Lopata v Russia

Lopata v Russia (72250/01)

The applicant is a national of Kazakhstan who lived, until his arrest, in the village of Akliun in the Bashkortostan Republic of the Russian Federation. He is now serving a prison sentence in Ufa.

On 3 August 2000, the applicant was arrested, along with several other village residents, and taken to the Uchaly police station. He was allegedly beaten and pressed to confess to the murder of a certain Mr. D. in the village of Akhunovo. The applicant did not confess and was held in detention for fourteen days. The legal basis for his detention remains unclear.

On 5 September 2000, the applicant was again arrested and taken to Uchaly police station. On the same day he was questioned by a number of police who, throughout the questioning, put pressure on him to confess to the murder of D. On 6 December 2000, the applicant retained legal aid counsel to represent him and on 6 and 7 September 2000 his counsel visited him in custody.

On 8 September 2000, at about 3 p.m., the applicant was pressured to write a confession statement and was promised in return that the offence would be classified as involuntary manslaughter rather than murder. The applicant refused to admit his guilt or make any statements to that effect.

The officers then started beating the applicant, hitting his heat against the wall, twisting his arms, punching his neck and kicking him in the groin. The beatings alternated with admonitions to confess his guilt.

At about 9 p.m. the applicant was taken from his cell to an office and shown a confession statement written by someone else. He too was ordered to confess. After he again refused, police officers switched on the television and started punching him in the face and kicking his ankles. This lasted for approximately twenty minutes until one of the officers, using the remote control unit, set the television to switch on again in one hour. This signaled an hour long pause in the beatings. The applicant was handcuffed and taken back to his cell.

An hour later, the applicant was again taken to the office. He again refused to write a confession. The officer took a truncheon out of a cupboard, pulled the applicant's trousers down and threatened to rape the applicant with a truncheon. When the applicant bent down to pull his trousers up, he received a series of truncheon blows to his head, back and legs. He fell and broke his lip against the cupboard. After a series of punches and kicks, the officers set the timer for another hour and placed the applicant back in his cell.

When the applicant was brought back again, the officers were drinking beer and asked the applicant to join them. The applicant had a drink and was sent back to his cell to think about his admission.

Subsequently, the applicant was taken several times out of his cell and brought to different offices where the officers took it in turns to torture him in various ways. The applicant's handcuffed hands were twisted so that he strangled himself and he received hard blows to his left ear.

At about 5 a.m. on 9 September 2000, police officers escorted the applicant to the investigator's office and told him to write down what he had been doing on 29 July 2000. The applicant was doing so when the officers took the view that he had done something wrong, stuffed the "spoiled" sheet of paper in his mouth and started torturing him by twisting his member in all directions.

Finally, the applicant yielded and wrote a confession statement along the lines described to him during his first interrogation on 5 September 2000. The officers read the statement and continued to beat him to get a more detailed account. In essence, the applicant's confession stated that on 30 July 2000, at about 1.30 a.m. he had gone out to look for his daughter and discovered her having sex with a man. He had taken a log and hit the man on the head. At about 6.30 a.m., the applicant was escorted to his cell.

On the same day (9 September 2000) at 11 a.m., the applicant was woken and told that he would be transported to a detention facility in Ufa. He objected to the trip, his right ear was blocked and his left ear oozed blood. At about 4 p.m. an investigator asked him if he was ready to testify. The applicant refused to speak in the absence of his lawyer. His lawyer was sent for and according to the applicant, his lawyer was able to see a bruise under the applicant's left eye and his swollen lip.

The applicant was convicted of the offence based on the allegedly voluntary confession of guilt. The applicant alleges that his rights under Article 3 of the Convention were violated by the torture employed against him.. He also complains of violations of Article 5 in relation to his detention and conviction and Articles 6(1) and 6(3) in relation to the absence of a fair hearing and the application of torture in order to extract a confession.

On 3 May 2005 the European Court of Human Rights declared the case admissible in relation to the alleged ill-treatment by the police and the unfairness of the trial. It also decided to pursue the examination of the allegation that the Government failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention. The Court declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.

11 July 2005

Click here for the admissibility decision:

Lopata_admiss

The above admissibility decision is taken from the website of the European Court of Human Rights http://www.echr.coe.int/ and can be accessed via HUDOC on the court's website: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/default.htm

The Court's case-law is also collated in Reports of Judgments and Decisions, published by Carl Heymanns Verlag KG.