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

4 December 2003 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir quashed the decision of 30 October 2003 and authorised an additional inquiry. The District Court noted that the applicant had asked the prosecutor's office to interview his fellow inmate, Mr Li., who had witnessed the beatings on 11 July 2003, the medical assistant, Mr M., who had examined the applicant in the evening of 11 July 2003 and had recorded his injuries, and the warder, Mr L., who had beaten the applicant up. However, the prosecutor's office had not complied with the applicant's request. The District Court also held that the decision of 30 October 2003 was only based on statements by the warders, that the prosecutor's inquiry was "incomplete and subjective" and that the prosecutor had unlawfully refused to institute criminal proceedings applying Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, although that Article only provided for such a refusal in the event of a friendly settlement.
19. On 2 March 2004 the deputy prosecutor of the Vladimir Town Prosecutor's office once again refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr L. In addition to the statements previously taken from the six warders, the deputy prosecutor based his three-page decision on statements by Mr L. and the medical assistant, Mr M.
In particular, Mr L. informed the deputy prosecutor that on 11 July 2003 he and several other warders had attempted to take the applicant outside for daily exercise. The applicant had refused, had threatened the warders, including Mr L., and had taken up a boxing stance, trying to hit Mr L. In response Mr L. had used a rubber truncheon. He had hit the applicant on the buttocks and the middle part of the thighs. Mr L. insisted that he had only used the rubber truncheon; he had not kicked the applicant and had not hit him in the head or stomach.
The medical assistant, Mr M., stated that he had been called to the applicant on 11 July 2003 at approximately 8.00 p.m. The latter had complained of headache, stomach pain, nausea and vomiting blood. Mr M. had not seen any blood. He had examined the applicant and recorded numerous abrasions and bruises. The applicant had been provided with medical assistance and had been prescribed a consultation with a surgeon. Mr M. noted that he had not diagnosed concussion. He had not noticed a broken tooth.
The deputy prosecutor also interviewed the applicant's fellow inmate, Mr Li., who corroborated the applicant's version of events. However, the deputy prosecutor was not convinced by Mr Li.'s testimony because "it was only corroborated by the applicant's statements and was rebutted by the materials of the inquiry".
20. The applicant appealed to a court against the decision of 2 March 2004.
21. On 1 April 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir quashed the deputy prosecutor's decision and ordered an additional investigation. The District Court noted that the deputy prosecutor had not interviewed the applicant or the nurse who had examined him after the beatings and had not analysed the statements given by Mr L. and Mr M., although those two persons had given contradictory statements as to "the localisation and character of the injuries" sustained by the applicant.
22. On 19 April 2004 a deputy prosecutor of the Vladimir Town Prosecutor's office dismissed the applicant's complaint, finding that Mr L.'s actions had been lawful. In addition to the statements by Mr L., the warders and medical assistant, Mr M., included in the decision of 2 March 2004, the deputy prosecutor based its decision on the medical record issued on 11 July 2003 by the nurse and on statements by the doctor, Ms B., who had examined the applicant on 14 July 2003. Ms B. confirmed her conclusions made in the medical report on 14 July 2003.
Relying on the medical record and the statements by Ms B., the deputy prosecuto

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16