Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Lyalyakin v. Russia": Was there abuse of power?

The analysis of Lyalyakin v. Russia Judgment has allowed revealing the distortion of the factual circumstances of the incident for the treatment of the applicant to match the minimum level of severity, which allowed to consider it under Article 3 of the Convention and to qualify it as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. On March 12, 2015, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case Lyalyakin v. Russia. The applicant alleged that he had been ill-treated during his military service. The Court concluded about the merits of the complaint and held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in terms of the applicant's undressing. The accusation of ill-treatment is based on the imputation of actions as a result of abuse of the right, which did not happen in real life - the so-called second undressing of a detained deserter. After the second attempt to escape, the applicant was indeed asked to remove his outer clothing and, as such, he was taken to the military unit. After the lineup, he was brought up before the unit, but no one stripped him naked down the line. Under these circumstances, the treatment of the applicant did not reach the minimum level of severity, which would allow considering it under Article 3 of the Convention. Then, the Court introduces the "second undressing" to base its charges of inhuman or degrading treatment. To make this "second undressing" look like really existing, the Court accompanied it with groundless assumptions and examples of tortures with undressing from other cases as well as the statement that "the applicant was required to face the military unit wearing only underwear when he was brought under control after several attempts to escape". However, no requirements of the kind are recorded in the case - the detainee was just brought before the line in the clothes he was wearing when delivered to his military unit by the search group of officers. The analysis of the Judgment text shows that the European Court has distorted the facts that really happened for the sake of a predetermined result. The verbal gymnastics found in the Court's Judgment allowed increase the "level of severity" of the ill-treatment to qualify it as an abuse under Article 3 of the Convention.

Keywords

Authors

References