Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 21.10.2010 «Дело Белобородов (Beloborodov) против России» [англ.]

had been incomplete and contradictory. The Court will examine the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
23. The Government contested the applicant's argument. They stated that his allegations of ill-treatment had been thoroughly examined. It had been established, however, that the police officers had not subjected the applicant to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. Accordingly, there had been no violation of the applicant's rights set out in Article 3 of the Convention, either under the substantive or the procedural limb.
24. The applicant maintained his complaints.

A. Admissibility

25. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Alleged ill-treatment

26. The Court has stated on many occasions that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
27. The Court further reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita, cited above, § 121).
28. Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a plausible and convincing explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A No. 336).
29. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court firstly observes that the applicant's allegations that he had been hung up by his handcuffs are not supported by the medical documentation submitted by the parties. Nor did the subsequent inquiry conducted by the authorities elucidate the disputed facts. In such circumstances, the Court finds it impossible to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" whether or not the applicant was hung up by his handcuffs as he alleged.
30. As regards the injuries the applicant complained of, the Court notes that the medical evidence submitted by the applicant conclusively demonstrates that he sustained numerous injuries, including abrasions on his upper lip and wrists, a bruise on the upper left eyelid, and multiple bruises on the left temple.
31. The Court further observes that the parties did not dispute, although they were not in agreement as to the exact date, that the applicant had sustained the injuries in question while he was in police custody, that is between 22 and 23 April 2004. Accordingly, the Court's task in the present case is to ascertain whether the Government have met their obligation to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused.
32. The Court notes that in response to the applicant's consistent account of the circumstances of his questioning on 22 April 2004 at the police station, the Government made no attempt to account for the cause of the applicant's injuries. They did no more than refer to the findings of the domestic

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7 8