Communicated on 20 November 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 61655/11
Viktor Aleksandrovich PANOV
against Russia
lodged on 14 September 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Viktor Aleksandrovich Panov, is a Russian national,
who was born in 1977 and lived before his arrest in Saratov. He is currently
serving a prison sentence in correctional colony IK-4, Saratov region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised
as follows.
A. The alleged ill-treatment
The applicant is a deaf-mute. In July 2009 he was convicted of murder
and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment.
On 20 November 2009 the applicant arrived at correctional colony IK-10
(“the colony”) in the Saratov region to serve his sentence. He alleges that on
20 and 21 November 2009 other convicts and colony officers beat him up.
He provided the following description of those events.
1. Events of 20 November 2009
Upon his arrival to the colony the applicant underwent a special
procedure for newly arrived convicts. Then two colony officers and two
convicts (convict A. and unidentified convict) accompanied the applicant
and other newly arrived prisoners to the quarantine unit.
The applicant alleges that the two convicts started beating him on his
back to make him enter the quarantine unit. Once in the unit, two other
convicts (convict Kh. and unidentified convict) started beating him again
and ordered him to go to the lavatory. Convict Kh. told him to put his hand
into the toilet pan and clean the floor in the lavatory. The applicant refused
to do so. Convict A. and the convict who was the head of the colony unit of
discipline and order started beating up the applicant. They were kicking and
hitting his head and body until he fell down. Then they tied up his legs and
2
PANOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
started beating him again. They tried to take off his trousers in order to rape
him, but he managed to escape. A colony officer was watching the scene
and was laughing. The convicts continued beating the applicant and tried to
put his head into the toilet pan. They were beating him until he lost
conscience. Each time when the applicant lost conscience they poured water
on him and continued beating him.
After those beatings the applicant complained of heart pain. Convicts put
him into a chair and called a doctor. The doctor measured his blood pressure
and examined his eyes and face. She did not record the bruises which he had
on his body and did not place him in the prison hospital.
2. Events of 21 November 2009
On the next day the applicant suffered from very strong pain. He refused
to clean the floor in the dormitory and asked to be examined by a doctor.
Convict Kh. threatened him with beatings. The applicant then broke up the
window and threatened Kh. with a shard of glass. Three colony officers
came over and started beating the applicant for his refusal to clean the floor.
They were kicking and hitting him until he lost conscience. When the
applicant regained conscience, he no longer felt his right leg. In the evening
the applicant was examined by a doctor who recorded two bruises on his
face, abrasions and a dark spot on his body.
Among the persons who had beaten him up on 21 November 2009 the
applicant identified colony officer V.
3. Subsequent events
On 22 November 2009 the head of the colony asked the applicant about
his bruises and why he had broken the window in the dormitory. The
applicant replied that everything was in order and apologized for the broken
window. Immediately afterwards the applicant was put into a punishment
cell. In the evening the applicant was examined by a doctor who gave him a
medicine against high blood pressure.
On 23 and 24 November 2009 the doctor again examined the applicant
and measured his pressure. However, despite the applicant’s requests she
refused to record the bruises on his body.
The applicant alleges that on 16 December 2009 the administration of the
colony forced him to write a so-called “explanation” whereby he had no
complaints regarding his stay in the colony.
On 16 January 2010 the applicant was transferred to serve his sentence to
correctional colony IK-4 in Saratov region.
B. The applicant’s attempts to have criminal proceedings instituted
against the colony staff and the convicts who had allegedly illtreated him
On 23 November 2010 the applicant’s mother complained to the General
Prosecutor’s office of her son’s ill-treatment in the colony. On 4 April 2011
that complaint was forwarded to the Saratov regional department of the
Investigating Committee.
PANOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
3
On 18 April 2011 the investigator with the Investigating Committee
refused to initiate criminal proceedings. It appears that the applicant was not
provided with a copy of that decision.
On 7 July 2011 the head of the investigation department quashed that
decision and remitted the matter for additional investigation.
Thereafter the applicant’s request to initiate criminal proceedings was
repeatedly rejected and re-examined. The respective decisions refusing to
initiate criminal proceedings were taken on 18 July, 16 September and
26 October 2011, 28 March and 27 April 2012.
In June 2012 the applicant’s mother complained to the Investigating
Committee of the Russian Federation about ineffectiveness of the
investigation into her complaints. She also provided contact details of five
fellow prisoners of her son who allegedly had been witnesses of the illtreatment inflicted on her son in the colony.
On 25 September 2012 the applicant’s mother complained about the
beatings inflicted on her son to the Department of Interior of Saratov.
On 3 October 2012 the investigator with the Department of Interior
refused to initiate criminal proceedings into her complaint. The decision
stated that according to the testimony of D. who had served his sentence
together with the applicant in the colony in 2009, he had seen traces of
beatings on the applicant’s face and body. The decision further stated that
the verification had established that the applicant had received injuries in
the colony under unknown circumstances.
On 8 October 2012 the prosecutor’s office quashed that decision and
remitted the matter for additional investigation.
On 22 November 2012 the applicant’s mother complained to the General
Prosecutor’s Office that the investigation into her and her son’s complaints
about the ill-treatment in the colony had not been effective. She indicated, in
particular, that her son had not been duly notified of the decisions taken in
respect of his complaints and had not been provided with their copies,
which deprived him of the possibility to challenge those decisions in court.
On 26 June 2013 the investigator with the Department of Interior again
refused to initiate criminal proceedings.
C. The applicant’s complaints to the court
On 3 December 2012 the applicant’s mother complained to the
Zavodskoy District Court (“the District Court”), Saratov, about the
authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into her complaints
of ill-treatment. She also submitted that her son had not been duly notified
of the decisions taken in respect of his complaints and had not been
provided with their copies, which deprived him of the possibility to
challenge those decisions in court.
On 10 December 2012 the District Court held that the complaint had to
be returned to the applicant’s mother for correction since she had not
indicated which actions or decisions she had challenged before the District
Court and where the events complained of had taken place.
On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother re-submitted her complaint
to the District Court and indicated that the events had taken place in the
Leninskiy District of Saratov.
4
PANOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
On 8 May 2013 the District Court held that it had no jurisdiction to
examine that complaint.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on
20 and 21 November 2009 he was beaten up by fellow convicts and colony
officers in colony IK-10 (Saratov region). He also complains that the
authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaints
about those beatings.
PANOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS
5
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the applicant’s submissions that he was ill-treated on
20 and 21 November 2009 by staff and other convicts of colony IK-10
(Saratov), was the applicant subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Have the authorities fulfilled their positive obligation to ensure that
the applicant’s physical and psychological integrity and well-being are
being adequately secured during his stay in colony IK-10 as required by
Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities
into the applicant’s allegations concerning the events of 20 and
21 November 2009 effective, as required by Article 3 of the Convention?
The Government are required to provide copies of the following documents:
- the complete investigation file pertaining to the events of 20 and
21 November 2009,
- a typed copy of the applicant’s medical history covering the period from
20 November 2009 to 16 January 2010, including the medical records made
by the prison doctor on 20 – 24 November 2009.