Mikheyev v Russia (third party intervention)
Aleksey Mikheyev, a Russian traffic police officer, was detained and tortured by police in September 1998 during a murder inquiry.
CASE BACKGROUND
In September 1998, traffic-police officer Aleksey Mikheyev was detained in Nizhniy Novgorod during a murder inquiry. While under interrogation at Leninskiy police station, police applied electric shocks to his ears to extract a confession. Whilst left briefly unattended, he tried to escape by jumping from a second-floor window, and sustained a broken spine which rendered him a paraplegic.
Mikheyev’s torture complaint was met by a stop-start inquiry, which was repeatedly discontinued and reopened over several years before charges were finally brought against two officers in 2005 for ill-treating him. Mikheyev commenced a Strasbourg application, which alleged torture and an ineffective investigation under Articles 3 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
INTERVENTION
REDRESS provided a Third Party Intervention in this case on 15 March 2005. In doing so, REDRESS advanced three propositions:
(1) under Article 3 ECHR (the prohibition of torture), Russia must conduct an ‘effective’ investigation into credible allegations of torture or ill-treatment, which means that the investigation must be prompt, independent and thorough;
(2) under Article 13, Russia must ensure effective remedies—including safeguards for people in detention to protect them from torture, and an effective investigation; and
(3) in the context of Articles 3, 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13, Russia must provide effective civil remedies capable of delivering adequate reparation to torture survivors.
REDRESS drew on European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), UN and Inter-American jurisprudence to specify what prompt, impartial, and thorough investigations should entail (including timely evidence-gathering, objective medical examinations, and independence from implicated police units) and why remedies must work in practice.
The intervention also argued that, in torture in custody cases, and contrary to the provisions of Russia’s Civil Code, the burden of proof should be on the State to disprove the allegations (rather than on the person making the allegations), and that survivors’ access to compensation must be independent of criminal outcomes.
OUTCOME
On 26 January 2006, the ECtHR unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 3, firstly, in that there had been ill-treatment serious enough to amount to torture, and secondly due to the ineffective investigation into the allegations. It also found that there had a been a violation of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy.
The Court awarded a total of EUR 250,000 in damages.
The Court’s reasoning closely aligned with the core submissions advanced by REDRESS. Notably, the Court endorsed the intervention’s emphasis on the State’s procedural obligations under Article 3, holding that investigations into credible allegations of torture must be prompt, independent and thorough, not merely in law, but in practice. In doing so, the Court criticised the stop-start nature of the investigation and the lack of institutional independence.
Consistent with REDRESS’ submissions, the Court affirmed that where an individual sustains serious injuries whilst in police custody, a strong presumption arises against the State, which bears the burden of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation. The absence of such an explanation in Mr Mikheyev’s case weighed heavily on the Court’s finding of torture.
Whilst the Court did not rule expressly on the independence of civil compensation in torture proceedings, in finding a violation of Article 13 and awarding substantial damages, the Court underscored that remedies must be effective in practice and capable of delivering meaningful reparation to survivors of torture.
The judgment can be found here and can be cited as follows: Mikheyev v Russia App no 77617/01 (ECHR, 26 January 2006)
QUICK FACTS
Case name: Mikheyev v Russia
Court/Body: European Court of Human Rights
Date intervention filed: 15 March 2005
Current status: Decision reached
Date of final decision: 26 January 2006
KEY WORDS
Burden of proof: In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim, and requires that party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts alleged.
