The Court refused to soften the verdict of former police officer convicted for torture

News

16 September 2021

Today, on 16 September 2021, the First Cassational Court of the general jurisdiction upheld the verdict of former police officer Spartak Sevumyan who was previously found guilty of torturing Boris Martynov and convicted to four years’ prison term with serving the sentence in a standard regime penal colony.

As we have previously reported, in November 2020, former criminal investigations officer with Drug Enforcement Department of the Department of the Interior for Krasnogorsk Spartak Sevumyan was declared guilty of committing a crime under item “a” of Part 3, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the RF (“abuse of office using violence”) and sentenced to four years’ prison term with serving the sentence in a standard regime penal colony.

In March 2019, Boris Martynov applied to the Committee Against Torture with a complaint that he and a friend of his were beaten up by the officers of the Drug Enforcement Department of the Department of the Interior for Krasnogorsk in November 2018. Several police officers, including Spartak Sevumyan and Sergey Seliverstov took part in the battery.

“Seliverstov throws me from a chair with a strong kick in the chest, I fall on the floor, he holds the metal chair I was sitting on and hits me with it several times in the ace and in the body in the chest area. After that, Spartak Sevumyan comes up to me and says, “What are you bullshitting, bitch”, and kicks me strongly in my body, at my left side, I was lying on my back with my head closer to the window, and my feet were closer to the door. Then Sevumyan hits me several more times in the same area”, – that is how Boris described the incident during the questioning by the investigator.

The expert diagnosed Martynov with fractures of 5th, 6th ribs with misalignment of the bone fragments, which inflicted the health damage of medium severity. Boris Martynov’s mother submitted an application against the police officers’ actions to the Department of Internal Security of the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia for the Moscow region.

On 24 June 2019, investigator with the Investigative Department for Krasnogorsk of the Investigative Committee of Russia for the Moscow region Ekaterina Chutkova initiated a criminal case under item “a” of Part 3 of Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the RF (“abuse of office using violence”).
On 13 November 2019, former investigative officer of drug enforcement department with the Department of the Ministry of the Interior for Krasnogorsk Spartak Sevumyan was detained under suspicion of this crime. On the same day he became involved in the case in the capacity of a defendant. During the judicial investigation, defendant Spartak Sevumyan repeatedly changed his testimony, but in the end he acknowledged his guilt in the committal of the crime and at his initiative paid a compensation to the victim party in the amount of two million rubles. Criminal prosecution of the second investigative officer, Sergey Seliverstov, was dismissed due to his death.

On 3 November 2020, the Krasnogorsky City Court of the Moscow region passed the sentence. Judge Aleksandra Kankisheva declared Spartak Sevumyan to be guilty of committing a crime under item “a” of Part 3, Article 286 of the Criminal Code of the RF (“abuse of office using violence”) and sentenced him to four years’ prison term with serving the sentence in a standard regime penal colony.

In May of this year, convict Sevumyan appealed against the ruling to the First Cassational Court of the general jurisdiction. He asked to soften his sentence, justifying it in the following way: “the victim behaved in a provoking manner, used obscenities about the law-enforcement system, and in particular, about me and my colleague, S.S.Seliverstov. I would like to explain that it was the amoral behavior of the victim that provoked our response expressed in the application of physical force”.

Today, the court dismissed the convicts’ arguments, stating that the court examined the circumstances of the case in full and comprehensive manner and checked all the evidence. The verdict was upheld.