Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Дмитрачков (Dmitrachkov) против России» [англ.]

#039;s complaints, other than remitting the case to a police investigator, K., from the same police station.
12. On 19 April 2001 K. ordered the applicant's medical examination.
13. The examination was carried out on the same date. According to the expert's report, the applicant had a bruise of 3.5 x 5 cm on his back in the right lumbar region and the right temple area was sensitive on palpation. Noting that no harm to the applicant's health could be established, the expert concluded that the bruise could have been inflicted at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant.

2. The prosecutor's first decision refusing
to open a criminal case

14. By a decision of 3 May 2001 a senior assistant to the Prosecutor of the Buzuluk Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers Z. and V. for lack of evidence of a crime.
15. The decision referred to the statements of Z. and V., who denied the allegations of ill-treatment. Investigator K. stated that he had ordered a medical examination in response to the applicant's complaint and noted that the applicant had not complained about the alleged ill-treatment to the prosecutor when the latter had authorised his detention on remand. Finally, having regard to the expert's report, the prosecutor concluded that he was unable to establish any ill-treatment on the part of the police officers and noted that the injury sustained by the applicant could have occurred "in other circumstances".
16. The applicant submitted that he had learned about this decision "much later".
17. The Government did not make any comments concerning the date of notification of this decision to the applicant.

3. The trial court's request to the prosecutor's office
to carry out an inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment

18. On an unspecified date the applicant's criminal case concerning the charges of theft and robbery was transferred to the Buzuluk Town Court for examination.
19. During the court hearing of his criminal case on 9 July 2001 the applicant repeated his allegations of ill-treatment. The two co-accused in the applicant's case also alleged ill-treatment by the police officers. The prosecutor participating in the examination of the case moved to adjourn the proceedings in order to carry out an inquiry into their submissions.
20. By a decision of the same date the trial court entrusted the Buzuluk Prosecutor with the inquiry and adjourned the proceedings.

4. The second decision refusing to institute
criminal proceedings

21. On 27 July 2001 the Senior Assistant to the Prosecutor of the Buzuluk Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, referring, among other things, to the oral evidence given by police officers V. and Z. and investigator K. as well as to the previous decision of 3 May 2001.
22. The applicant stated that he was not notified about the decision immediately.
23. The Government submitted that the decision had been read aloud during the court hearing of 7 August 2001.

5. The judicial review of the decisions
of the prosecutor's office

24. The applicant complained about the decisions of the prosecutor's office to the Buzuluk Town Court, alleging that they were unfounded and that several witnesses of the ill-treatment had not been questioned, and requested an additional inquiry.
25. By a judgment of 23 October 2001 the court rejected his complaint. In particular, it stated that:
"...The plaintiff's submissions proved unconfirmed during the court hearing. According to the statements of the police officers V. and Z. obtained

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10