CASE OF SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , LOC .

The applicants are a married couple . They are the parents of PERSON PERSON , who was an economist and the author of a number of publications . At the time of the events he was DATE and suffering from a psychiatric disorder which required in - patient treatment .

On DATE the first applicant , having obtained a referral from GPE ’s ORG no . CARDINAL recommending in - patient treatment for PERSON , contacted the Nagatinskiy PERSON department of the interior ( “ the OVD ” ) and asked the police to assist with placing his son in a psychiatric hospital . He explained that PERSON was in a delirious state and was not letting anyone except the first applicant into his flat as he was afraid of burglars .

TIME and TIME on DATE the head of the ORG ordered police officer PERSON to forcibly place Mr PERSON in a hospital . Subsequently police officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP arrived at the residence of the applicants’ son . When PERSON PERSON opened the lobby door and saw the police officers , he immediately ran back to his flat and tried to close the door . He refused their orders to go to the ORG for transfer to a hospital . First , the police officers tried to remove his hand from the door knob so that he could not close the door . Mr PERSON threatened the police officers with a kitchen knife and wounded PERSON The police officers , who were wearing bullet - proof vests , hit him with rubber truncheons and other objects . Mr PERSON eventually ran to the kitchen and barricaded the door from the inside . The officers called the special police unit ( “ the ORG ” ) for support .

While in the kitchen , Mr PERSON called an ambulance and said that he needed help because he had been wounded . He also called the police , asking for help because he was being “ attacked by burglars ” . In the meantime , the ORG arrived . After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate with him , they decided to “ storm ” the kitchen . Mr PERSON ran to the balcony and cried for help while the police officers continued trying to apprehend him . When he fell on the balcony floor , they handcuffed him and put him on the kitchen floor . The first applicant , who had been ordered to stay in the lobby while the police forced an entry to the kitchen , was then allowed into the kitchen . He saw his son handcuffed and lying on the floor in a pool of blood .

Mr PERSON was taken to hospital no . CARDINAL with multiple wounds and in a coma . He died without regaining consciousness , having sustained craniocerebral trauma , brain oedema , concussion , and slash wounds to the head , body and extremities , several fractured ribs and a ruptured jugular vein .

On DATE the case file concerning the death of Mr PERSON was transmitted to the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office .

On DATE the investigating authorities ordered a forensic examination of Mr PERSON ’s body .

On DATE forensic report no . CARDINAL was issued . The experts made the following findings :

( CARDINAL ) The following injuries were found on Mr PERSON ’s body :

- open non - penetrating craniocerebral trauma : depressed fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones , fracture of the sphenoid and parietal bones , and the orbital part of the frontal bone ; sub - arachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the convex surface of the left frontal lobe and the surface of the right frontal lobe , haemorrhaging of the soft tissue and bruising of the left frontal parietal and temporal region ; bruising of the frontal region , bruising and abrasions of the right frontal region , and the top of the right eye socket ; haemorrhaging of the soft tissue of the parietal - temporal region on the right ;

- closed fractures of DATE ribs ;

- bruising of the right cheekbone ;

- bruising of the right and left shoulder joints , and the left shoulder , the surface of the right hip , the inside of the right knee joint , the front of the right and left shin , the front of the left hip ; bruising and abrasions of the left cheekbone and periotic - masticatory region , abrasions of the chin , intra - cutaneous haemorrhages of the chest , bruising and abrasions on the right forearm , right hand , and left arm ;

- a QUANTITY punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck ;

- multiple surface slash wounds on the right earlobe , left cheekbone and periotic - masticatory region , the lower jaw , chest , shoulders and hands .

( CARDINAL ) All the injuries were caused while Mr PERSON was alive , shortly before his admittance to hospital :

- the craniocerebral trauma was caused by multiple blows with hard blunt objects ;

- the rib fractures and the bruising of the right cheekbone , head , body and extremities were caused by blows , and the abrasions by scraping against a hard blunt object ( or objects ) ;

- the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck was caused by a sharp cutting object inflicted upwards from the front to the back and from left to right , assuming that PERSON PERSON was in a vertical position ;

- the multiple surface slash wounds were caused by a cutting object or objects ;

- forensic and spectral research of the soft tissue of the wounds to the head , neck and right hand did not reveal any micro splinters of glass or other foreign bodies . Emission spectral analysis showed an increased content of aluminium , lead and manganese in the skin of the head , which could have been caused by soiling . Other specimens of skin and soft tissue did not reveal an increased metal content ;

- after the injuries had been caused , PERSON PERSON was taken to hospital in a coma , incapable of any independent actions , including movement . The injuries could not have been caused as a result of falling from his height to a horizontal surface . In order to establish the possible location of the victim and the aggressor at the time when the injuries were caused , it was necessary to have access to the materials of the file .

( CARDINAL ) The open craniocerebral trauma and the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck which damaged a blood vessel combined to form a life - threatening trauma classified as grave health damage . The rib fractures were classified as health damage of medium gravity . As the bruises and abrasions were not accompanied by heavy bleeding and no blood vessels were damaged , they were not considered to constitute health damage .

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON ’s death at TIME on DATE was caused by the combined trauma , complicated by cerebral oedema and blood loss .

( CARDINAL ) There was a direct causal link between the craniocerebral trauma , the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck with a damaged blood vessel , and his death . There was no direct link between his death and the other injuries .

Forensic report no . DATE was supplemented by a chemical and histological analysis of his blood and soft tissue conducted on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office refused to institute a criminal investigation . It found that the police ORG actions disclosed no indication of an offence , since they had acted in an appropriate manner in a life - threatening situation .

On DATE the deputy of the Simonovskiy inter - district prosecutor set aside the decision and remitted the case file for further investigation . He held that the decision was unfounded since not all the the results of the forensic examination of the body and to question the doctor from ORG no . CARDINAL who had recommended in - patient treatment .

On DATE the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office instituted a criminal investigation under LAW ( murder committed in excess of necessary self - defence or in excess of measures required to arrest a person who has committed an offence ) and LAW ( abuse of official powers ) of LAW . The decision stated that , by storming the flat and using rubber truncheons , which led to PERSON PERSON ’s death , the police officers had clearly exceeded their authority . The case file was assigned no . DATE .

On DATE police officer NORP was questioned . According to his submissions , at TIME on DATE he and police officers PERSON and PERSON had been ordered to deliver a mentally - ill person to a hospital . They went to that person ’s place of residence together with the latter ’s father , the first applicant , who had given them oral permission to enter the flat . On arrival , they put on bullet - proof vests , and the first applicant rang at the lobby door . Mr PERSON walked to the door and asked who was there . The first applicant replied that it was him . Mr PERSON said that he would open the door and after a while began to open it . PERSON was standing at the door ; PERSON was behind him and NORP was standing to one side . When the door was opened , PERSON tried to enter but then shouted : “ Knife ! ” Mr PERSON ran to the door of his flat wielding a knife . He tried to close the door to his flat , but PERSON stopped him . PERSON PERSON then went to the kitchen and barricaded himself inside . NORP reported the events to the ORG and called an ambulance , which arrived in TIME ; PERSON was given first aid and taken to hospital . L. blocked the door so that PERSON PERSON could not leave the flat and harm anyone else , awaiting the arrival of the special police unit . When the special unit arrived , the regular police officers were asked to leave the lobby . D. could not identify the officers of the special police unit as they were all wearing uniforms and their faces were covered with masks . D. did not see what happened in the flat . He was ordered to return to the ORG .

On DATE police officer PERSON . of the special unit was questioned . He stated that on DATE he had been on duty . At TIME he received information that a mentally - ill person had wounded a police officer , barricaded himself in his kitchen and resisted involuntary placement in a hospital . Together with special unit police officers PERSON , D - n . and PERSON , he arrived at the address indicated at QUANTITY He stayed in the car while the head of the team , D - n . , went to find out what the situation was . TIME they were ordered to go up to the sixth floor , where D - n . told them that Mr PERSON had been threatening to kill them , saying that the kitchen door was electrified . Kh . heard Mr PERSON say that he had already knocked down one man and the same would happen to the others . PERSON . then understood that PERSON PERSON had realised that there were police officers in the flat . The CARDINAL of them were in the lobby discussing further actions when they heard a crash from the kitchen . The stained glass in the kitchen door had been broken and they were showered with shards of glass . Since the police officers were wearing bullet - proof vests , no one was hurt .

Through the kitchen door Kh . saw a bare - chested fair - haired man , DATE of medium build . His face and chest were covered with blood and he was holding QUANTITY long kitchen knives . The blades were covered with a brown substance that looked like blood . Kh . noticed that the man had “ mad eyes ” and was behaving strangely . The police officers of the special unit introduced themselves and asked PERSON PERSON to put down the knives and step out of the kitchen . Mr PERSON , who was very excited , refused and lunged at PERSON The officers were separated from the kitchen by a door , which had been blocked by furniture on the other side . PERSON tried to force open the door with his shield . Mr PERSON continued lunging at B. and at a certain point PERSON . heard that a wound had been inflicted . He then covered PERSON with his shield and started to move forward . PERSON . was then stabbed in the right shoulder and started to bleed . Mr PERSON then moved to the balcony and PERSON . went to the stairwell to receive first aid . He stayed there until the end of the operation . TIME later he saw from the lobby Mr PERSON , who was covered with blood and wearing handcuffs , being led from the kitchen to the living room . A doctor entered the room and apparently gave PERSON PERSON a sedative injection and dressed his wounds . PERSON . then went to the kitchen , took his shield and left the flat .

On DATE police officer B. of the special unit was questioned . He made a statement similar to that of Kh . concerning the events that had taken place before the latter had been wounded . As regards the subsequent events , PERSON stated that he and police officers D - n . and PERSON had forced open the kitchen door and begun to clear up the barricade of furniture in the kitchen . Mr PERSON had run to the balcony . As they approached the balcony , he broke the glass in the balcony door and windows , and started throwing various objects at them , such as an iron and cans . He was also hitting his head and back against the balcony windows and screaming that they were going to kill him . He broke all the glass in the balcony door and lunged at them with knives . B. covered D - n . and PERSON with his shield . Through the balcony window GPE . hit PERSON several times with a rubber truncheon on the left hand in which he was holding a knife . The knife fell to the floor . Mr PERSON then lunged at PERSON and PERSON with the knife he was holding in his right hand but S. caught his hand . Mr PERSON pulled PERSON towards him and they both fell on the balcony floor , which was covered in glass . The other police officers then approached PERSON , handcuffed him and took him to the kitchen . He stopped resisting . Since there were cuts on his body , the police officers called for a doctor , who began dressing the wounds and gave him an injection . Other police officers then entered the kitchen , whereas the officers of the special police unit , having completed their task , left . In answer to the investigator ’s question about the whereabouts of the first applicant during the events , PERSON stated that he had been in the lobby all the time ; he had neither entered the flat nor witnessed the events .

