Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.07.2010 <Дело Копылов (Kopylov) против России» [англ.]

onse to the defendants' failure to comply with the escorts' order to proceed to the hearing room rather than in response to an attack on the escorts (see paragraph 96 above). The above considerations lead the Court to regard the Government's version of the events with caution.
162. However, even assuming that the Government's version of the events is accurate, the Court is not convinced that the use of rubber truncheons against the applicant was justified in the circumstances of the case. It notes that the escorts were not faced with an unexpected outburst of violence on the part of the defendants to which they would have been obliged to react without prior preparation. The escorts knew that the defendants were unwilling to proceed to the hearing room and must have foreseen a possibility of resistance on their part. The Court cannot but criticise the arrangements made by the escorts who, in a situation of manifest tension conductive to confrontation, chose to transfer the defendants together instead of conveying each of them separately in order to reduce the risk of aggression. The Court considers that the failure by the escorts to ensure that the defendants' transfer was made in safe and orderly conditions was a factor which by its very nature must have increased the risk of altercation and, consequently, the risk of use of retaliatory force by the escorts.
163. Further, as regards the dangerousness of an attack for the escorts, the Court notes that the defendants were handcuffed and were therefore restricted in movement and strength. They were moreover outnumbered by the escorts who were trained and equipped to deal with the type of behaviour allegedly demonstrated by the defendants. An attack by the defendants could not therefore have been very dangerous for the escorts. Although the Court accepts that some physical force might have been necessary to repress an attack and calm the attackers down, it is not convinced that the use of rubber truncheons was warranted in the circumstances. It notes in this respect that the applicant was hit by truncheons at least several times and was also slapped and kicked. The beatings continued after the alleged attack had been repelled and the defendants had resumed their way up the stairs in the direction of the hearing room. Moreover, according to the applicant's mother, who witnessed the incident, the blows did not stop even after the applicant had fallen on the handrail and fainted. He had then been dragged across the floor by the escorts (see paragraph 83 above). The Government did not challenge that aspect of the applicant's factual submissions, although it was open to them to refute these allegations by way of witness testimony or other evidence if they considered them untrue. The Court considers that the force used against the applicant was excessive and was disproportionate to his alleged misconduct. It appears that the purpose of that treatment was, at least in part, to punish the applicant for his refusal to proceed to the hearing room and drive him into submission.
164. Finally, the Court is particularly struck by the fact that such excessive force was used specifically against the applicant, whose health and mental condition were known to be extremely frail and unstable. It notes that, apart from causing mental and physical suffering, the blows administered to the applicant provoked an epileptic fit which necessitated his hospitalisation.
165. Accordingly, having regard to the circumstances of the use of force and the nature and extent of the applicant's injuries, the Court concludes that the State is responsible under Article 3 on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected in the building of the Lipetsk Regional Court on 27 June 2002.
(b) Whether the investigation was effective
166. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the present case

> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24 ... 25 26