An Orenburg court renders delays encouraged by heads of the city investigation department unlawful

Событие | Пресс центр

09 November 2011

Judge Igor Izmailov from the Promyshlenny district court of Orenburg has sustained the appeal of the Orenburg office of the Committee Against Torture against unlawful actions and omissions of the Orenburg Investigation Department under the Russian Investigation Committee. The appeal was lodged in the interests of Orenburg resident Vladimir Prytkov.

In his judgment the judge has pointed out that, though having legal grounds and sufficient reasons to instigate criminal proceedings, officials of the investigation department keep issuing refusals to open a criminal case, while department heads quash unlawful refusals and unfoundedly extend the period of the check (9 times already) without giving concrete facts which could serve as a legal ground for such prolongation.

We would like to remind you that Mr. Prytkov applied to the Orenburg office of INGO “Committee Against Torture” in 2010.

He claimed that he had been tortured on May 19, 2010 in the building of the 2nd Operational Investigation Unit in Dubitskogo Street. During the interrogation he was subjected to choking with a plastic bag. Besides, Prytkov was beaten with the purpose of making him confess to extortion first, and then to other crimes as well. Having failed to obtain a confession from Vladimir, the police had to release him.

Vladimir went straight to the city hospital where he was given an injection and had his injuries documented. Within several days Vladimir’s condition did not improve, and on May 24, 2010 he was admitted as an in-patient with the following diagnosis: combined craniocerebral injury, brain contusion of medium severity, subarachnoid hemorrhage, contusions of soft tissues of the head, chest contusion.

On May 24, 2010 Prytkov submitted a crime report upon the fact of police abuse to investigative authorities. However, the investigation proved ineffective. Investigators failed to perform even direct prosecutorial orders. It is not surprising that the prosecutor present during the hearing has supported the ICAT’s appeal.

Next, human rights defenders are going to sue the Russian Federation for the damage incurred to Mr. Prytkov by denial of access to justice and ineffective investigation of the crime against him. 

Judgment