Here’s a breakdown of the ECHR judgment in the case of Kulyamina and Others v. Russia:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of multiple applicants who alleged torture or inhuman and degrading treatment by State officials. The Court found that Russian authorities failed to conduct effective investigations into these allegations. Additionally, in one case (Frenkel), the Court found a violation related to restrictions on freedom of expression, specifically concerning interference with journalistic activities. The Court ordered Russia to pay compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
* **Article 3 Violation:** The Court addressed complaints of ill-treatment by State officials and the lack of effective investigations. It referenced its established case law, emphasizing the State’s duty to protect individuals in custody and the importance of investigating allegations of ill-treatment. The Court found violations of both the substantive (the ill-treatment itself) and procedural (failure to investigate) aspects of Article 3.
* **Other Violations:** In the case of applicant Frenkel, the Court found additional violations related to restrictions on freedom of expression, citing interference with journalistic activities.
* **Article 41 Application:** The Court considered just satisfaction and awarded monetary compensation to the applicants, dismissing the remainder of their claims.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Burden of Proof:** The judgment reinforces that when individuals allege ill-treatment while under the control of the police or similar authority, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the use of force was not excessive.
* **Duty to Investigate:** The decision highlights the State’s obligation to conduct thorough criminal investigations into credible allegations of ill-treatment, including assessing the necessity and proportionality of any force used by law enforcement.
* **Freedom of Expression:** The judgment underscores that actions by authorities that interfere with journalistic activities can constitute a violation of freedom of expression, particularly when the use of force is deemed unlawful and disproportionate.
**** The decision is related to Russia, but the principles and standards articulated in the judgment regarding ill-treatment, investigations, and freedom of expression are relevant to all member states of the Council of Europe and can be used in cases involving similar issues.
