IVANOV v. RUSSIA

 
Communicated on 28 May 2019
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 72144/14
Vasiliy Anatolyevich IVANOV
against Russia
lodged on 5 November 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasiliy Anatolyevich Ivanov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Nigozero, the Republic of Kareliya. He is represented before the Court by Ms M.S. Kozlovskaya, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a member of St Petersburg Gay-Straight Alliance.
1.  Incident of 12 June 2012
On 12 June 2012, the anniversary of the declaration of independence of Russia, a demonstration in support of constitutional rights and freedoms took place in the Konnyushennaya Square in St Petersburg. Several thousand people took part in the event with a number of activist groups present and clearly distinguishable with their respective flags and banners. The applicant was part of the LGBT activist group. He had a banner with ‘Alliance for LGBT equality’ written on it. A group of “skinhead” looking persons was spotted next to the venue by the participants.
After the event, the applicant and his group were leaving the Palace Square in the direction of the Nevskiy Prospekt underground station along the Griboyedov channel embankment.
At around 5.10 p.m. the applicant got assaulted by a group of 8 to 10 people, the same “skinhead” looking persons spotted earlier next to the demonstration. The attack took place near the building at 6, Griboyedov Channel Embankment. The assaulters shouted: “For Sparta!”.
The applicant was punched in the face and his rainbow flag and the banner were thrown out in the channel.
2.  Incident of 12 June 2012
The applicant complained to the police at once. The ensuing investigation identified Mr De. as a perpetrator of the attack on the applicant. Mr De. was a member of the Russian Run (Русская пробежка), a group promoting Russian ethnicity and Russian way of life.
On 25 December 2013 the justice of the peace of St Petersburg examined the criminal case against Mr De. and convicted him of having inflicted light bodily harm on the applicant “without obvious reason” (из хулиганских побуждений). Mr De. was sentenced to five months of correctional labour which represented a five percent deduction from Mr De.’s salary to be paid to the State. Given the fact that Mr De. spent some time in pre-trial detention, the court released him at once.
By a judgment of 5 May 2014 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg upheld the judgment disregarding the applicant’s arguments who insisted that the attack had a homophobic character and that it had to be characterised legally as such.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
Section 116 of the Criminal Code of Russia provides that infliction of light bodily harm is punishable by mandatory labour of up to three hundred and sixty hours, or correctional labour of up to one year, or restriction of liberty of up to two years, or forced labour of up to two years, or arrest of up to six months, or imprisonment of up to two years.
The same Section provides for the same punishments if the same acts were committed “without obvious reason” (из хулиганских побуждений) or motivated by political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious hatred, or the enmity in respect of a social group (по мотивам политической, идеологической, расовой, национальной или религиозной ненависти или вражды либо по мотивам ненависти или вражды в отношении какой‑либо социальной группы).
COMPLAINTS
Under Article 3 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the State’s breach of positive obligation properly to react to the incident. He claims, in particular, that the punishment was too mild and that the domestic courts failed to characterise the attack as homophobic.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Did the domestic authorities duly investigate and respond to the applicant’s allegation that the events of 12 June 2012 had a homophobic character? The respondent Government are requested to provide a copy of the entire investigation file into the events.
 
2.  In view of the answer to the above question, was there a violation of either Article 3 or Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14, on account of the reaction of the domestic authorities?
 
3.  Was the existing Russian legal framework and in particular the provisions of Article 116 of the Criminal Code adequate for dealing with cases of homophobic attacks? In view of the answer to this question, was there a violation of either Article 3 or Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention?

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy