ECtHR Cases January–March 2021
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/20322844211012917 |
| Author | Ben Wild |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | ECHR Update |
ECtHR Update
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2021, Vol. 12(2) 298–316
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844211012917
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
ECtHR Cases January–March
2021
Ben Wild
Crown Prosecution Service, UK
Article 2
Laptev v. Russia (no. 36480/13)
The applicant, Oleg Anatolyevich Laptev, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in
the village of Yubileynyy, in the Medvedovskiy District of the Republic of Mariy El (Russia). The
case concerned the applicant’s complaints about the events surrounding the death of his brother in
custody and the quality of the subsequent domestic investigation into the matter.
On 4 January 2011, the applicant’s brother, Sergey Laptev, who at the time worked as a po-
liceman, was arrested on suspicion of rape and detained in a temporary detention centre pending
criminal proceedings. He was placed in a cell with Ch., an undercover police agent who was posing
as a suspect in another criminal case. According to the applicant, Ch. may have had the task of
convincing or coercing his brother to confess.
The applicant also alleges that on 5 January, when Sergey Laptev had two interviews with an
investigator, one of which was conducted in the presence of his lawyer, he complained of the
pressure exerted on him by the police to make him confess, including the threat that they would
arrange for him to be raped by other inmates. At 6.40 a.m. on 6 January, Sergey Laptev was found
dead in his cell by three guards. The autopsy report compiled on the same day established me-
chanical asphyxiation as the cause of death. On 7 January, the detention centre, acting of its own
motion, conducted an internal investigation into the death. Camera footage showed that no guards
had been present between 3.19 a.m. and 6.10 a.m. on the night of 6 January. Various measures were
taken against the guards and their superiors for this breach of security. In parallel, a preliminary
inquiry into the events, instituted by a local branch of the Investigative Committee of Russia,
concluded on 4 July 2011 that Sergey Laptev’s death had been suicide and that the injuries detected
on his body during the autopsy had resulted from a proportionate use of physical force during his
arrest. The applicant appealed against that decision in court, pointing to various inconsistencies in
the statements of the officials and the conclusions and deploring the decision’s overall poor quality.
On 19 April 2012, the Yoshkar Ola Town Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the
decision of 4 July 2011. The Yoshkar Ola Supreme Court confirmed the Town Court’s decision on
appeal. Ultimately, however, the investigation into the events was recommenced, leading to the
version of events set out in the decision of 4 July 2011. The authorities admitted shortcomings in the
supervision of Sergey Laptev, notably in respect of the security breach, but dismissed any alle-
gations of exerting pressure on him and insisted that his death had been suicide and had been
unrelated to these shortcomings. The investigation was discontinued on 25 October 2012. That
decision was upheld by the Town Court of Yoshkar Ola at first instance and on appeal.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicant complained that the State had
failed to protect the deceased’s life and that the ensuing investigation into his death had not been
effective.
Outcome
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Just satisfaction. EUR 23,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3430 (costs and expenses)
Kotenok v. Russia (application no. 50636/11)
The applicants, Galina Kotenok, Irina Kotenok, and Andrey Kotenok, are Russian nationals who
were born in 1965, 1991, and 1988 respectively. They live in Naberezhnye Chelny, Republic of
Tatarstan (Russia). The case concerned the death of a close relative of the applicants in a police
station cell.
In March 2009 V.K., the first applicant’s former husband and father of the other two applicants,
caused a scene at home while in a drunken state. The second applicant called the police, who took
V.K. to the police station, where he was put in a cell for holding administrative offenders. Abou t
half-an-hour later he was found dead on the floor with elastic from his trousers tied around his neck.
The authorities conducted an investigation, which led to a discontinuance decision in March 2011.
They considered that they had no information to suggest that any offences of murder, violence or
incitement to suicide had been committed. The applicants also brought a civil action to claim
compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which they claimed they had sustained. The action was
dismissed in June 2010 as manifestly ill-founded.
Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
the applicants submitted that the Russian authorities had failed to take all the requisite action to
protect V.K.’s life and that the investigation conducted after his death had been ineffective.
Outcome
No violation of Article 2
Gasangusenov v. Russia (application no. 78019/17)
The case concerned the killing of the applicant’s two sons, who worked as shepherds, during
a special operation carried out by State agents in August 2016 in Goor-Khindakh, Dage stan
(Russia). It also concerned the ensuing investigation.
On the evening of 23 August 2016, Gasangusen and Nabi Gasangusenov did not return home for
dinner as planned. Early the following morning, their bodies were found about 1 km from the
village. The official information issued by the police in the early hours of 24 August 2016 stated that
during a special operation in the late evening of 23 August shots had been fired at law-enforcement
officers and the criminals had been killed in the return fire. On the same day, a criminal case was
Wild 299
To continue reading
Request your trial