TRAPEZNIKOVA v.

RUSSIA

Session 2015-2020

SUBJECT – INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

SUBMITTED BY :- SUBMITTED TO :-

GAURAV PRAKASH Dr. SUGANDHA SINHA

ROLL. No. 1020

B.B.A. LLB. (Hons.)

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

MITHAPUR ,PATNA

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………..…………………………………………………...(3)

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE……..………………………………………………….(3)

A. SERGEI ANTONOV’S DETENTION IN A CORRECTIONAL COLONY AND DEATH

B. INQUIRY INTO MR ANTONOV’S DEATH

THE RELEVANT LAWS USED IN THE CASE……………………………………………..…….(4)

A. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

B. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………...….(14)

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………….…...(15)

2
 INTRODUCTION

The case originated in an application (no. 21539/02) against the Russian Federation lodged
with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Ms Lyudmila Andreyevna
Trapeznikova (“the applicant”), on 6 May 2002. The applicants, who had been granted legal
aid, were represented by Mr E. Markov, a lawyer admitted to practise in the Odessa Region,
Ukraine. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr G. Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of
Human Rights. The applicants alleged that the Russian authorities had failed to protect their
relative’s life and that the ensuing investigation into his death had not been effective. On 23
October 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. The applicant alleged,
in particular, that the State had failed to discharge its positive obligation to secure her
husband’s life and that the investigation into his death had been ineffective. She also
complained about the destruction of her property during the military actions in the Chechen
Republic, the unfairness of the proceedings for compensation and the delayed enforcement of
her court award. The applicant relied on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. The applicants, Ms Natalya Borisovna Trapeznikova, Ms Yuliya Sergeyevna
Trapeznikova and Ms Anastasiya Sergeyevna Antonova, are Russian nationals who were
born in 1969, 1985 and 2004 respectively and live in Novosibirsk. The applicants are
members of the family of Mr Sergei Antonov.

3
 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Sergei Antonov’s detention in a correctional colony and death

On 1 June 2006 Mr Antonov started serving a three-year prison sentence in correctional

colony no. IK-8 in the Novosibirsk Region. When examined by a doctor on 5 June 2006, he
stated that following a cranio-cerebral injury he had been under psychiatric supervision since
1996 and that he had been suffering from drug addiction since 2004. On 4 May 2006 Mr
Antonov had swallowed several metal objects, including a spoon, and had cut himself on his
stomach. On 5 May 2006 he had been taken to hospital and had been treated until 19 May
2006. On 20 July 2007 Mr Antonov was transferred to disciplinary cell no. 14 for smoking
outside the designated area. On 22 July 2007 he complained of a headache and of feeling ill.
At 7.10 p.m. Doctor M. examined Mr Antonov, noted that he had high blood pressure and
gave him an injection. On the doctor’s recommendation, Mr Antonov was transferred to
another cell in the disciplinary section, where he was detained alone. As requested by the
doctor, he was provided with bed linen. Doctor M. examined Mr Antonov again at 9.25 p.m.
and noted that his condition had improved. At 9.40 p.m. the cell where Mr Antonov was held
was locked and the alarm system was turned on. The guards in charge of the disciplinary cells
observed Mr Antonov at 1.06 a.m. on 23 July 2007 through a peephole in the cell door. He
was lying on his bed. During the next round of visits at 1.30 a.m. the guards saw Mr
Antonov, hanging. They reported this to the duty officer. After entering the cell, the officers
discovered Mr Antonov hanging by a ligature fashioned out of a bed sheet. They cut the rope
and put his body on the floor. Doctor M. examined Mr Antonov’s body and noted no injuries
apart from the ligature mark on his neck. According to the death certificate, Mr Antonov died
on 22 July 2007. According to an autopsy conducted on 24 July 2007, the cause of death was
asphyxiation by hanging. The expert decided against conducting a histological examination
given that he had no doubts about the cause of Mr Antonov’s death.

B. Inquiry into Mr Antonov’s death

On an unspecified date the acting head of the correctional colony conducted an internal
inquiry. He established that despite Mr Antonov’s condition the administration of the
correctional colony had not provided him with any psychiatric supervision or treatment. It
had been obvious from Mr Antonov’s case file that he had had suicidal tendencies.On 28 July
2007 the deputy city prosecutor K. refused to institute a criminal investigation into Mr

