I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in TOPAL v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-06-14
  • Communication date: 2020-09-28
  • Application number(s): 61504/10
  • Country:   RUS
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 2, 2-1, 3, 13
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)
    Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
    Article 8-1 - Respect for home)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.527182
  • Prediction: No violation
  • Inconsistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

Applicants Ms Olga and Natalya Topal (no.
61504/10), Ms Radchenko (no.
60246/11) and Ms Shaposhnikova (no.
9247/15) complain under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that their relatives were ill-treated and killed by State officials while in custody and that there was no effective investigation in that regard.
Mr Zaytsev and Mr Krysyuk complain under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that they were subjected to ill-treatment by State officials and that the State failed to conduct an effective domestic investigation into those incidents.
The relevant details regarding the applicants’ allegations and their version of factual circumstances are reflected in the attached appendices.
The information regarding the alleged breach of the substantive aspects of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention is contained in Appendix No.
1.
The reaction of the domestic authorities to the applicants’ complaints is reflected in Appendix No.
2.
Mr Krysyuk also complains under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention that his correspondence with the Court was inspected by the staff of the temporary detention facility, in particular, that the Registry’s letter of 5 September 2012 addressed to the applicant had been opened and stamped.
His complaints to the courts were dismissed as unfounded.
Table of cases: No.
Case name Application no.
Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Diseased person in respect of whom the applicant complains Affiliation with the applicant Represented by 1.
Topal v. Russia 61504/10 19/10/2010 Olga Zakharovna TOPAL 1956 Chishinau Moldovan Natalya Savelyevna TOPAL 1984 Kazakliya Moldovan Mr Sergey TOPAL The applicants’ son and brother Grigor AVETISYAN 2.
Radchenko v. Russia 60246/11 21/09/2011 Marina Rudolfovna RADCHENKO Chelyabinsk Russian Mr Andrey RADCHENKO The applicant’s husband Nadezhda Viktorovna YERMOLAYEVA 3.
Zaytsev v. Russia 62510/12 20/09/2012 Ivan Nikolayevich ZAYTSEV 1985 Moscow Russian - Karinna Akopovna MOSKALENKO 4.
Krysyuk v. Russia 75186/11 04/03/2013 Aleksandr Viktorovich KRYSYUK 1971 Sharypovo Russian - - 5.
Shaposhnikova v. Russia 9247/15 12/02/2015 Yelena Sergeyevna SHAPOSHNIKOVA 1976 Kovernino Russian Mr Evgeniy SHAPOSHNIKOV The applicant’s husband Yekaterina VANSLOVA QUESTIONS Applications: Topal v. Russia (no.
61504/10) Radchenko v. Russia (no.
60246/11) Shaposhnikova v. Russia (no.
9247/15) 1.
Have the applicants’ relatives’ (Mr Topal, Mr Radchenko and Mr Shaposhnikov) rights, guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, been violated?
In particular, did their deaths result from ill-treatment by State officials?
2.
Was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the alleged ill‐treatment and death of the applicants’ relatives in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.
21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no.
26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000‐IV)?
Applications: Zaytsev v. Russia (no.
62510/12) Krysyuk v. Russia (no.
75186/11) 1. a) Having regard to the injuries found on the applicants after the time spent by them in State custody, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Razzakov v. Russia, no.
57519/09, 5 February 2015, and Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no.
52783/08, 11 October 2016)?
b) Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants’ injuries were caused (see Salman, cited above, § 100, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.
23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?
c) Did the authorities carry out an effective investigation, in compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no.
46956/09, §§ 125-40, 24 July 2014)?
2.
Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC

Judgment