On DATE police officer D - n . of the special unit was questioned . He made a statement consistent with those of Kh . and B. , and added certain details . In particular , when he arrived at the sixth floor the stairwell floor was covered with blood , which appeared to belong to police officer PERSON He heard Mr PERSON swearing at his father , saying that the latter wanted to get his flat . Mr PERSON also asked the police officers to leave and seemed to be sure that he had killed a policeman . D - n . tried to calm him down , and asked him to open the door and step out . However , the negotiations , which lasted TIME , proved futile and D - n . called for his unit . The first applicant , who remained in the lobby all the time , explained that his son was mentally ill and behaved inadequately ; he had threatened to kill everybody . The first applicant emphasised that PERSON PERSON was a danger to himself and others . He said that his son had threatened him with a knife before and had beaten him up DATE . The first applicant seemed very frightened and confused . D - n . added that throughout the operation the police officers had kept telling PERSON PERSON to drop the weapons , but he had not reacted . He further submitted that in such a situation , according to the law , the police were allowed to use rubber truncheons , handcuffs and tear gas . They did not use the latter because the ventilation system was shared with other flats , and it could have been dangerous for other residents . D - n . also explained that , apart from the police officers , no one else had witnessed the events .

On DATE police officer PERSON was questioned . According to his statement , at TIME on DATE he had been instructed to go with police officers PERSON and NORP to a certain address to take a mentally - ill person to hospital . When they arrived , they put on bullet - proof vests and went upstairs with the first applicant , who gave them oral permission to enter the flat . When the first applicant rang at the lobby door , PERSON was standing beside him ; PERSON was standing behind PERSON , and NORP was standing to one side . PERSON could not immediately see who had opened the door , but then PERSON shouted that the person who had opened the door had a knife . Mr PERSON ran back to the door of his flat wielding the knife in his hand . Having opened the door with his free hand , he stood in the doorway shouting that he would kill everyone . PERSON then saw that PERSON was bleeding . The police officers then tried to calm Mr PERSON down , but had no success . He tried to attack PERSON and then tried to close the door to the flat , but PERSON prevented him . Then PERSON ran to a room and barricaded himself inside . While PERSON blocked the door , an ambulance was called for PERSON The officers also reported on the situation to the ORG . The ambulance took PERSON to hospital . After the arrival of the special police unit , PERSON moved to the stairwell . He could not identify the special unit officers because their faces were covered with masks . He did not see what happened in the flat either . He was then ordered to return to the ORG .

On DATE , the first applicant was questioned . He stated that his son , PERSON , had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder . He did not know precisely what his son ’s condition was because the doctors had never told the parents the exact diagnosis . Mr PERSON had been undergoing treatment since DATE . His condition always worsened in DATE : recently he had been in a state of delirium . He thought that his parents were not his real parents and that they were trying to kill him . When they visited him , he would swear at them , threaten to kill them , lock himself in his flat and not let them in . On a number of occasions he had been forcibly placed in hospital . He had never agreed to be placed in the hospital voluntarily , and during the forced placement had always resisted the police officers who had apprehended him , so they had sometimes had to use rubber truncheons or tear gas . Since DATE Mr PERSON had stopped taking his medication , having declared that he was healthy . Since then , his condition had gradually worsened . The threatening phone calls to his parents had become more frequent . The applicants had started to worry for his life , fearing that he might pose a danger to himself .

On DATE the first applicant had asked PERSON doctor for a referral recommending in - patient treatment and to issue instructions for involuntary placement in a hospital . He then submitted the referral to ORG no . CARDINAL and the instructions to the Nagatinskiy PERSON . At CARDINAL a.m. on DATE he left together with police officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP for PERSON place of residence . When they reached the sixth floor , the police officers hid and the first applicant rang at the door . Mr PERSON opened the door . He had a knife in his hand , which he began to wield , trying to force them out . The police officers started to explain that they wanted to take him to a hospital . Mr PERSON mistook them for burglars and shouted at them to go away . He did not recognise the first applicant . After TIME of negotiations , the police officers tried to take the knife from Mr PERSON , but he stabbed PERSON in the chest with it and also cut his finger . There was blood all over the stairwell floor . Then CARDINAL of the police officers went outside to fetch shields and rubber truncheons . Mr PERSON continued behaving inadequately . The police officers tried to apprehend him by knocking the knife from his hand with the rubber truncheons . He continued to brandish the knife and then ran to the kitchen and barricaded himself inside , blocking the kitchen door with a table .

Through the door the first applicant heard him calling an ambulance and the police . At the same time PERSON called NORP , the Head of the Nagatinskiy PERSON , who arrived at TIME , and the special police unit , who arrived TIME . CARDINAL of the special unit police officers talked to PERSON through the kitchen door , trying to persuade him to open it . As PERSON did not react to the requests , the special unit prepared to “ storm ” the kitchen . At that time the first applicant was standing near the lift . He could not see what was happening but heard the sound of breaking glass . He looked inside the flat and saw his son on the balcony screaming : “ Help , they are killing me ! ” At that time the police officers were taking a broken table and a door to the stairwell . They then returned to the flat and went towards the balcony . After a while the first applicant again looked into the flat and saw his son lying face down on the kitchen floor . He had been handcuffed and there was blood around him . The police officers asked whether there was anything they could put him in . They put him in a blanket and carried him to the ambulance , which took him to ORG no . CARDINAL . Later the first applicant learnt that his son had died .

On DATE officer F. of the special police unit was questioned . He stated that for technical reasons he had been unable to get into the same police car as officers PERSON , D - n . , PERSON . and PERSON and had arrived later in his own car . He observed most of the operation while standing behind the police officers who had arrived earlier . His account of the events was consistent with those of the other police officers . He also added that the first applicant had told him that recently Mr PERSON had stopped taking his usual medication and had instead switched to light alcoholic drinks , which had aggravated his condition . The latter had also refused to be placed in a hospital voluntarily and had threatened the first applicant with a knife .

On DATE officer S. of the special police unit was questioned . His account of the events was consistent with that of the other police officers . He emphasised that they had not used firearms while apprehending Mr PERSON .

On the same date police officer PERSON was questioned . According to his submissions , on DATE he had been ordered , together with police officers NORP and PERSON , to carry out the involuntary placement in hospital of PERSON PERSON , who was suffering from a psychiatric disorder . They went to his home address with his father , the first applicant , who explained that at the sight of the police his son would lock himself in his flat , so the police officers would have to get between him and the door . However , the first applicant did not warn the police that his son might be armed , even though it later transpired that his son had already resisted his previous placements in hospital with the use of arms . When they arrived , the first applicant rang the lobby door bell . They heard Mr PERSON leave the flat , walk to the door and ask who was there . The first applicant replied : “ PERSON , it ’s me ” . Mr PERSON said : “ I will open now ” . PERSON heard him walk back to the flat and return . When PERSON started opening the door , PERSON pushed him into the lobby . NORP and PERSON followed him into the lobby . PERSON felt a blow to his chest and , having pushed Mr PERSON away , saw a knife in his hand . He shouted to the other officers that Mr PERSON had a knife , and then received another stab in his chest . Mr PERSON ran to his flat and began to shut the door behind him . However , PERSON caught the door and opened it , preventing PERSON from locking himself inside the flat . All that time , the first applicant had remained near the lift , too afraid to come closer . Mr PERSON started shouting : “ Do n’t come closer , or I ’ll kill you ” , brandishing the knife in his hand . PERSON took a baby pram that was near the door and , on PERSON ’s order , passed it to him . PERSON used the baby pram to defend himself from Mr PERSON . At a certain point he managed to take out his gun and warned PERSON that he would use it if he continued threatening with the knife . However , PERSON did not react to the warning . PERSON had a submachine gun which had not been loaded .

According to PERSON , the QUANTITY police officers tried together to persuade PERSON PERSON to calm down and drop the knife . The latter shouted to his father to bring a woman , as he would only talk to a woman . The first applicant refused . The talks lasted for TIME , during which Mr PERSON swore constantly . At a certain point he lowered his trousers and underpants , rubbed his anus with his left hand and made a gesture as if throwing something in the direction of the police officers , saying : “ This is shit ! ” The police officers moved back slightly . NORP went outside and came back with CARDINAL rubber truncheons . He gave CARDINAL of them to PERSON , who put his gun back in the holster and took the rubber truncheon . Mr PERSON put his underpants and trousers back on and , with his right hand , in which he was holding the knife , reached for the door knob . PERSON and NORP inflicted several blows on his right hand , following which Mr PERSON lunged at them brandishing the knife and saying : “ I ’ll kill you ” . The police officers moved back towards the lobby door . At that moment Mr PERSON cut the fourth finger of PERSON ’s left hand with the knife , then ran to his kitchen and barricaded himself inside .

Then PERSON ordered PERSON to load his submachine gun and shoot to kill if PERSON PERSON tried to leave . The first applicant then entered the flat and looked into the living room . PERSON asked him for permission to use the telephone and called the ORG . He asked them to call an ambulance and the special police unit . In CARDINAL or TIME the ambulance arrived and took PERSON to hospital . He did not know what had happened afterwards . Answering the investigator ’s question whether the police officers had been specifically trained for detaining psychiatrically disturbed persons and whether there existed special techniques for apprehending such persons , PERSON stated that no such training had been provided and that there existed only general rules on apprehending armed offenders in various situations . If the police had information that the person was armed ( irrespective of his psychiatric condition ) , they could use arms in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police .

On an unspecified DATE apparently in DATE a person whose name is not clear from the documents but who appears to be NORP , the Head of the Nagatinskiy PERSON , was questioned . He stated that DATE he had taken part in the operation to forcibly place Mr PERSON in hospital . The latter resisted the police officers with weapons and threw acetic acid in the face of CARDINAL of them . On DATE the first applicant called him and asked if the police would assist him in placing his son in hospital on DATE . On DATE police officers PERSON , NORP and PERSON were sent on the operation . Later he received information that PERSON had been wounded and he himself went to PERSON flat . Finding the latter in a dangerous condition , he reported to the Nagatinskiy PERSON and called for emergency psychiatric assistance . He was later informed that a special police unit had been called to the scene . TIME later CARDINAL high - ranking police officers , PERSON and PERSON . , arrived . After a while , the special police unit also arrived .

While they were preparing to storm the kitchen , NORP went outside to ensure that no one entered the building , since they could have been hurt by PERSON . The latter was screaming from the balcony to attract attention . He was shouting that he would jump from the window and throwing objects towards the kitchen . Then he broke the balcony windows and started throwing the broken glass down from the balcony . NORP thought that he had seen a shard pierce Mr PERSON ’s neck . Then NORP saw Mr PERSON resisting the police with sharp objects in his hands and falling on the balcony floor with CARDINAL of the officers . Realising that PERSON PERSON had been apprehended , PERSON went up to the sixth floor . On entering the flat , he saw PERSON lying handcuffed on the kitchen floor . The latter was taken to a room where he was given first aid by an ambulance doctor . As PERSON was bleeding profusely from his neck , it was decided to take him urgently to a hospital . He was carried on a blanket to the ambulance and transported to ORG no . CARDINAL . NORP then called for an investigative unit to inspect the scene . It was established that Mr PERSON had wounded CARDINAL police officers . NORP returned to the ORG and was later informed that PERSON had died . In his view , it had been the result of a tragic concurrence of circumstances , since in his presence nobody had either beaten or hit PERSON . Judging from his conduct , the first applicant had supported the actions of the police throughout the operation . PERSON , PERSON and NORP had acted strictly in accordance with the law .

On DATE the investigating authorities seized Mr PERSON ’s medical file kept at psycho - neurological dispensary no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigating authorities seized Mr PERSON ’s medical file kept at psychiatric hospital no . CARDINAL .