4
Antonov’s death. The investigator based his decision on the reports filed by Doctor M. and
the officers who had discovered Mr Antonov’s body, the report on the inspection of the cell
where Mr Antonov had been found and on his body, and on his medical file. He also
questioned prisoners Bel., F. and Ber. who had been detained with the deceased in cell no. 14,
where he had been held prior to his removal to a cell where he was found. They submitted
that they had not had any conflicts with him. On 31 July 2007 the first applicant asked the
regional prosecutor to institute a criminal investigation into Mr Antonov’s death. Referring to
the numerous injuries on Mr Antonov’s body, she challenged the official version that he had
committed suicide by hanging himself. On 22 August 2007 the city prosecutor P. quashed the
decision of 28 July 2007 and ordered a further inquiry into the circumstances of Mr
Antonov’s death. Referring to the first applicant’s complaint, he considered it necessary to
determine the existence and origin of the injuries on Mr Antonov’s body. On 28 August 2007
deputy city prosecutor K. refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr Antonov’s death.
The prosecutor again questioned F., Ber. and Bel., who had been detained with Mr Antonov
in cell no. 14 on 22 July 2007. They submitted that it had been very stuffy in the cell and that
at around 4 p.m. Mr Antonov had complained of a headache. He had been sitting at the table,
had stood up and had then fallen down, hitting his head against the table. They had not
noticed any injuries on Mr Antonov. The prosecutor concluded that Mr Antonov had
committed suicide by hanging himself. On 13 September 2007 the first applicant appealed
against the decision of 28 August 2007. On 23 September 2007 the deputy regional
prosecutor A. quashed the decision of 28 August 2007 and ordered a further inquiry. He
noted that it was necessary to obtain information concerning Mr Antonov’s health, to
determine whether the medical assistance provided to him had been sufficient and prompt
and to establish whether it had been known that Mr Antonov had intended to commit suicide.
The prosecutor also ordered the noose used by Mr Antonov to be found and for it to be
examined. Lastly, the prosecutor noted that the inquiry had failed to take into account the
injuries on Mr Antonov’s head and that it was necessary to determine their origin and
whether they had had any connection with his death. On 18 October 2007 investigator Fom.
refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr Antonov’s death, repeating verbatim the
findings of the previous inquiry. On 29 October 2008 a supervising prosecutor quashed the
decision of 18 October 2007 as premature and unsubstantiated. On 18 January 2008 the first
deputy head of the regional investigative committee quashed the decision of 8 November
2007 and ordered a further inquiry, noting that the prosecutor’s instructions of 23 September
2007 had not been followed. On 1 February 2008 investigator Am. refused to institute

5
criminal proceedings. Relying on the materials of the previous inquiries, the investigator
confirmed the earlier finding that Mr Antonov had committed suicide. The investigator could
not establish the cause and time of the injuries on Mr Antonov’s body, but he noted that they
were not related to his death. On 16 September 2008 the head of the regional investigative
committee quashed the decision of 1 February 2008. On 30 September 2008 investigator V.
again refused to open a criminal investigation, relying on the earlier findings. On 13 October
2008 that decision was quashed on the grounds of the incompleteness of the inquiry. The
investigating authorities subsequently refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr
Antonov’s death on 25 October 2008 and 2 January 2009. On 8 December 2008 and 12
January 2009 respectively the supervising prosecutor quashed those decisions and ordered a
further inquiry into the matter, noting each time that the inquiry had been incomplete and the
findings contradictory. In particular, on 8 December 2008, the regional prosecutor noted that
the reports of 23 July 2007 and 23 October 2008 concerning the inspection of the cell where
Mr Antonov had been found had given different and mutually contradictory descriptions of
the layout of the cell. On an unspecified date a senior investigator, S., started another inquiry
in response to the first applicant’s complaint. The investigator questioned the correctional
colony officers who had been on duty on 22 July to 23 July 2007 and had seen or observed
Mr Antonov on those days. She also saw Ozh., the prison psychiatrist, and a drug counsellor,
Kot. Ozh. stated that he had never seen Mr Antonov or prescribed him any psychiatric
supervision or treatment. After studying Mr Antonov’s medical file, the investigator
established that he had a history of drug addiction, one instance of self-harming and had
undergone treatment in a psychiatric institution prior to his incarceration. The investigator
noted that the cell where Mr Antonov had been found dead had been mistakenly indicated in
the inquiry case file as no. 38 and conducted an examination of cell no. 00. On 11 February
2009 the investigator talked to the forensic expert Ch., who submitted that his superior had
advised him against making any written statements about the autopsy. If necessary, the
investigator could question him as a witness within the framework of the criminal
proceedings. On 13 February 2009 S. concluded that Mr Antonov had committed suicide and
refused to open a criminal investigation into his death. She also considered that the injuries
found on Mr Antonov’s head had resulted from convulsions which had caused his body to
repeatedly strike against a metal grill. The senior investigator’s decision was subjected to
judicial review at two levels of jurisdiction. On 11 March and 27 April 2009 the Dzerzhinskiy
District Court of Novosibirsk and the Novosibirsk Regional Court respectively upheld the
investigator’s findings on Mr Antonov’s death.

