Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 15.07.2010 <Дело Медведев (Medvedev) против России» [англ.]

ant wrote a statement in which he confessed to attempted theft and illegal possession of a handgun.
8. The Government produced an extract from the police station record of arrests. Entry No. 296 concerned the applicant; it read as follows: "22.02.2001/[the applicant] made no complaints [about his condition]/no visible injuries [on him]".
9. In the afternoon the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of theft and illegal possession of a firearm (criminal case No. 39697). In connection with these proceedings the town prosecutor authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention.
10. On 23 February 2001 the applicant met with his lawyer. Through him the applicant transmitted to the town prosecutor a written statement in which he described the circumstances of his arrest, the ill-treatment and extortion of money. According to the applicant, his complaint of ill-treatment was handed to the investigator in charge of his case on that date; however, the case file does not contain any proof of that.
11. On 5 March 2001 the applicant lodged a formal complaint with the town prosecutor about the ill-treatment and extortion, seeking the criminal prosecution of the police officers involved. He also requested to be released on the grounds that he might easily be subjected to further pressure and physical violence by those police officers while in the pre-trial detention facility.
12. The applicant claimed that, as a result, officers M. and E. had been dismissed from service. The Government confirmed that M. had been dismissed for underperformance and E. had been transferred to another unit. However, neither of these disciplinary measures was related to the events at issue.
13. On 21 May 2001, after a preliminary inquiry into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, the town prosecutor decided not to proceed with the investigation. The materials of the inquiry were added to the file in the applicant's case.
14. On 25 May 2001 the Vidnovo town prosecutor issued a bill of indictment in the applicant's case and transmitted it with the case-file to the Vidnovo Town Court for examination on the merits.
15. In July 2001 the applicant's lawyer lodged similar complaints of ill-treatment with the Regional Prosecutor and the Prosecutor General, seeking further investigation into the alleged ill-treatment and extortion. It is unclear whether those complaints were ever examined on the merits. The applicant's complaint in similar terms lodged with the Internal Security Department of the Ministry of the Interior was forwarded to the Moscow Regional Court "for further inquiries". On 5 September 2001 this complaint was forwarded to the Vidnovo Town Court, where it was "added to the case file".
16. After the applicant's conviction on 10 September 2001, his lawyer lodged a new complaint with the prosecutor of the Vidnovo district, seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against officers M. and E. As can be seen from the applicant's submissions, he received no reply to this complaint.
17. On 19 March 2002 the applicant lodged a civil-law complaint about the inaction of the prosecutor of the Vidnovo district before the Vidnovo Town Court, under the provisions of the Judicial Appeals Act (see the "Relevant domestic law" part below).
18. On 29 March 2002 the court returned his complaint unexamined. The Town Court indicated that the complaint had been lodged under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas it should have been lodged in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Town Court referred to the position of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, expressed in its Ruling of 21 December 1993 in which the Supreme Court held that decisions of the prosecuting authorities should be challenged by way of a c

> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9