On DATE K. , the acting head of psycho - neurological dispensary no . CARDINAL , was questioned . She submitted that PERSON had been under medical supervision since DATE . He had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with delirium syndromes . He had been forcibly placed for in - patient treatment a number of times as he had never agreed to it voluntarily . His condition had gradually worsened in DATE : anxiety had been exacerbated , delirious ideas had accumulated and he had been losing contact with the people around him . He considered everybody his enemy and persecutor . His condition had worsened considerably since he had stopped taking regular medication . The investigator asked PERSON whether PERSON , who would have been suffering from fatigue in the absence of the necessary medication , could have actively resisted his placement in hospital . PERSON answered that in a delirious period he could be aggressive and reveal great physical force , because he perceived everyone as a persecutor . PERSON also submitted that Mr PERSON had resisted the previous placements in hospital but she did not know whether he had used weapons . The investigator further asked about PERSON PERSON ’s relationship with his parents . PERSON replied that when his condition had worsened and he had beaten them , they had applied for his in - patient treatment .

On DATE Ch . , a doctor of psychiatric hospital no . CARDINAL , was questioned . She submitted that she had been PERSON doctor since DATE . He had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . He was subjected to involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital for the first time in DATE because his condition had suddenly worsened and he had been delivered to the hospital with self - inflicted burns on his body . Since that time he had begun to display aggression and his delirium had worsened . In such a condition he was dangerous to himself and others . He had had a negative attitude towards the treatment but had agreed to take small doses of medication . Following an improvement in his condition , he had been discharged from the hospital . Answering the investigator ’s question whether PERSON could inflict self - harm , PERSON . submitted that he could do so while in an agitated state ; this was corroborated by the self - inflicted burns .

On DATE the second applicant was questioned . She gave details of the development of PERSON illness . His condition had worsened in DATE after he had stopped taking his medication . In particular , she had seen him talking to an imaginary person . She and the first applicant were very concerned about his condition and decided to arrange for him to be placed in a psychiatric hospital .

The second applicant was questioned again on DATE . First , she gave some additional details concerning medical documents the applicants had obtained to ensure PERSON in - patient treatment . She then stated that on DATE the first applicant had telephoned PERSON PERSON and said that he would visit him soon . Mr PERSON talked to him in a normal manner and called him “ father ” , which made the fact that he then met the first applicant and the police with a knife all the more inexplicable . At TIME she called the first applicant , who said that the police had been unable to restrain PERSON PERSON , he had cut a police officer ’s finger and the police had called for an investigator . She called the first applicant regularly so as to follow the events . The first applicant was agitated and told her that they were waiting for the special police unit to arrive . When she called him again at TIME , the first applicant said that the special police unit had apprehended PERSON , and an ambulance doctor had said : “ PERSON , we may not make it , he might not survive . ” She asked her husband to go to the hospital with PERSON , but he said that the police would not let him go because they wanted to question him . During another telephone conversation at TIME the first applicant told her that Mr PERSON had died and turned off his mobile phone . DATE the second applicant telephoned Mr PERSON ’s neighbour , PERSON . , who said that DATE she had shouted to the police : “ Do n’t kill him ! ” She had also tried to open the door to her flat , but the police officers would not let her . Ts . also said that she had seen the police beating PERSON PERSON . Later , CARDINAL unidentified men approached PERSON . in the yard of the block of flats and told her that if she had witnessed the events of DATE , she should forget them .

On DATE , the head of the investigative unit of the Nagatinskiy PERSON , was questioned . She submitted that at TIME on DATE she had been informed that a police officer of the ORG had sustained a knife wound and she had gone to the address indicated . When she arrived TIME the first applicant and NORP , the Head of the ORG , were there . PERSON explained to her what had happened . She then inspected the flat . The kitchen was crammed with a variety of objects . There were cans , numerous shards of glass and some other objects on the floor . A refrigerator was lying across the kitchen . There were spots of blood on the refrigerator and the floor . On the right - hand wall there was a kitchen unit ; on the table there was a kettle , a sugar bowl and CARDINAL knives , CARDINAL of which had a long blade and a wooden handle , the other a shorter blade and a plastic handle . Both knives were covered with blood . There was no glass in the kitchen window facing the balcony , but some shards of glass were stuck in the frame . The balcony windows had also been broken . The balcony floor was covered with shards of various sizes . The glass that remained in the frames bore traces of blood . There was also blood on the balcony floor , the door frame and the window frame facing the balcony .

On DATE the investigating authorities seized certain documents pertaining to Mr PERSON ’s medical file kept at ORG no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigating authorities seized from ORG no . CARDINAL documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officer PERSON for the wound caused by PERSON on DATE .

On DATE G - v . , the ambulance doctor , was questioned . He stated that on DATE he had been informed that a man had called an ambulance claiming that he had sustained a knife wound to his neck . G - v . went in an ambulance with ORG . to the address indicated . There he found several police officers , who explained that the person in the flat was mentally ill . They had been trying to restrain him in order to place him in hospital , but he had resisted them with the use of arms . G - v . provided medical assistance to a police officer who had sustained a knife wound to his shoulder . From the stairwell he witnessed the special unit police officers trying for quite a long time to persuade the person to leave the flat . They then decided to storm the flat but G - v . did not see them do that . At a certain point CARDINAL of the police officers went out to the stairwell . His hand had been cut . G - v . dressed the wound . TIME he and ORG . were asked into the flat in order to provide medical attention . They saw a handcuffed man lying face down on the floor . He was conscious and in a state of psychomotor agitation . His neck was bleeding . They gave him a sedative injection and conducted a detailed examination . Then , with the help of the police officers , they carried the man to the ambulance and transported him to ORG no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigating authorities ordered the seizure of documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officers PERSON , D - n . and PERSON . for the wounds caused by PERSON on DATE . The documents were seized on DATE from polyclinic no . CARDINAL .

On DATE Ts . , PERSON neighbour , was questioned . She submitted that on DATE she had looked through the peephole in her front door on several occasions and had seen some of the events . Initially she heard Mr PERSON swearing and QUANTITY police officers speaking , and then saw the former standing in the doorway . In a while she heard a tinkling sound in the lobby and saw the police officers defending themselves from Mr PERSON with her baby pram . She told them through the door to put it back , which they did . Then she heard Mr PERSON crying : “ Neighbour , save me ” . She tried to open the door but one of the police officers told her to close it . Then she heard somebody shout : “ Call an ambulance ! ” She went to the balcony and saw an ambulance parked near a police officer whose chest had been bandaged . Then she saw through the peephole that PERSON PERSON had locked himself in his kitchen . The police had not entered the flat , and somebody said : “ Call the special police unit ” . After a while she heard some noise and saw a special unit police officer near the kitchen trying to persuade PERSON to open the door . He talked to him for quite a long time . Then he left the flat and ordered another officer to switch off the electricity . She understood that they were going to storm the flat . Soon everything was over . When she went out of her flat she saw that the lobby and the stairwell were covered with blood . Mr PERSON ’s kitchen door without the stained glass and a broken kitchen table , also covered in blood , were in the lobby . In PERSON PERSON ’s flat she saw a pool of blood on the floor and the CARDINAL knives which he had been holding earlier covered with blood . After the events the second applicant repeatedly telephoned PERSON . trying to talk her into testifying against the police officers , alleging that they had killed her son . Those telephone calls were very disturbing . They stopped after PERSON . ’s husband had talked to the second applicant .

On DATE the investigating authorities inspected Mr PERSON ’s flat , the adjacent lobby and the stairwell . They established , in particular , that there was no door at the entrance to the kitchen . There was a crack in the glass of the balcony door and the door had reddish - brown spots on it . CARDINAL glass planes were missing from the window next to the balcony door and there were reddish - brown traces on the frames . The doors of a cupboard on the balcony also had reddish - brown spots on them ; the balcony floor and the window frame to the right of the entrance to the balcony were covered with dried reddish - brown stains . The left side of the white linen curtain at the kitchen window was torn . There was a QUANTITY reddish - brown stain on the curtain and surrounding it traces of a reddish - brown substance . The balcony was glazed and had CARDINAL windows . The glass panes were missing in the CARDINAL windows closest to the balcony entrance .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in case no . DATE . On DATE he was questioned and confirmed his earlier statements .

On DATE the investigating authorities ordered the seizure of documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officer B. for the wound caused by PERSON on DATE . On DATE the documents were seized from ORG .

On DATE an examination was conducted of the knife with a wooden handle seized from Mr PERSON ’s flat on DATE . According to report no . DATE , the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr PERSON or police officer PERSON .

On DATE an examination was conducted of the knife with a plastic handle seized from Mr PERSON ’s flat on DATE . According to report no . CARDINAL , the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr PERSON or police officer PERSON .

On DATE forensic examinations were carried out with regard to the injuries caused to the special unit police officers on DATE . The results showed that D - n . had sustained bruises and abrasions on his upper body that could have been caused by being hit and scraped against hard blunt objects , possibly on DATE , which could not be considered as health damage . Kh . had sustained slash wounds to the right shoulder and the right hand that could have been caused by the sliding impact of a hard cutting object , possibly on DATE ; these could be classified as light health damage . B. had sustained a puncture wound on the right hand . The text concerning the gravity of the injury is illegible .

On DATE D - k . , a former colleague of Mr PERSON , was questioned . The latter had worked in the same audit company as D - k . in DATE . D - k . submitted that although PERSON had not been aggressive , he had not been communicative and his behaviour had been rather weird . He had talked to himself or an imaginary person ; in a café he might buy CARDINAL cups of tea , place them on the table and talk to them . After PERSON superior had asked him to finish an overdue assignment , he simply stopped coming to work . His colleagues searched for him and called his parents , but his mother told them that she did not know where her son was .

On DATE a forensic psychological - psychiatric report , ordered on DATE , was completed . It was based on Mr PERSON ’s medical file and the materials of the criminal case . The experts stated that at the time of the events of DATE Mr PERSON had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia . His conduct on that date had been due to a psychotic disorder with delirium symptoms , causing feelings of persecution , negativity and aggression towards his parents and the police officers . The psychotic disorder at that time was at such a stage that he was unaware of the meaning of his actions and unable to control them , which is why he posed a danger to others .

On DATE a forensic examination of the injuries caused to police officer PERSON on DATE was conducted . According to the results , he had sustained a shallow puncture wound to the chest and a slash wound to the fourth finger of the left hand caused by the sliding impact of a hard cutting object , possibly on DATE , which constituted light health damage .

DATE . On DATE the investigating authorities seized from the second applicant a sports jacket that Mr PERSON had been wearing on DATE . The jacket had remained in the kitchen for DATE before being taken away by the first applicant .

On DATE Dub . , the Head of ORG of the GPE LOC department of the interior ( “ the UVD ” ) , was questioned . According to his statement , on DATE he had been informed by ORG . , the Deputy Head of LOC , that Mr PERSON had wounded a police officer . PERSON . went to the scene of the events and found CARDINAL police officers , NORP and the first applicant in the sixth - floor stairwell . K - k . arrived at the same time . PERSON . witnessed the subsequent events from the stairwell . His account was consistent with that of the other police officers . He emphasised that the first applicant had cooperated with the police and had explained that his son had already been subjected to involuntary placement in hospital a number of times , and was dangerous in his current condition since he was strong and aggressive . PERSON . recalled that when he had worked in the Nagatinskiy PERSON DATE the applicant had frequently applied for assistance to place his son in hospital , since the latter had beaten the applicants and they were afraid of him . During CARDINAL such operation Mr PERSON had thrown acid at a police officer .