6
 THE RELEVANT LAWS USED IN THE CASE

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION

The applicants complained that the Russian authorities had failed to protect Mr Antonov’s
life and that the ensuing investigation into his death had not been effective. They relied on
Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:
Article 2- “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his
life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a
crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
Article 13-“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Government contested that argument. In their opinion, the application did not disclose a
violation of Article 2. The Russian authorities had conducted a thorough investigation into
Mr Antonov’s death and had established that he had committed suicide. There had also not
been a violation of the applicants’ rights set out in Article 13 of the Convention. Their
complaints in connection with the investigation into Mr Antonov’s death had been thoroughly
examined by the authorities. The applicants argued that the Russian authorities had failed to
establish the circumstances of Mr Antonov’s death and, as a result, had not fulfilled the
obligations imposed on them by Article 2. In their opinion, there had been sufficient evidence
to show that Mr Antonov had not hanged himself and that he had been killed by unidentified
perpetrators. In particular, the forensic medical expert had documented several injuries on Mr
Antonov’s body. The Government had not provided any explanation as to their origin. The
official date of Mr Antonov’s death had been different from the one indicated in the course of
the authorities’ inquiry. There had been no official records confirming that Mr Antonov had
been provided with the bed linen that he had allegedly used to hang himself. It had not been
established with certainty in which cell Mr Antonov had been held at the time of his death. In
any event, the applicants considered that the authorities, having been aware of Mr Antonov’s
unstable condition, had failed to take all reasonable measures in order to secure his life. He
had been left in a cell alone without any supervision or medical aid. The applicants further
argued that the investigation conducted by the authorities had not met the minimum standards

7
of effectiveness and had been in breach of Article 2 of the Convention. The investigation had
not been speedy or effective. The initial inquiry had been perfunctory. Subsequently, the
prosecutor had quashed refusals to open a criminal investigation into Mr Antonov’s death on
nine occasions, stating each time that the inquiry had been incomplete or that the dismissal of
the case had been premature. At no time had an official criminal investigation been instituted.
The evidence had not been secured effectively immediately after Mr Antonov’s death and
with the lapse of time it had become virtually impossible to establish what had really
happened. The applicants had been unable to participate in the investigation. They had been
repeatedly denied access to the case file. Lastly, the applicants submitted that they had not
had at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their grievances under Article
2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention.
A. Admissibility
The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Article 2 of the Convention
The general principles as regards the State’s positive obligation enshrined in Article 2 of the
Convention are well-established in the Court’s case law and have been recently summarised
in the case of Fanziyeva1.
(a) Alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation into Mr Antonov’s death
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural
limb on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr
Antonov’s death.
b) Alleged breach of Mr Antonov’s right to life
The Court observes that the factual circumstances surrounding Mr Antonov’s death are
disputed by the parties. The applicants stated that Mr Antonov might have been killed, while
the Government asserted that he had committed suicide by hanging himself. However, this
finding does not absolve the respondent State from responsibility for Mr Antonov’s death. It
is incumbent on the Court to ascertain whether the authorities knew or ought to have known

1 Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, §§ 46-51, 18 June 2015.

8
that there was a real and immediate risk of his committing suicide and, if so, whether they did
all that could reasonably have been expected of them to guard against that risk2.
In the Court’s view, given the circumstances, the failure on the part of the authorities to take
any measures in order to ensure that Mr Antonov was properly examined and treated resulted
in his death. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its
substantive limb on account of the authorities’ failure to safeguard Mr Antonov’s right to life.
2. Article 13 of the Convention
43. Regard being had to the findings under Article 2 (see paragraphs 34-42 above), the Court
considers that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention.3

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto,
and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation
to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The applicants claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The
Government considered the applicant’s claims excessive.
The Court considers that the applicants must have suffered anguish and distress as a result of
the circumstances of their relative’s death and their inability to obtain an effective
investigation into the matter. In those circumstances, the Court finds it reasonable to award
the applicants EUR 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The applicants also claimed EUR 4,550 for the costs and expenses incurred before the
domestic courts and the Court. In particular, they claimed EUR 1,500 for the national
lawyer’s fee, postal expenses, photocopying, and international phone calls; EUR 3,000 for the
fee for their representative before the Court, to be paid into his bank account; and EUR 50 for
his postal, telephone, photocopying and other office expenses.
The Government did not dispute the applicants’ claim in respect of the legal fees incurred in
the domestic proceedings. They pointed out that the applicants had failed to substantiate the

2Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 89 and 92, ECHR 2001-III
3Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 123, ECHR
2005-VII

9
remaining expenses incurred at the national level. As regards the fee claimed by the
applicant’s representative before the Court, the Government considered it excessive and, in
any event, not necessary.
According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and
expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily
incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the
documents in its possession, the above criteria and to the fact that legal aid has been paid to
the applicants, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3,086 covering
costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on that amount, in
addition to the sum paid by way of legal aid. EUR 930 of this is to be paid directly to the
applicants and EUR 2,156 into the bank account of the applicants’ representative.
C. Default interest
The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the
marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three
percentage points.

10
 CONCLUSION

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

Declares the application admissible;

Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb
on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Antonov’s
death;

Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its substantive limb
on account of the State’s failure to safeguard Mr Antonov’s right to life;

Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention;

Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the
following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 26,000 (twenty-six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect
of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,086 (three thousand and eighty-six euros) plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses. EUR 930 of this is to be paid directly to the
applicants and EUR 2,156 to their representative;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest
shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-168931"]}

12