Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Рудаков (Rudakov) против России» [англ.]

t whether it was conducted diligently, whether the authorities were determined to identify and prosecute those responsible and, accordingly, whether the investigation was "effective".
60. The Court reiterates that the applicant was entirely reliant on the prosecutor to assemble the evidence necessary to corroborate his complaint. The prosecutor had the legal powers to interview the warders, summon witnesses, visit the scene of the incident, collect forensic evidence and take all other crucial steps for the purpose of establishing the truth of the applicant's account. His role was critical not only to the pursuit of criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the offences but also to the pursuit by the applicant of other remedies to redress the harm he had suffered (see paragraph 30 above).
61. The Court will therefore first assess the promptness of the prosecutor's investigation, viewed as a gauge of the authorities' determination to prosecute those responsible for the applicant's ill-treatment (see Selmouni], cited above, §§ 78 and 79). In the present case the applicant made a complaint of ill-treatment to the Vladimir Town Prosecutor's office on 14 July 2003. While the parties did not indicate the date when the deputy prosecutor issued a formal decision initiating the inquiry into the applicant's complaint, it appears that no investigative steps were taken until 30 October 2003, when the deputy prosecutor interviewed the six warders (see paragraph 17 above). On the same day he issued his first decision, dismissing the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment. In this respect the Court finds it striking that for a period of more than three months between 14 July and 30 October 2003, that is during the period immediately after the incident which usually proves to be crucial for the establishment of the truth in cases similar to the one at hand, there were no developments in the inquiry (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, No. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009, and Maksimov v. Russia, No. 43233/02, § 87, 18 March 2010). The Government failed to provide any explanation for the protraction of the proceedings. In the Court's view, the belated commencement of the inquiry resulted in the loss of precious time, which could not but have a negative impact on the success of the investigation (see Mikheyev v. Russia, No. 77617/01, § 114, 26 January 2006).
62. Further, with regard to the thoroughness of the investigation, the Court notes some discrepancies capable of undermining its reliability and effectiveness. Firstly, a thorough evaluation was not carried out with respect to the quantity and nature of the applicant's injuries. The Court finds it unexplainable that an examination of the applicant by a forensic expert has never been authorised. It reiterates that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and have been allocated a mandate which is sufficiently broad in scope (see {Akkoc} v. Turkey, Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 55 and § 118, ECHR 2000-X). When a doctor writes a report after a medical examination of a person who alleges having been ill-treated, it is extremely important that he states the degree of consistency with the history of ill-treatment. A conclusion indicating the degree of support to the alleged ill-treatment history should be based on a discussion of possible differential diagnoses (non-ill-treatment-related injuries - including self-inflicted injuries - and diseases) (see Barabanshchikov v. Russia, No. 36220/02, § 59, 8 January 2009).
63. That was not done in the present case. Neither the applicant's medical examinations by the prison nurse or medical assistant on 11 July 2003, nor his examination by the prison doctor on 14 July 2003 complied with the above-men

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15 ... 16