On DATE police officer B. of the special unit was questioned again . He confirmed some details of his earlier statement .

On DATE the GPE forensic bureau completed the forensic examination started on DATE and issued report no . CARDINAL . The experts studied the materials of criminal case no . DATE , medical file no . CARDINAL kept at ORG no . CARDINAL , samples of PERSON PERSON ’s hair , nails and skin from his neck wound and the CARDINAL knives that he had held on DATE . The experts found as follows :

( a ) The wound to the neck could not have been caused by either of the knives that PERSON held on DATE . However , it is possible that it was caused by contact with a long fixed protruding glass shard .

( b ) The craniocerebral trauma was caused by numerous blows with a hard blunt object with a wide limited surface to the left side of the frontal parietal - temporal region and the face . From the materials available it was impossible to establish with certainty the nature of the object with which the injuries ( CARDINAL contused wounds and a depressed fracture of the scull ) were caused . This was because the edges of the injuries , the relation of the soft tissue to the bone tissue , and the density of the skull bones in the area of the fracture were not examined and the photograph of the area had no plotting scale .

( c ) The rib fractures were caused by numerous blows with hard blunt objects with a limited surface to the right side and the left back side of the chest .

( d ) The subcutaneous wounds were caused by sharp objects , probably glass shards . The wounds on the palmar surface of the fingers could have been caused when gripping knife blades .

( e ) The subcutaneous hemorrhages on the chest , shoulders , forearms , hips , shins and knee were caused by blows and the sliding impact of hard blunt objects , some of which were elongated in shape ( for example a rubber truncheon ) .

According to the report , the injuries had been caused shortly before PERSON PERSON had been admitted to hospital . That fact as well as the number of injuries made it impossible to establish their sequence . His death was caused by the stab / slash wound to the neck , which affected the left external jugular vein . Other injuries , such as the craniocerebral trauma , complicated PERSON PERSON ’s condition but did not directly cause his death . With the wound to the neck and the craniocerebral trauma , PERSON PERSON was able to act and move independently for a short time ( TIME ) . However , this ability was reduced by the time of his examination by the ambulance doctors and completely lost by the time he was admitted to hospital . It was possible that the stab / slash wound to the neck was caused in the circumstances described in the materials of the case , namely he might have leaned against the balcony door which had shards of broken glass in it , or hit his head against the window frame , which also had broken glass in it .

On DATE the investigator , in the presence of attesting witnesses , listened to an audio recording of Mr PERSON ’s telephone calls to the police on DATE between TIME and TIME According to the transcript , PERSON had called the police several times . Each time he said that burglars had broken into his flat and were trying to kill him . In particular , he said that the burglars wearing police uniforms had already shot at him . He asked the police to urgently send a squad to help him . During CARDINAL of the calls the tape had also recorded a conversation between the police officer who answered the call and another police officer at the station . When the first police officer told the other one about the call , he replied that it was “ the same fool calling ” , that their unit had already gone there and that the special unit was on its way and preparing to storm the flat . He told the first officer that she need not answer any subsequent calls , since in any event Mr PERSON would soon be apprehended by the special unit .

On DATE K - k . , the Deputy Head of LOC , was questioned . He said that he had arrived at the scene at approximately the same time as PERSON . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and his account of the events was consistent with those of PERSON . and the other police officers .

On DATE police officer F. of the special unit was questioned . Answering the investigator ’s questions concerning police training in any martial arts , he submitted that D - n . and PERSON . were snipers , whereas PERSON and PERSON had no special qualifications . He further stated that tear gas , light - sound distraction tools or devices for demolishing barriers were not used while apprehending Mr PERSON .

On DATE police officer D - n . of the special unit was questioned again . He confirmed some details of his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE police officer S. of the special unit was questioned again . He confirmed some details of his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE Sch . , a forensic expert , was questioned . In his opinion , PERSON craniocerebral trauma could not have been caused by falling from a standing position ( from his own height ) . The number of injuries and their location showed that they were caused by multiple blows , possibly combined with numerous falls and hitting of his head against the surrounding objects . It was unlikely that the trauma had been the result of merely falling down . Some of the cuts , subcutaneous wounds , bruises and abrasions might have been caused by falling on glass shards and hitting some surrounding objects .

On DATE , a forensic expert and psychiatrist , was questioned . She stated that PERSON conduct on DATE had been caused by the psychotic disorder from which he had been suffering . At the time of the events , his condition was so serious that he was unaware of the meaning of his actions and unable to control them . In particular , he could not understand that the police had come to apprehend him . He resisted them with weapons in an attempt to protect himself from “ burglars ” because he was in a delirious and aggressive state .

On DATE the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the person to be charged with the offence .

On DATE the decision was quashed and the case was remitted for further investigation .

On DATE B - ch . , the deputy head of the special police unit , was questioned . According to his statement , at TIME on DATE he received information that a police officer had been wounded and was given the address of the perpetrator . He sent QUANTITY police officers headed by D - n . and later also sent police officer F. Subsequently he was informed that the person had been apprehended and that QUANTITY police officers had sustained injuries .

On DATE police officer PERSON . of the special unit was questioned . He submitted that at TIME on DATE he had received information that a police officer had been wounded and had been given the address of the perpetrator . He forwarded the information to the deputy head of the special unit and then handed out equipment to the officers instructed to go to the address indicated .

On DATE the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office closed the criminal case on the grounds that the actions of the police officers disclosed no indication of offences under LAW § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW . The decision stated , in particular , that as a result of the worsening of PERSON mental state , he had been capable of committing an offence endangering the health and life of other people . The police ORG actions aimed at preventing his unlawful actions had therefore been lawful and appropriate .

On DATE the ORG counsel obtained report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL by experts B. , PERSON and NORP from GPE for Forensic Examinations of the Federal Agency for ORG and ORG concerning the injuries and the cause of death of PERSON . According to the report , he had sustained multiple contusions , haemorrhages and bruises on his face and head ; fractures of the frontal bone and the left parietal bone ; subarachnoid haemorrhages under the soft membranes of the convex surface of the forehead ; a slash wound to the neck across the jugular vein ; numerous subcutaneous haemorrhages of the chest ; fractures of the sixth rib on the right side and of the eighth , ninth , tenth and eleventh ribs on the left side ; bruises , abrasions and slash wounds to the shoulders , arms and hands , and bruises on the hips and legs . The bruises , abrasions and fractures of the ribs were caused by blows with hard blunt objects . The multiple slash wounds and the wound on the neck were caused by sharp objects . The head injuries constituted grave craniocerebral multitrauma caused by strong blows with hard blunt objects , such as heavy boots , which constituted a grave injury . Taking into account the character of the head injuries , they could not have been caused by inertial trauma as a result of falling down . The craniocerebral trauma had led to PERSON death . The other injuries had not directly led to his death but had complicated his condition .

On DATE the applicants asked the prosecutor ’s office of ORG to resume the investigation and conduct another forensic examination .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE granted the request and ordered a number of investigative measures .

DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was again questioned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition to his initial statement he submitted that when PERSON had opened the lobby door he had not known that he and the police had come to place him in hospital , otherwise he simply would not have opened the door . On DATE he had mistaken the first applicant for a burglar and had been holding a knife . The first applicant warned the police that when PERSON PERSON saw them he might try to lock himself in the flat . That is why when PERSON opened the door , the first applicant asked CARDINAL of the police officers to hold it open . Mr PERSON was wielding a knife and would not let anyone near him . Police officer PERSON then aimed his gun at Mr PERSON and told him to drop the knife . Mr PERSON did not react and shouted back at PERSON to take away the gun . PERSON eventually put the gun away but Mr PERSON would not drop the knife . PERSON then made a movement towards him , probably intending to seize the knife , and Mr PERSON , while wielding the knife , wounded PERSON in the chest . The latter moved aside . CARDINAL of the police officers took a baby pram that had been placed nearby and tried to knock the knife out of PERSON hand with it . Another officer hit his other hand with the butt of a submachine gun trying to remove it from the door handle so as to stop him closing the door .

After PERSON had wounded PERSON , another police officer brought rubber truncheons and CARDINAL of the officers started using them against Mr PERSON , trying to knock the knife out of his hand and to knock him off his feet in order to apprehend him . Not all their blows hit him on the hand , as he was constantly wielding the knife . Some of the blows hit him on the body and the head . When PERSON left to call for support , he ordered the other officers to shoot to kill should Mr PERSON attack them . Through the glass the first applicant heard Mr PERSON telephoning the police and the ambulance and saying that he had been wounded , there was blood , and that burglars had been trying to kill him . After PERSON PERSON had been apprehended , NORP said that they should take him to hospital quickly as he might not make it . When the first applicant entered the kitchen he saw blood on Mr PERSON ’s neck . The bleeding was heavy and the kitchen floor was covered with blood .

In response to questions put in the course of that interview , the first applicant submitted that he did not believe that on DATE Mr PERSON had posed a real danger either to him or to the police . However , the assistance of the police was required in order to place PERSON PERSON in hospital , as the first applicant could not have done it on his own . He believed that the police officers had had to apprehend PERSON PERSON because his psychiatric condition at that time had been very serious . In the first applicant ’s view , at the time of the police ORG arrival Mr PERSON had been incapable of perceiving the situation and would not have voluntarily surrendered to anybody . The police officers were wearing bullet - proof vests and helmets , and used shields and , after PERSON PERSON had wounded CARDINAL of them with a knife , rubber truncheons . Immediately after PERSON had been apprehended , the first applicant had entered the kitchen . The refrigerator was lying across the kitchen floor . Also on the floor there were glass shards , pieces of paper and PERSON laptop . The kitchen table had been removed by the police while they were apprehending PERSON . When the first applicant was cleaning PERSON flat DATE after the events , he noticed that most of the broken glass from the kitchen door was scattered on the kitchen floor , which meant that the door had been broken from the entrance hall . The kitchen window had also been broken and there was a crack in the glass of the door to the balcony . Most of the broken glass was scattered on the balcony floor , but some of it was also on the kitchen floor . There were also spots of blood on the balcony floor and another spot of blood on the window frame on the side of the balcony , approximately at the level of PERSON head .

On DATE the first applicant was questioned once more . In addition to his earlier statements he submitted that Mr PERSON had mistaken the doctors and police officers for burglars only when his condition had worsened and he had been in a state of delirium . The first applicant also specified that PERSON had told PERSON to load his submachine gun and open fire should PERSON leave the kitchen . When the first applicant entered the kitchen after Mr PERSON had been apprehended , he saw him lying on the floor ; the left side of his head and neck were covered in blood . He was lying face down and handcuffed . The first applicant further stated that on DATE Mr PERSON had not posed a real danger either to the first applicant or to the police as he had been trying to protect himself . His actions were not provoked by either the first applicant or the police since , when he opened the door holding a knife , he did not know that the police were there . The first applicant stated that he did not know why Mr PERSON had been holding a knife – perhaps he had been cooking something in the kitchen .

