Mikheyev v. Russia
2006 European Court of Human Rights case
Mikheyev v. Russia was a 2006 court case involving Alexey Mikheyev and the Russian Federation. The case became notable as "the first serious victory in a case of torture" brought to the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian government. The case was brought forward by the Russian NGO Committee Against Torture and submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on November 16, 2001.
The applicant alleged that while in detention on remand he had been tortured by police officers in order to extract a confession to the rape and murder of a female minor. As a result, he had jumped out of the window of the police station and broken his spine. He also complained that the investigation into these events by the Russian police had been ineffective.
The court's decision in this case was a judgment on January 26, 2006. The ECHR recognized that there was ill-treatment of Mikheyev, which is a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedom. In addition, the court held that there was a violation of Article 3 of the convention on account of the lack of effective remedies in respect of the ill-treatment that Mikheyev complained about.
The public source identifies “Mikheyev v. Russia” as 2006 European Court of Human Rights case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Mikheyev, Russia and European.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Mikheyev v. Russia”, the useful work is to connect “2006 European Court of Human Rights case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6849809. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2006 and 2001.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Mikheyev v. Russia”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Mikheyev v. Russia primary sources, Mikheyev v. Russia archive and Mikheyev research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Mikheyev v. Russia”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Mikheyev v. Russia” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.