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

, the Court has found that the respondent State is responsible under Article 3 for the ill-treatment of the applicant (see paragraph 165 above). The applicant's complaint in this regard is therefore "arguable". The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, No. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).
167. In this connection, the Court notes that the prosecution authorities, who were made aware of the applicant's beating, carried out a preliminary inquiry which did not result in criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the beatings. The decision not to open criminal proceedings was challenged by the applicant before the domestic courts, which examined his complaints at two levels of jurisdiction. In the Court's opinion, the issue is consequently not so much whether there was an investigation, since the parties did not dispute that there had been one, but whether it was "effective" in the sense developed above (see paragraphs 132 to 135 above).
168. It appears that the prosecutor's office opened its investigation immediately after being notified of the alleged beatings. The inquiry was conducted promptly and was completed within less than three weeks.
169. However, with regard to the thoroughness of the investigation, the Court notes serious shortcomings capable of undermining its reliability and effectiveness. Firstly, no forensic medical examination was carried out, and this apparently prevented the establishment of the quantity and nature of the applicant's injuries. The Court reiterates in this respect that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and have been allocated a mandate which is sufficiently broad in scope (see {Akkoc} v. Turkey, Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 55 and § 118, ECHR 2000-X). The Court notes with concern that the lack of confirmed injuries was subsequently relied on, in the prosecutor's decision of 15 July 2002, as a ground for the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the escorts. That finding is unusual as it contradicts the diagnoses contained in the medical certificate issued by the head of Lipetsk hospital No. 4 (see paragraph 85 above). However, in the absence of any explanations in the decision of 15 July 2002, it is impossible to ascertain whether the prosecutor simply chose to disregard that medical certificate or whether he intended to dismiss it as inadmissible evidence because it had not been analysed or confirmed by a forensic expert. In any event, the failure to perform a forensic medical examination of the applicant seriously undermined the effectiveness of the investigation.
170. Another shortcoming of the investigation was the authorities' failure to establish the exact sequence of the events and to address the discrepancies in witness testimony. The Court considers it a very serious omission that the applicant and three of his co-defendants were never questioned about the circumstances of their beatings. The inquiry was limited to questioning the escorts, one of the applicant's co-defendants and the co-defendants' relatives. There were serious contradictions in the testimony of those witnesses as to precisely what had happened, especially as to whether there had been an attack on the escorts by the applicant and his co-defendants. However, despite discrepancies in the witness testimony, the investigating authorities disregarded the importance of establishing the exact circumstances of the incident and did not take any effective steps to clarify the points on which the witnesses either disagreed or failed to provide a complete account. This could have been accomplished by, inter alia, posing specific questions to the

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