On DATE the first applicant was confronted with police officer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant ’s account of the events of DATE was in line with his previous statements . PERSON stated that he partially confirmed the first applicant ’s account . He further submitted that in front of PERSON flat there was a lobby with a wooden door . When they arrived , the man who had accompanied them [ the first applicant ] rang at the door while police officer PERSON was standing beside him . L. stood behind PERSON Then a man , who appeared to be Mr PERSON , came to the door and , before opening it , asked who was there . The first applicant called him by his name and said that he had brought him money . Mr PERSON told him to wait , and when he opened the door , PERSON shouted that he had a knife and started crouching . As it appeared , Mr PERSON had stabbed PERSON in the chest and then immediately ran inside his flat . L. removed the submachine gun from his shoulder , but PERSON told him not to shoot and ran after PERSON PERSON . The applicant told them not to let Mr PERSON close the door as he might lock himself in the flat and it would then be impossible to get him out .

In response to questions from the first applicant and his counsel , PERSON stated that he had seen CARDINAL knives in PERSON hands when the latter had run into his living room . However , he returned from the living room with just CARDINAL knife and a telephone receiver . He had been trying to call an ambulance , asking somebody for help and demanding to speak to a woman . PERSON also stated that the police officers had been wearing bullet - proof vests on that occasion and that they had hit Mr PERSON with rubber truncheons and a submachine gun . At first PERSON was holding his rubber truncheon , but when Mr PERSON stabbed PERSON and ran into the flat , PERSON dropped the truncheon , removed the submachine gun from his shoulder and ran after him with it . The rubber truncheon remained in the lobby . L. further submitted that when the police officers had been standing at the door to the flat , PERSON had started throwing faeces at them , apparently trying to make them let go of the door .

On DATE B. , the investigator of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office , again closed the investigation .

On DATE the Simonovskiy inter - district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision to close the investigation on the ground that not all the investigative measures ordered in the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been carried out ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the first applicant was confronted with police officer NORP ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , whose account of the events of DATE was consistent with that of PERSON added that when PERSON PERSON had been standing at the entrance to his flat while PERSON had been holding the door , PERSON had been brandishing a knife and shouting at them not to approach him , otherwise he would stab them . D. then had to go to the lobby to use his radio transmitter as there was no reception in the flat . He reported on the events to the officer on duty and called an ambulance . Then he took the rubber truncheon left by PERSON in the lobby and handed it over to him . NORP and police officer PERSON also had rubber truncheons and the CARDINAL of them were wearing bullet - proof vests . They tried again to persuade PERSON to drop the knife . However , he continued to wield it and threaten them with it . They tried to knock it out of his hand with the rubber truncheons . At a certain point PERSON happened to be near PERSON and the latter stabbed his hand . However , none of the police officers used their weapons .

DATE . In response to the investigator ’s questions , NORP stated that police officer PERSON had not hit PERSON with the butt of the submachine gun ; that the police had used rubber truncheons trying to knock the knife out of his hand but had not inflicted targeted blows ; and that several times PERSON PERSON had thrown his faeces at them using his free hand . In response to the first applicant ’s questions , NORP submitted that initially Mr PERSON had been holding CARDINAL knife , at a certain point he had seen him holding CARDINAL knives , but then he had put the second knife down somewhere . When the police entered the lobby , NORP and PERSON were armed with rubber truncheons . When NORP returned to the lobby to report on the situation , he noticed PERSON ’s rubber truncheon – he must have dropped it there . NORP confirmed that he had not inflicted targeted blows on Mr PERSON but had wanted to knock the knife out of his hand with the rubber truncheon . However , since NORP was standing to the side of the door , he could not have done that unless Mr PERSON had stuck his hand out of the door , which he did not do . Hence , NORP did not hit him with the rubber truncheon at all . Furthermore , he did not hear PERSON ordering PERSON to shoot to kill should PERSON PERSON leave the kitchen .

The first applicant partially confirmed NORP ’s account . He pointed out , however , that PERSON PERSON had stabbed PERSON not when he had opened the door to the lobby but later , when PERSON had been standing in front of the flat persuading him to drop the knife . Mr PERSON had then shouted : “ Do n’t come near me , or I ’ll kill you . Leave ! ” . After a while PERSON took out a handgun and ordered PERSON to drop the knife . NORP also tried to knock the knife out of PERSON hand with a baby pram .

Still on DATE the first applicant was confronted with police officer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who stated that on DATE , following the police ORG arrival at the scene of the events , the first applicant had explained to them that as soon as Mr PERSON opened the door they should prevent him from returning to the flat as he might then lock himself inside . The first applicant then rang at the door and PERSON heard a man enter the lobby behind the door . The man asked who was there and the first applicant replied that he had brought him money . PERSON was standing in front of the door , the first applicant was standing to his right and police officers PERSON and NORP were slightly behind them . When Mr PERSON started opening the door , PERSON tried to push him back into the lobby and felt CARDINAL blows to his chest . After the second blow PERSON noticed that PERSON PERSON was holding a knife . Mr PERSON then rushed towards his flat and PERSON felt his right side itching . He put his hand underneath his bullet - proof vest and felt something moist ; when he took it out he saw blood and realised that Mr PERSON had wounded him with the knife . PERSON remained by the stairwell , and Mr PERSON tried to close the door to the flat . L. then ran towards him , pulled the door from him and propped it open with his foot . Mr PERSON was brandishing the knife and shouting : “ Do n’t come closer , or I ’ll kill you ” . PERSON stood facing the door to the flat with NORP to his right and PERSON , who was holding the door , to his left . The first applicant remained in the stairwell as NORP had prevented him from entering the lobby .

According to PERSON , the QUANTITY police officers had been wearing bullet - proof vests since the beginning of the operation and PERSON had been armed with a submachine gun . They tried for some time to persuade PERSON PERSON to drop the knife . When NORP left the lobby to call the officer on duty on his radio , PERSON and PERSON placed a baby pram they had found in the lobby in front of them as a shield . Mr PERSON threw faeces at the police while continuing to brandish the knife . After a while , in an attempt to close the door , Mr PERSON pushed the baby pram back with his foot . In so doing , he came out of the flat and moved towards PERSON and PERSON then hit him on his hand CARDINAL times with a rubber truncheon , trying to knock the knife to the ground . That is when Mr PERSON cut PERSON ’s left hand . Then Mr PERSON stepped back into the flat and shouted at the officers to call a woman he could talk to . PERSON asked the first applicant to call the neighbour and ask whether there was a woman who could talk to PERSON PERSON . A woman then appeared in the lobby from another flat on the same floor . However , she was afraid to talk to Mr PERSON and returned to her flat . After that , the police officers continued trying to persuade PERSON to drop the knife , but he kept shouting that they were burglars and that he would kill them , and kept wielding the knife so that no one could get near him . Then he barricaded himself in the kitchen , and PERSON heard him moving furniture . PERSON then left PERSON to guard PERSON PERSON and authorised him to use his weapon should PERSON PERSON come out and attack him .

In response to the investigator ’s questions , PERSON stated that he could not tell exactly whether PERSON had hit PERSON with the submachine gun butt . He said that PERSON had used the submachine gun to try to knock the knife out of PERSON hand , but had not inflicted targeted blows . PERSON hit Mr PERSON several times with a rubber truncheon , also trying to knock the knife from his hand . D. did not use his rubber truncheon as he was standing between PERSON and the first applicant . Most of the time L. was holding the submachine gun , which he used to parry PERSON attacks with the knife . During all that time , the first applicant was standing in the stairwell unable to enter the lobby because NORP was blocking the entrance .

Responding to questions from the first applicant and his counsel , PERSON submitted that initially Mr PERSON had been holding CARDINAL knife . PERSON noticed him holding a second knife , which he must have taken from a cupboard , when he regained the flat . However , when he started throwing faeces at the police he had put the second knife down . At the beginning of the operation , after PERSON had wounded him with a knife , PERSON had taken his handgun out . However , when PERSON was standing in front of the flat having placed the baby pram between himself and PERSON PERSON , he had put the handgun away .

The first applicant submitted that he believed that Mr PERSON had wounded PERSON for the first time in the lobby while PERSON had been holding open the door to the flat . However , he did not actually see the wound being inflicted . He did not see PERSON wound PERSON before that , but it was possible that the events had unfolded as recounted by PERSON The first applicant specified that after Mr PERSON had cut PERSON ’s finger , PERSON and NORP had started hitting Mr. PERSON with rubber truncheons .

On DATE the ORG counsel asked the Simonovskiy Inter - ORG to provide copies of procedural decisions taken in the case and reports on investigative measures carried out with the first applicant ’s participation .

On DATE the request was refused .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the investigating authorities’ failure to take measures ordered in the decision of CARDINAL DATE and to provide them with copies of procedural documents .

On DATE the investigator of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office closed the investigation again , holding that Mr PERSON had inflicted on himself the numerous injuries listed in the forensic reports as a result of his imprudent behaviour due to his mental illness .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about a number of procedural breaches in the course of the investigation . On DATE they met with officer PERSON , who allegedly assured them that a check would be carried out following their complaint .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG that their complaint of CARDINAL DATE had merely been forwarded to the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office .

On DATE the investigative authorities conducted CARDINAL re - enactments of the events of DATE with police officers PERSON and PERSON respectively .

On DATE Kh . of the special police unit was questioned again . His submissions were consistent with those made in the course of questioning on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He specified that after the support unit had arrived at the scene of the events , the actual operation to apprehend PERSON PERSON had started after he had thrown a heavy object at the police , breaking the glass door to the kitchen . As he continued lunging at the police with the knife and shouting that he had “ already knocked CARDINAL cop down ” , it became clear to them that he had realised that they were police officers and that he would continue resisting them . The CARDINAL police officers from the support unit were equipped with bullet - proof vests , shields and helmets , and CARDINAL of them were wearing gloves with kevlar inserts . After Kh . had been stabbed in the shoulder , he discontinued participation in the operation .

On DATE S. of the special police unit was questioned again ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He submitted that initially there had been no question of storming the flat . The unit arrived following receipt of information that a police officer had been wounded and the initial task had been to solve the situation through negotiations . However , the negotiations with Mr PERSON did not lead to any results . Furthermore , the latter threw a heavy object through the glass door of the kitchen and shards of broken glass fell on the police officers ; and he kept lunging at them with a knife . Given how small that part of the flat was , those actions were really dangerous for the police , so it was decided to apprehend him . During the operation the police were equipped with bullet - proof vests , shields and helmets . The leather gloves with kevlar inserts that PERSON was wearing had no metal inserts . Through the broken glass in the kitchen door the police could see that PERSON PERSON had barricaded the door with furniture and a refrigerator . The QUANTITY police officers tried to open it . B. had a big shield which he pushed against the kitchen door with the help of S. and Kh . When they managed to slightly open the door , PERSON leaned with his hand against the door stud and PERSON PERSON wounded him in the palm of his right hand . Then PERSON moved back and PERSON . took his place . The police continued opening the door and PERSON . managed to squeeze through the opening but PERSON PERSON immediately stabbed him in the right shoulder . PERSON . then retreated and D - n . accompanied him to the doctor [ in the lobby ] . PERSON . took no further part in the operation .

