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

itted that he had asked for an explanation but in response he had received an additional three blows to the neck with the rubber truncheon. The applicant fell to the floor and Mr L. continued hitting him with the rubber truncheon on the head, back, stomach and legs. The applicant crawled to the wall in an attempt to dodge the blows. He sat near the wall and tried to cover his head with his hands. Mr L. kicked him a number of times, ordering him to get up and go outside for exercise. When the applicant refused Mr L. shoved him into the cell and took the applicant's inmate, Mr Li., outside for exercise. The applicant asked for medical assistance. Twenty minutes later Mr L. again entered the cell and began hitting the applicant in the face and head using his fists and the rubber truncheon. Mr L. knocked out the applicant's front tooth when he cut a finger on his left hand. Trying to escape, the applicant jumped on to a bunk, where Mr L. continued hitting him on the legs. Mr L. grabbed the applicant by his clothes, dragged him to a punishment cell and locked him up.
10. The applicant felt dizzy and called for a doctor. A nurse came to the punishment cell and the applicant complained to her that Mr L. had beaten him up. He showed the nurse his injuries and complained that he was not feeling well. Half an hour later Mr L. took the applicant out of the punishment cell and dragged him back to his own cell, continuing to hit and kick him.
11. The Government, relying on written statements by prison warders, including Mr L., submitted that on 11 July 2003 the applicant and two fellow inmates had resisted the warders' attempt to take them outside for exercise. In particular, the applicant had grabbed Mr L. by his uniform, had threatened him with violence, and had tried to hit the other warders. Considering the applicant's conduct as an offence, the warders hit him a number of times with rubber truncheons to put a stop to his unlawful behaviour. The Government stressed that truncheons had been used in strict compliance with requirements of the Penitentiary Institutions Act (see paragraph 29 below). The blows were only administered to the applicant's hips and buttocks. The force was used for a very short period of time (ten to twelve seconds) with the intention of causing the least possible damage to the applicant's health.

B. Reports on the use of violence,
the applicant's medical examinations and investigation
of his complaints of ill-treatment

12. Immediately after the incident an entry was made in the prison log recording the confrontation between the warders and inmates and the use of special measures (rubber truncheons) in response to inmates' violence. The applicant was also examined by a prison nurse who recorded an elongated bruise on the right side of his lumbar region. The nurse concluded that the bruise measuring fifteen to five centimetres "did not present any danger to life or health". The nurse treated the applicant's injury with iodine and applied a cold compress.
13. In the aftermath of the events on 11 July 2003 Mr L. made a report which read as follows:
"[I] inform [you] that on 11 July 2003 at 10.50 a.m., when inmates sentenced to life imprisonment were being taken for outdoor exercise, I, officer... L., used a rubber truncheon... on a detainee, [the applicant], in compliance with Article 30 of the [Penitentiary Institutions Act]. The rubber truncheon was used because [the applicant] refused to comply with lawful orders of the administration and attempted to use physical resistance by grabbing my uniform. The rubber truncheon was not applied to vital body parts."
Two warders who had witnessed the incident wrote an identical report, adding that the applicant did not need medical assistance.
14. In the evening of 11 July 2003 the applicant experienced severe

> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16