Public humiliation of soldier was not justified by the need to maintain military discipline
JUDGMENT
Lyalyakin v. Russia 12/03/2015 (no. 31305/09)
SUMMARY:
The case concerned a complaint by a conscript about degrading treatment when he was caught trying to escape from the army, including appearing undressed in front of other soldiers. The Court, whilst recognising the need to maintain military discipline within the army, found that the conscript’s public humiliation had been unnecessary and could not be justified merely as a means of preventing his escape from the unit.
PROVISION:
Article 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Mikhail Lyalyakin, is a Russian national who was born in 1988 and lives in the town of
Nizhniy Novgorod (Russia).
Mr Lyalyakin was conscripted into the Russian Army in December 2006. After six months preparation
in Kovrov, he was sent to Military Unit no. 34605 in Volgograd. He says that he found the atmosphere within the unit to be tense and violent, and as a result he panicked and decided to escape.
He made his first attempt to escape on 4 June 2007, accompanied by a fellow junior sergeant. They
were apprehended the next day and taken back to the camp. Mr Lyalyakin alleges that the two officers who found them threatened to kill them on their return to the base. Mr Lyalyakin therefore made another attempt to escape during the journey. He was caught and both junior sergeants were forced to undress, allegedly to prevent any further escape attempts.
On 6 June they were both brought before the other servicemen on the parade ground and publically
reprimanded by the battalion commander. Mr Lyalyakin claims that they were made to stand naked
in front of the other servicemen. This claim is disputed by the military authorities who state that
although undressed, the two conscripts were presented wearing military briefs.
Mr Lyalyakin claims that he was repeatedly subjected to humiliating and abusive treatment by his
fellow soldiers following his return to the camp. He therefore escaped again on 7 June and reached
his family in Nizhniy Novgorod, never returning to the unit in Volgograd.
Soon after, Mr Lyalyakin submitted a complaint about his ill-treatment to the Military Prosecutor’s
Office in Nizhniy Novgorod, who opened a preliminary inquiry. The case was sent to the Volgograd
Military Prosecutor’s Office for investigation. This office initially refused to open a criminal case, a
decision rejected by the Prosecutor’s Office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit. The investigators conducted five rounds of investigation; each time they decided against opening a criminal case and
each time the decision was quashed by higher authorities and the case was sent back for further
investigation.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
The Court reiterated that Article 3 prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim’s behaviour. The severity
of the ill-treatment had to be assessed to determine whether it fell within the scope of Article 3. The
Court was mindful that a degree of suffering might be inevitable in certain contexts, including during
military service and therefore recognised that the threshold for suffering, humiliation or ill treatment might be higher in a military context than a civilian one. This higher threshold could be justified where it contributed to the specific mission of the armed forces and the need to maintain discipline in a military unit.
The Court noted that it was uncontested that Mr Lyalyakin had been undressed and had remained in
his military briefs on two occasions. The authorities had explained that this treatment was used on
the first occasion to prevent Mr Lyalyakin from making another attempt to escape whilst travelling
back to the military base. However, the Court found that neither the investigating authorities nor
the government in its response to the Court had examined whether it had been necessary to use
those measures, nor had they offered an explanation as to why it Mr Lyalyakin was made to stand in
front of the battalion wearing only military briefs once he was back at the military base and was
once again under the control of the military authorities. Notwithstanding the need to maintain
military discipline, the Court found that the need for or appropriateness of using such a measure had
not been adequately justified.
The Court therefore considered that the public undressing of Mr Lyalyakin, who was just 19 at the
time, had had the effect of humiliating him and had thus constituted degrading treatment.
Article 3 (lack of effective investigation)
The Court found that the authorities’ refusal to open a criminal case following Mr Lyalyakin’s
credible complaint of ill-treatment had amounted to a failure to carry out an effective investigation.
Such failure by the authorities fostered a sense of impunity amongst military officers. The Court deemed that proper investigations of such allegations were essential if the State sought to avoid the appearance of collusion or tolerance of unlawful acts. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 3 on account of the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into Mr Lyalyakin’s complaints.
Other articles
Having found a violation of Article 3, the Court found there was no need to examine Mr Lyalyakin’s other allegations of ill-treatment or to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 13
(right to an effective remedy).
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Lyalyakin 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 825.72 in respect of costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing).