S. also stated that the flat was quite small and the police had to move forward in single file . B. again took up the position in front of the kitchen door , with S. behind him . When D - n . returned from the lobby , he stood behind PERSON They kept pushing against the kitchen door and Mr PERSON resisted from the other side . Then the police abruptly pushed the door and PERSON heard a crash on the other side but he could not see what had caused it , as PERSON was blocking his view . He presumed that either Mr PERSON had fallen or pieces of the barricade had fallen apart . When PERSON could again see PERSON PERSON , the latter was stepping back towards the balcony and still threatening the police . The kitchen floor was covered with furniture . Then he started running towards the balcony , having twice stumbled against the barricade and fallen . When he was on the balcony the police cleared some of the barricade and entered the kitchen . Then Mr PERSON started throwing objects at them through the windows between the kitchen and the balcony , breaking all the windows . An iron hit D - n .

Then S. and PERSON approached the door to the balcony with PERSON holding the shield so as to protect them from the objects being thrown , and D - n . moved close to the balcony window . Mr PERSON started lunging at them with the knives , and D - n . tried to knock the knives out of his hands with a rubber truncheon . D - n . was specifically aiming at his hands , but Mr PERSON kept moving around and hitting his head and shoulders against the broken glass protruding from the window frames . After D - n . had knocked the knife out of PERSON PERSON ’s left hand , the latter lunged with his right hand at the police officer but hit PERSON ’s shield . He then repeated the lunge but S. caught his hand by the wrist and with his other gloved hand caught the knife ’s blade . Mr PERSON tried to free himself , pressing his left shoulder and neck against the window frame and pulling PERSON towards him . Since PERSON was standing on the balcony threshold , he could not put CARDINAL of his feet forward for balance . Then , having wrought the knife from Mr PERSON ’s hand so as to move the blade away from him , PERSON leant his weight on PERSON PERSON and they both fell to the floor . As he stumbled against the threshold , he eventually put all his weight on PERSON PERSON . Then D - n . handcuffed him and they took him into the kitchen , where the doctors administered injections and took him to the living room . D - n . and PERSON then left the flat .

On DATE the applicants asked ORG to take measures to ensure the completion of the delayed investigation .

On DATE D - n . of the special police unit was questioned again . His submissions were consistent with those that S. made on DATE . He specified that he had tried to negotiate with Mr PERSON , but that that had proved futile . He also specified that when PERSON was on the balcony , D - n . had seen a rubber truncheon on the refrigerator and had picked it up and used it to knock the knives out of PERSON PERSON ’s hands .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE .

On DATE B. , the investigator from the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office , again suspended the investigation and ordered a search for persons to be charged with the offence . On DATE that decision was quashed by the head of the investigative department on the ground that it was premature .

On DATE B. suspended the investigation again on account of the failure to identify the perpetrator .

On DATE the head of the investigative department quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and resumed the investigation .

On DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE the applicants complained to ORG of procedural breaches in the course of the investigation and asked it to apply administrative sanctions to the head of the investigative department of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office . Their complaints were forwarded to the head of the investigative department they had complained about .

On DATE NORP , the investigator from the Simonovskiy ORG , suspended the investigation and then resumed it on DATE . It was subsequently suspended and resumed on DATE on a number of occasions , in particular on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the second applicant was questioned again . She confirmed her earlier statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and added some information . In particular , she stated that DATE after the events she had called PERSON . , PERSON neighbour , to ask what had happened . PERSON . said that she had seen Mr PERSON being brutally beaten and hit with a submachine gun . She also said that her baby pram had been broken and covered with blood . She heard Mr PERSON screaming first : “ Neighbour , save me ” and then , after the arrival of the police special unit : “ People , save me , they are killing me ” . PERSON . said that DATE Mr PERSON had behaved normally and had helped her to wash the floor in the lobby . The second applicant asked PERSON . whether she would confirm that statement before the authorities . First she agreed but after a while refused , saying that CARDINAL men had threatened her and she was afraid to testify against the police .

On DATE the investigative authorities conducted CARDINAL re - enactments of the events of DATE with officers PERSON , NORP D - n . of the special police unit . Overall , the police ORG statements were consistent with the submissions they made during their earlier questioning . However , as the re - enactments were conducted in the presence of the applicants , their counsel and a forensic expert , PERSON . , the police officers had to answer their specific questions .

NORP In response to questions from the investigator and Zh . , PERSON submitted that he had hit Mr PERSON twice on his hand and had then pushed him twice with the baby pram . He said that the police had not left any rubber truncheons in the flat ; they had taken all the truncheons with them .

NORP In response to questions from the applicants and Zh . , S. of the special police unit stated , in particular , that he could not remember exactly how long the operation had lasted . He neither heard Mr PERSON calling the police nor remembered exactly how the windows had been broken . S. could not remember exactly how he had fallen on the balcony floor with PERSON , but as they were falling he was gripping the latter ’s hand holding the knife . On the balcony floor there were shards of glass and other objects DATE he could not remember exactly what . S. was equipped with a shield , a bullet - proof vest and a handgun . He did not use the weapon because D - n . had not given the order to do so and because they had been informed that the situation concerned a mentally disturbed person . S. had seen no particular injuries on Mr PERSON but he had seen him bleeding profusely . The upper part of his body was covered with blood . S. did not see PERSON fall in the kitchen , but he heard him fall . Nobody hit him with anything in the kitchen ; he was apprehended on the balcony . S. could not remember exactly how PERSON sustained his injuries . However , on the balcony the latter hit himself against various surfaces , although PERSON did not see exactly how , as his attention was concentrated on the knife . S. believed that PERSON had posed a real danger to his life , as he had threatened him with a knife and had a mad look in his eyes .

NORP In response to questions from the applicants and Zh . , D - n . of the special police unit stated , in particular , that he had been equipped with a bullet - proof vest , a helmet that he had not had time to put on , and a handgun . The special police unit did not have rubber truncheons . He further submitted that there had been no order to storm the flat as such , but their superior had instructed them to apprehend Mr PERSON . D - n . did not know that at the time of the special unit ’s arrival , emergency psychiatric assistance had been called for ( see paragraph DATE above ) . He did not hear Mr PERSON calling the police but he heard him scream : “ People , help ” . When D - n . first saw PERSON PERSON there was a lot of blood on his head , chest and arms , and abrasions on his forehead . D - n . did not know how the glass in the kitchen door had been broken and could not tell exactly how much time elapsed from the moment when PERSON broke the door to the time the special unit entered the kitchen . No one tried to apprehend PERSON in the kitchen , as the door was barricaded , and when the police managed to enter he was on the balcony . D - n . did not see PERSON PERSON fall in the kitchen , but he did see him disappear from view through the kitchen door opening , and heard the sound of him falling . On the kitchen floor there were various objects and shards of glass , all covered with blood . D - n . submitted that he had taken the rubber truncheon from the refrigerator in the kitchen and had hit Mr PERSON with it to knock the knife from his hand CARDINAL or CARDINAL times . Mr PERSON had then pulled PERSON towards him while the latter was gripping the hand in which he was holding the knife . D - n . could not tell why they had fallen to the floor . He entered the balcony through the broken window . When the police were handcuffing PERSON PERSON he continued to resist them . Then ORG . and PERSON led him to the kitchen where he could walk by himself . They put him on the kitchen floor . He stopped resisting them and kept repeating something like “ Do n’t , do n’t ” .

B. of the special police unit refused to take part in the re - enactment , stating that he would only be willing to do so in the presence of his lawyer .

On DATE the second applicant was questioned yet again ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She confirmed her earlier statements and commented on the police ORG submissions made in the course of the re - enactments conducted on DATE and earlier questioning . The second applicant stated that the submissions of PERSON and D - n . of the special police unit were untenable and pointed out that in response to important questions they had answered that they either did not know or did not remember . In particular , they did not remember how they had broken the kitchen door and the kitchen table and thrown them into the lobby . Immediately after the events the first applicant found a broken table leg in the kitchen near the balcony window . The end of the table leg had blood on it . The first applicant put it on the balcony , where it remained to DATE . Hence , D - n . ’s statement that he had found a rubber truncheon on the refrigerator in the kitchen was untrue , as a rubber truncheon could not have been there . Not only had the regular police squad not entered the flat but by that time they had left , and the special unit officers were the first ones to enter the kitchen . The only baton that remained in the kitchen was the leg of the broken table , which D - n . must have used as he did not deny hitting PERSON PERSON with a baton . As the latter was standing to the left of D - n . , the police officer must have hit him on the head with the table leg , which would be consistent with the medical report stating that PERSON PERSON had sustained injuries on the left side of his head . The second applicant also requested an expert examination of the table leg .

The second applicant further contended that S. ’s submissions to the effect that while on the balcony Mr PERSON kept moving around and hitting his head and shoulders against the glass remaining in the window frames was equally untenable . Should that have been the case , PERSON PERSON would have slashed his neck lengthwise . However , the wound to his neck measured QUANTITY across and , in the second applicant ’s view , must have been caused by falling down . Although the police officers of the special unit no longer remembered how Mr PERSON had fallen on the floor with S. , in her view it followed from the materials of the case that Mr PERSON had fallen face down , and that was what had caused the wound . Furthermore , the officers failed to clarify how he had sustained multiple fractures of the ribs .

Furthermore , the second applicant alleged that a number of D - n . ’s statements had been false . In particular , Mr PERSON could not have thrown an iron at him , because the iron had been tied to the balcony door . When D - n . entered the kitchen , he could not have seen its floor covered in blood . Although the regular squad had hit Mr PERSON with rubber truncheons , the blood on the floor appeared only after the special unit officers had apprehended PERSON PERSON and put him there . Nor could it be true that PERSON PERSON , having been handcuffed , walked to the kitchen from the balcony by himself , as in that case it was unclear why the police officers had had to put him on the floor . Moreover , D - n . ’s submissions that he had entered the balcony through the broken window made no sense given that he could have used the door . Similarly , it was unlikely that he had not heard Mr PERSON calling the police for help , as his first call , made at TIME , had been heard even by those standing in the lobby . Therefore , it was untenable that D - n . , standing next to the kitchen door , had not heard the call made at TIME

As regards the organisation of the operation , the second applicant noted that D - n . had had no authority to storm the flat , especially given that emergency psychiatric assistance had already been called for by NORP , the Head of the Nagatinskiy PERSON . She pointed out that Mr PERSON had not been holding hostages or otherwise posing a danger to other people . He had acted merely out of fear , trying to defend himself , which was corroborated by his calls to the police . Therefore , there were no grounds for such an urgent operation , which eventually led to her son ’s death .

On DATE the broken table leg was seized from Mr PERSON ’s flat .

On DATE an examination of the broken table leg was conducted . According to the results of the examination , no blood was detected on the leg . Although epidermis cells were detected , there were too few to determine their type and gender . CARDINAL pieces of hair were also detected . CARDINAL of them could have belonged to PERSON , another to D - n . , and yet another to PERSON It appeared possible that CARDINAL pieces of hair had been separated by a blunt object , such as a table leg .

NORP On DATE Zh . , the forensic expert , was questioned . He submitted that the results of the forensic examination had showed that Mr PERSON ’s right wrist , which had been gripped by police officer PERSON , had not been broken . He further stated that on the basis of forensic report no . CARDINAL it had been impossible to determine whether the craniocerebral trauma had been caused by the broken leg of the kitchen table . Zh . noted that he could have provided more detailed answers following an additional forensic examination .

