or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 § 4
(right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); and
that Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right of individual petition).
This was the first time that the Court addressed in a judgment the issue of returns to Syria in the current situation. The Court found that, in view of international reports about the crisis in Syria and additional information about the applicants’ individual situation, the applicants had put forward a well-founded allegation that their return to Syria would expose them to a real risk to their lives and personal security.
Having regard to its finding that the applicants’ detention, since the last decision by the Russian courts confirming their expulsion order in May 2014, had been in breach of Article 5, the Court held, in application of Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), that Russia was to ensure the immediate release of two of the applicants who had so far remained in detention.

Serikov v. Ukraine (no. 42164/09)

The applicant, Sergey Serikov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine).

The case concerned his complaint of having been ill-treated by the police.

Mr Serikov was arrested and taken to a police station in Kharkiv in the evening of 16 May 2008. A report set up by the police stated that a package of marijuana was found on him. According to Mr Serikov’s submissions, he was ill-treated by the police to make him confess. In particular, he alleges that he was threatened with rape, kicked and hit on the head, and dropped face down on the floor, causing him to lose consciousness several times. According to the Ukrainian Government, the only violence applied to him was his handcuffing during his arrest, when he attempted to escape. A medical report by a forensic expert, who examined Mr Serikov during the same night, recorded that he had several haematomas and bruises. At a hospital, where he sought medical aid the following day, he was diagnosed, in particular, with concussion.

 On the day following his arrest, Mr Serikov’s mother lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers alleging that they had ill-treated her son. In June 2008 the prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings, finding that no unlawful force had been used by the officers. The decision was later set aside and the investigation was subsequently reopened and closed on several occasions. It has not led to any prosecution.

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Serikov complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that the domestic authorities had not effectively investigated his allegations.

Violation of Article 3 - ill-treatment

Violation of Article 3 - investigation

Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,200 (costs and expenses)

Police failed to protect participants in march against homophobia from violent attacks of counter-demonstrators

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Identoba and Others v. Georgia (application no. 73235/12) the European Court of Human Rights held:

by a majority, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and

unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) in conjunction with Article 14.

The case concerned a peaceful demonstration in Tbilisi in May 2012 to mark the International Day against Homophobia, which was violently disrupted by counter-demonstrators outnumbering the marchers.

The Court considered in particular that the authorities knew or ought to have known of the risks surrounding the demonstration. They had therefore been under an obligation – but had failed – to provide adequate protection so that it could be held peacefully.

Police violence: Italian criminal law inadequate and not an effective deterrent

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Cestaro v. Italy (application no. 6884/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of ill-treatment sustained by the applicant, and

a further violation of Article 3 on account of the criminal legislation applied in the present case.

The case concerned events which occurred at the end of the G8 summit in Genoa in July 2001, in a school made available by the municipal authorities to be used as a night shelter by demonstrators.

An anti-riot police unit entered the building around midnight to carry out a search, leading to acts of violence.

The Court found, in particular, that, having regard to all the circumstances presented, the illtreatment sustained by the applicant when the police stormed the Diaz-Pertini school amounted to “torture” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. It noted that the failure to identify the

actual perpetrators of the ill-treatment could partly be explained by the objective difficulty of the public prosecutor’s office in establishing definite identifications but also by a lack of poliçe cooperation.

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of illtreatment sustained by Mr Cestaro and of inadequate criminal legislation concerning the punishment of acts of torture which was not an effective deterrent to prevent the repetition of such acts.

After emphasising the structural nature of the problem, the Court pointed out that, as regards the remedial measures to be taken, the State’s positive obligations under Article 3 might include the duty to introduce a properly adapted legal framework, including, in particular, effective criminal-law provisions.

Lack of space for a prisoner in Croatia was compensated for by him having access to sports facilities and sufficient time out of his cell
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Muršić v. Croatia (application no. 7334/13) the European Court of Human Rights held by majority (six votes to one) that there had been:
no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights
The case concerned an allegation of prison overcrowding and generally poor prison conditions in a Croatian prison.
The Court found in particular that, whilst there were some elements for concern with regard to Mr Muršić’s lack of personal space during certain short non-consecutive periods of his detention, his overall conditions of detention – including in particular three hours a day outside of his cell in an otherwise entirely appropriate facility – had not met the threshold of severity required to characterise his detention as inhuman or degrading.
The judgment is noteworthy in that it re-affirmed the general principles on the question of prison overcrowding and clarified the Court’s related case-law. In particular, whilst there is a strong presumption of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention when a detainee disposes of less than 3 square metres of personal space, this could sometimes be compensated for by the cumulative effects of the conditions of detention, such as freedom of movement and the appropriateness of the detention facility.

Somali national seeking to avoid return from the Netherlands to Italy: application inadmissible
In its decision in the case of A.M.E. v. the Netherlands (application no. 51428/10), the European Court of Human Rights has unanimously declared the application inadmissible. The decision is final.
The case concerned a Somali asylum-seeker’s claim that, if transferred to Italy, he would be subjected to harrowing living conditions.
The Court noted in particular that unlike the applicants in the case of Tarakhel v. Switzerlandi, who were a family with six minor children, the applicant was an able young man with no dependents and that the current situation in Italy for asylum seekers could in no way be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment. The structure and overall situation of the reception arrangements in Italy could not therefore in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country.

Court confirms: payment of compensation to torture victim does not constitute a sufficient remedy without effective investigation
The case of Razzakov v. Russia (application no. 57519/09) concerned the complaint of a man suspected of having committed an offence that he was tortured in police custody to make him confess to a murder.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights, both on account of Mr Razzakov’s ill-treatment in police custody and on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation.
At the same time, the Court declared inadmissible Mr Razzakov’s complaint under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), as he had been awarded compensation for damages sustained as a result of his unlawful detention.
The Court found that Mr Razzakov’s ill-treatment by the police had amounted to torture. Given that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his ill-treatment and to prosecute those responsible, Mr Razzakov could still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3, even though he had been awarded compensation.