On DATE PERSON was questioned . She submitted that she had had good relations with PERSON and used to visit him and his wife , whom he had divorced in DATE . According to her , his psychiatric condition had worsened after the divorce and he had been seen by a psychiatrist . He had no friends and sometimes fantasised that he was in the company of a woman . For example , when she took him meals she would ring at the door and he would reply that he could not open it because he was with a woman . However , through the keyhole she could see that he was alone in the kitchen . PERSON stated that PERSON had believed that his parents were not his biological parents and that he had been adopted ; he had been afraid that they would place him in a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE another inspection of the scene of the events – in particular the balcony – was carried out . In the course of the inspection CARDINAL reddish - brown stains were found . CARDINAL was on the inside of the doorway ; it was QUANTITY long and started QUANTITY from the floor . The other CARDINAL , next to it , was QUANTITY long and started QUANTITY from the floor . There were also reddish - brown spots .

DATE and DATE a forensic examination was conducted by L - o , NORP and NORP , experts from the NORP ORG . Report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL stated , in particular , that :

( a ) Mr PERSON had sustained a stab / slash wound to the neck QUANTITY long crossing the jugular vein and multiple slash wounds to the right ear , the left side of the face , the chest , the right shoulder and collarbone , the left shoulder , the back of the elbow and wrists , the back of the left hand , CARDINAL fingers of the right hand , and CARDINAL fingers of the left hand . The wounds were complicated by profuse bleeding and led to PERSON death . The wound on the neck was caused by an object with multiple sharp cutting edges , which could have been a piece of glass . The piece of glass must have been fixed somehow and stayed in its place quite firmly and motionlessly . Such an injury was often observed when wounds were caused by the breaking of an entire window pane or glass door , when the main part of the window fell out but sharp shards on the edges remained firmly fixed to the frame . The multiple slash wounds were caused by fragments of broken glass . Although it was not possible to determine the sequence of the injuries , they were sustained within a short period of time shortly before PERSON PERSON ’s death . They were complicated by external bleeding leading to anaemia , which caused his death .

( b ) Mr PERSON had an open craniocerebral trauma consisting of bruising of the left frontal parietal and temporal region and the top of the right eye ; superficial bruising of the right cheekbone ; bruises and abrasions of the forehead , eyelid and top of the right eye , the left eyelid , the right temporal region , the left jaw , cheek and chin ; haemorrhages of the soft tissue of the left frontal parietal and temporal region and the right parietal and temporal region ; depressed fracture of the frontal bone and the left parietal bone ; linear fractures of the left parietal bone and frontal bone ; subarachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the cerebral cortex on the convex surface of the forehead . The craniocerebral trauma was defined as a grave injury . However , since there were no symptoms of dislocation or compression of the brain , the essential areas of cerebral tissue were not damaged and there was no inflammation , the craniocerebral trauma alone could not have led to the death of Mr PERSON . The craniocerebral trauma was caused by multiple blows with hard blunt objects , which probably had a wide surface . However , it was not possible to determine exactly how it had been caused .

( c ) Mr PERSON had closed fractures of the sixth right rib and of the DATE left ribs . They were caused by repeated blows with hard blunt objects . Such injuries could have been caused as a result of being punched , kicked with boots or as a result of falling on protruding objects .

( d ) Mr PERSON also had subcutaneous haemorrhages on the chest , shoulder joints , the left shoulder , forearm , hip and shin , and on the right forearm , hip , knee joint and shin ; and bruises and abrasions on the right forearm and hand which were caused by blows with hard blunt objects . Such bruises and subcutaneous haemorrhages were classified as light injuries .

According to the report , the injuries were caused shortly before PERSON PERSON was admitted to hospital . His death was caused by the stab / slash wound to his neck , which affected the jugular vein , and multiple slash wounds which were complicated by profuse bleeding . Other injuries , such as craniocerebral trauma , complicated PERSON condition but did not directly cause his death . The neck wound was definitely caused by a fixed piece of glass . However , it was impossible to establish at which precise moment during PERSON apprehension it had been caused .

As regards the first applicant ’s question whether the injuries that led to PERSON death could have been caused as a result of his falling down , the forensic experts stated that , since the precise way in which the wound to the neck had been caused could not be established , they could not rule out such a possibility . Whereas the experts considered that at a certain moment a fixed shard of glass had been thrust against PERSON PERSON ’s neck , the shard might have been either in the window or door frame , or on the floor clamped between other objects . However , the multiple slash wounds could not have been caused by his falling down .

On DATE the applicants’ counsel questioned PERSON , the expert who participated in the forensic examination completed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with regard to the conclusions of report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . NORP noted that a neurosurgeon had not taken part in the examination completed on DATE , which affected the reliability of its conclusions . In particular , it was not clear why the craniocerebral trauma had not been given as the cause of death . It was likewise unclear which areas of cerebral tissue had been classed as “ not essential ” , whereas all such areas were essential . Furthermore , it was not sufficiently specified what was meant by “ profuse bleeding ” : acute bleeding or acute anaemia . At the same time the conclusion that the wound to the jugular vein had caused the death was not accurate , since the jugular vein was not a blood vessel and damage to it could not have caused blood loss .

On DATE second applicant asked the investigating authorities to order a forensic examination with the participation of a neurosurgeon .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was closed on the ground that the actions of the police disclosed no indication of an offence .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed and the investigation was resumed .

NORP On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON , an expert who had participated in the forensic examination carried out DATE and DATE . According to A. , there had been no need for a neurosurgeon ’s participation in the forensic examination , as the cause of Mr PERSON ’s death was acute anaemia and not craniocerebral trauma .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request of DATE .

On DATE the second applicant asked the investigating authorities to question the head of the emergency ward of hospital no . CARDINAL concerning the cause of Mr PERSON ’s death .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request .

On DATE the investigating authorities ordered the NORP ORG to conduct another forensic examination .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE .

On DATE the applicants’ counsel obtained report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of a forensic examination conducted by P. and PERSON . , experts from ORG . The description of the injuries sustained by PERSON corresponded to that of report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the experts’ conclusions concerning the cause of death differed . According to report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , his death had been caused by a complex trauma to the head , chest and extremities , together with the fractured skull , medullary contusion , haemorrhages under the pia , wound to the jugular vein and multiple fractures of the ribs . In the experts’ opinion , the jugular vein wound could not have been the only cause of death as it had not been accompanied by life - threatening symptoms such as acute massive blood loss , or an air or fat embolism . However , taken together with the other injuries , it had constituted a factor contributing to PERSON death . The same applied to the complex trauma to the head , chest and extremities , which was also a contributing factor , the combined effect of which led to the lethal outcome .

In response to particular questions put to them , the experts stated , inter alia , that the craniocerebral trauma had probably caused the coma , whereas the other injures had aggravated its course . They also submitted that it was possible that after having sustained the craniocerebral trauma , PERSON PERSON had been able to move independently for a short period of time . In cases of similar craniocerebral trauma , there could be periods DATE ranging from TIME when the injured person was able to talk and consciously perform certain actions . The craniocerebral trauma was caused by a hard blunt object with a limited surface . It could not be ruled out that it was caused by kicking with boots . However , there were no signs leading to the conclusion that it was caused by a baton . The experts further stated that inflammatory complications in the brain could not have developed in the course of the QUANTITY resuscitation efforts before PERSON PERSON ’s death . Lastly , having regard to the entry in PERSON PERSON ’s medical file to the effect that he had suffered from moderate blood loss , the experts stated that the results of the general blood test showed that blood loss had been light to moderate . They reiterated that PERSON death had been caused not by the blood loss alone but by a combination of factors .

On DATE the investigation was suspended .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the NORP ORG issued report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the results of the forensic examination ordered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The conclusions were essentially the same as those of report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG issued report no . CARDINAL . It said that it was more likely that PERSON PERSON ’s craniocerebral trauma had been caused by CARDINAL blows , but that it could not be ruled out that the fractures of the skull had been sustained when he fell on a protruding object or hit his head against an object .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

DATE the applicants asked the investigating authorities to conduct a number of investigative measures , such as questioning the forensic experts and conducting another forensic examination with the participation of a neurosurgeon , and to enclose certain documents in the case file . The requests were refused . The ORG complaints about the refusals to higher prosecuting authorities were dismissed .

On an unspecified date the applicants wrote to ORG with a request to review the accuracy of the forensic reports enclosed in the criminal case file .

On DATE ORG and ORG provided the second applicant with an opinion of ORG , a forensic expert , dated DATE and a report of the commission that examined the request . According to ORG , the experts from ORG had not assessed certain factors related to the craniocerebral trauma . He pointed out that the participation of a neurosurgeon in the examination would have been desirable . T. also stated that forensic report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had supported the conclusions of report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL without proper scientific substantiation , which cast doubt on the objectivity of the conclusions and their scientific accuracy . According to the findings of the commission , forensic examination no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had been conducted in breach of time - limits ; the commission ’s report had not corresponded to certain formal requirements ; the experts who had conducted the examination had used traditional methods accepted in forensic activity ; and , taking into account the nature of the trauma , the participation of a neurosurgeon in the examination would have been desirable .

On DATE the investigation was closed on the ground that the police ORG actions disclosed no indication of an offence .

On DATE the applicants complained about the decision to ORG . It is not clear whether the complaint was examined .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the investigation was closed .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the investigator ordered an additional forensic examination .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

Following an order by the investigator , DATE and DATE another forensic examination on the basis of the case materials was conducted by CARDINAL experts , PERSON , B. , PERSON , from GPE for ORG . In report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL the experts stated , in particular , that it was more likely that Mr PERSON ’s craniocerebral trauma had been caused by CARDINAL blows to his head than by his falling down . More specific findings might be made following a detailed examination of the skull . In the PERSON opinion , there had been no symptoms of massive blood loss , and the craniocerebral trauma had been the only cause of PERSON PERSON ’s death . The experts assessed the other injuries as contributing to PERSON condition but not affecting the lethal outcome . There was no evidence of any inflammatory complications of the brain either .

On DATE ORG upheld an earlier refusal of the applicants’ request to conduct DNA tests in respect of the broken table leg . According to the response , as no traces of blood had been found on the table leg in the course of the biological tests , there were no grounds for DNA tests .

On DATE the investigation was closed . The findings of the investigation may be summarised as follows : on DATE following the first applicant ’s request on the basis of a referral from GPE ’s ORG no . CARDINAL , police officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP accompanied by the first applicant , tried to escort Mr PERSON to a hospital . However , he refused to accompany them and resisted the police officers with the use of arms , wounding CARDINAL of them in the chest and finger . Given that PERSON committed a criminal offence by using violence against a police officer on duty and that he posed a danger to others , it was decided to ask a special police unit for support in order to apprehend him . After negotiations with PERSON had proved futile , the special unit officers stormed the flat . In the course of the operation they used rubber truncheons , handcuffs and means of defence . As a result of PERSON PERSON ’s actions , CARDINAL police officers sustained various injuries . As a result of the police operation , PERSON was apprehended and immediately transferred to hospital for medical assistance , as he had sustained injuries . He died on DATE .

NORP The statements of the applicants and of the police officers who took part in the events , forensic reports nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and a report of a forensic psychological - psychiatric examination of DATE were cited in the decision to close the investigation .

It was also stated in the decision that the investigation had established that there had been lawful grounds for apprehending PERSON PERSON as he had posed a danger to himself and others . The police officers could not have left the flat without having apprehended him . Similarly , they were unable to use certain special tools as they would have endangered other residents . The police officers had valid reasons to call the special police unit for assistance , since PERSON had actively resisted them and had wounded CARDINAL of them in the chest . The use of special tools in order to apprehend him was also justified as his mental state and the fact that he had wounded a police officer were reasons to believe that he posed a real danger to them and might commit unlawful acts in respect of others or hurt himself . In accordance with ORG , police officers may use physical force if other means employed in order to fulfil their duties prove futile . A police officer may use special tools to repel attacks against the police and other citizens . In the present circumstances , the fact that the police inflicted light injuries on PERSON was justified by the necessity to apprehend him .

As regards the grave injuries , the decision noted that the results of the forensic expert examinations were conflicting . Whereas according to some of them Mr PERSON ’s death had been caused by massive blood loss , others concluded that it had been caused by the craniocerebral trauma . Therefore , the investigation was unable to establish with certainty the cause of death and had to take into account all the injuries . In particular , all the experts agreed that the neck wound had probably been caused by a glass shard . As PERSON was resisting the police from behind the balcony door in which there was broken glass , he probably sustained that wound when some of the police officers pulled him by the hand and he cut himself on a protruding glass shard . The police thus had no intention of injuring PERSON PERSON and he sustained the injury also as a result of his own actions . Such an injury , regarded as grave and possibly the cause of PERSON PERSON ’s death , could not have been foreseen .

NORP The decision of DATE further stated that the experts had not reached a unanimous conclusion concerning the cause of the craniocerebral trauma . Whereas some of the reports stated that it could have been caused as a result of Mr PERSON hitting his head against something or falling down , other reports concluded that it had probably been caused as a result of blows to the head . A definitive conclusion might have been reached following an additional examination of PERSON skull , but his relatives did not give their consent to exhumation and the investigator ’s request for exhumation was refused by the court . Therefore , there remained no further opportunities to clarify the cause of the injury , and the investigation still had certain doubts in that respect . Should the craniocerebral trauma have been caused as a result of PERSON falling onto protruding objects , no questions concerning the police ORG responsibility would arise . Should it have been caused by blows to the head , the investigation took the view that the police had had no intention of harming PERSON . That was confirmed by the fact that immediately after the storming of the flat , a doctor had been asked to provide him with medical assistance . From the witness statements it followed that the police had used rubber truncheons to knock the knife out of PERSON hands . It could not be ruled out that some of the blows had accidentally hit PERSON on the head . However , that would not have been intentional . In any event , any conclusions in that respect were of a probabilistic nature and could not be regarded as established facts , as the investigation had unresolvable doubts concerning the cause of the injury . Taking this into account , there was insufficient evidence to show that the police officers had committed an offence , and the investigation should therefore be closed .

On DATE the applicants complained to the investigating department of the Simonovskiy District of GPE about the closure of the investigation . The outcome of the complaint is unclear .

NORP On DATE the second applicant lodged a complaint before ORG concerning the inactivity of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office . She stated , in particular , that a number of investigative measures , including those ordered by a higher prosecutor ’s office , had not been carried out and that she had not been granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG partially granted the complaint . It held that the refusal to grant the second applicant victim status in the investigation was unfounded and dismissed the remainder of the complaint . The applicants appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision .

On an unspecified date the applicants complained to ORG about the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE and the failure to examine a number of their requests for additional investigative measures .

On DATE ORG partially granted the complaint . It found unlawful the failure to examine the applicants’ request , but dismissed the part of the complaint related to the suspension of the investigation . It is not clear whether the applicants appealed .

On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the decision of DATE to suspend the investigation , the failure to examine a number of her requests , the refusal to conduct certain additional investigative measures and the delays in the investigation .

On DATE ORG partially granted the complaint . It noted that the investigation had been resumed on DATE . The court found unlawful the failure to examine the second applicant ’s request for another forensic examination , the failure to provide her with decisions taken in respect of her other requests and the delays in the investigation .

On an unspecified date the second applicant complained to ORG about the failure of ORG to comply with the court ’s decision of DATE . She asked the court to find forensic report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL unlawful and to declare it inadmissible as evidence .

On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to comply with the decision of DATE and dismissed the remaining part . The second applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the continued failure of ORG to comply with the court ’s decision of DATE and the failure to grant a number of their requests for additional investigative measures .

On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to comply with the decision of DATE and dismissed the remaining part . The applicants appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about certain investigative measures related to another forensic examination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The applicants appealed .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On an unspecified date the second applicant complained to ORG about the failure to examine a number of her requests related to certain investigative measures .

On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to examine her request for another forensic examination and dismissed the remaining part .

On an unspecified date the applicants again complained to ORG about certain investigative actions related to another forensic examination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the investigating authorities’ refusal to let them study the case file , their refusal to include forensic report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the case file , the failure to examine a number of the ORG requests in due time and the refusal of several requests for additional investigative measures .

On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to examine a request submitted by the second applicant and the refusal to allow the applicants access to the case file . The remainder of the complaint was dismissed .

On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE and the investigating authorities’ failure to inform the applicants of the suspension .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The second applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of her request to question the forensic experts .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .

On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of her request to declare report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL inadmissible evidence , to conduct an additional forensic examination and to adduce certain evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .

On an unspecified date the second applicant requested the institution of criminal proceedings against PERSON and NORP , senior officers of the Nagatinskiy PERSON . She argued that their decision to storm Mr PERSON ’s flat had been unlawful and taken in abuse of their official powers , as it had been in breach of ORG .

On DATE the institution of criminal proceedings was refused . The decision stated , in particular , that as Mr PERSON had posed a danger to the police officers and other citizens , there had been grounds for storming the flat , and the use of rubber truncheons had been in accordance with the law .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that everyone has the right to life .

NORP In accordance with section PERSON ) of the PERSON on Police of DATE , in force until DATE , the police had to provide assistance to citizens who were victims of a crime , an administrative offence or an accident , or in a helpless or other state that threatened their health and life . Under section CARDINAL ) , following a request from a medical institution authorised by a court , the police had to bring to that institution for medical treatment persons suffering from illnesses who posed an imminent danger to themselves or others , or had committed a socially dangerous act and refused to go to the institution . For the purposes of crime prevention the police also had to ensure , jointly with the public health agencies and as provided for by the applicable legislation , the monitoring of persons suffering from mental disorders , drug addiction or alcoholism and posing a danger to others .

Section PERSON ) provided that the police were competent to apprehend and take to specialised institutions persons refusing compulsory medical treatment that had been prescribed in accordance with a legal procedure .

Section CARDINAL provided that the police could use force , special tools or firearms only in situations stipulated in the PERSON . When using force , special tools or firearms a police officer had to :

- warn about the intention to use them sufficiently in advance to enable the person to comply with the requirements of the police , except in cases where a delay might put in danger the life or well - being of other citizens or police officers , or entail other grave consequences , or where , given the circumstances , such a warning would be inexpedient or impossible ;

- try to minimise the possible damage , depending on the nature of the offence , the perpetrator and the resistance ;

- ensure that those injured were provided with medical assistance and notify their relatives as quickly as possible ;

- inform the prosecutor of any wounds or deaths .

Section CARDINAL further provided that those found guilty of abuse of powers when using force , special tools or firearms would be held liable .

Section CARDINAL authorised the police to use force , including martial arts , in order to prevent the commission of crimes and administrative offences ; to arrest persons who had committed them ; and to break down the resistance to lawful demands where non - violent means had failed to ensure the fulfillment of police duties .

Section CARDINAL provided a list of special tools , which included , but were not limited to , rubber truncheons , handcuffs , electroshock tools and tear gas . The special tools could be used by the police in the following circumstances :

( CARDINAL ) to repel attacks against citizens and police officers ;

( CARDINAL ) to break down the resistance to a police officer ;

( CARDINAL ) to apprehend a person caught red - handed and trying to escape ;

( CARDINAL ) to apprehend persons in respect of whom there were sufficient grounds to believe that they would resist the police with the use of arms ;

( CARDINAL ) to take those apprehended to a police station or to convey those subjected to administrative arrest if there were grounds to believe that they might flee , hurt themselves or others , or resist the police ;

( CARDINAL ) to release hostages ;

( CARDINAL ) to prevent mass disorders or group actions disrupting the functioning of traffic , communication or of other organisations ;

( CARDINAL) to stop a vehicle whose driver did not comply with a police officer ’s request to stop ;

( CARDINAL ) to identify persons who are committing or have committed a crime ;

( CARDINAL ) to protect citizens from an attack that threatens their life or well - being , as provided for by LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL further provided that the use of special tools was forbidden in respect of pregnant women , minors and disabled persons , except if they resisted the police with the use of arms or attacked them , thereby posing a danger to the life and well - being of other people . In a situation of justifiable self - defence or in an emergency , in the absence of special tools a police officer could use any available means . It was forbidden to equip the police with special tools which might cause excessively grave injuries or pose unjustified risks .

Under LAW , adopted by Order no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG and amended on DATE and DATE , the special police unit had the following tasks :

( CARDINAL ) ensuring personal safety and safety of property on the street and in other public spaces ;

( CARDINAL ) ensuring law and order and public safety on the street and in other public spaces and transport , and crime prevention ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP participation in the investigation of crimes ;

( CARDINAL ) providing assistance , within its competence , to citizens , officials , enterprises , organisations , agencies and public associations in exercising their rights and lawful interests ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP participation , together with other law - enforcement and military units , in the fight against terrorist , subversive and intelligence groups .

Under LAW the functions of special police units in fulfilling the above tasks include ensuring order at public events ; conducting raids in criminogenic areas ; identification and apprehension of terrorists and members of armed gangs ; conducting special operations for defusing explosive devices ; securing public order and safety in a state of emergency ; participation in operations conducted by other law - enforcement , security , customs or tax agencies .

Section CARDINAL of the Law on Psychiatric Assistance and Citizens’ Rights in this Respect of DATE , as amended on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( “ the Law on Psychiatric Assistance ” ) , provides that a person suffering from a mental disorder may be placed in a psychiatric hospital without his or her consent , or the consent of his or her representative , before a court had delivered a decision in this respect , if the person ’s examination or treatment is only possible on an inpatient basis and the mental disorder is grave and :

- poses an immediate danger to either himself or others ;

- renders the person incapable of attending to his basic needs ; or

- risks causing considerable harm to his health should the person be left without psychiatric assistance .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) police officers have to assist the medical personnel in carrying out the involuntary hospitalisation and ensure safe access to the person concerned and his or her examination . Should the police have to prevent the actions of the person posing a danger to the life and health of others , or to search for and apprehend the person , they must act as provided for in the Law on Police .

Under LAW , adopted by Order no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE of ORG and ORG , if it is necessary to carry out the involuntary hospitalisation of a person suffering from a mental disorder who poses a danger to himself or others and where there are reasons to believe that either he or his relatives would resist the hospitalisation , psychiatric emergency services personnel should contact the local department of the interior for assistance . The head of the department of the interior or his deputy should arrange for police officers to arrive at the relevant address at the required time .

Under LAW , involuntary hospitalisation is carried out by psychiatric emergency services personnel . Police officers conduct a search for the person in question and provide assistance in apprehending persons subject to involuntary hospitalisation , ensure public safety and safe conditions for access to the person subject to hospitalisation and prevent any unlawful actions of persons resisting the hospitalisation .

Article CARDINAL of the Code sets out the judicial procedure for the examination of complaints . The orders of an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings or terminating a case , and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to hinder ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a local district court , which is competent to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .