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

ssibility of review. It also held that until such amendments were enacted, the national authorities, including courts, should directly apply Article 46 of the Constitution requiring a judicial review of administrative acts. The ruling was published in May 1998.
33. Under the old CCrP a decision to detain someone pending investigation or trial could be taken by a prosecutor or a court (Articles 11, 89 and 96). If the detention order was issued by a prosecutor, the detainee or his counsel could challenge the detention order before a court. The judge was required to review an order for detention or its extension no later than three days after receipt of the relevant papers. The review had to be conducted in camera in the presence of a prosecutor and the detainee's counsel (Article 220-1). An appeal against a decision of a first-instance court (including an order authorising, confirming or extending pre-trial detention) lay to a higher court. It had to be lodged within ten days and examined within the same time-limit as an appeal against a judgment on the merits (Article 331 of the CCrP).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

34. The applicant claimed that after his arrest police officers had ill-treated him in order to make him confess to the alleged crimes and pay them money. His complaints to the prosecutor and the courts in that connection had been left without proper examination. Article 3 of the Convention, referred to by the applicant on that account, reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
35. The Government put forward two objections. Firstly, they claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. He had submitted his appeal against the alleged inaction of the Vidnovo town prosecutor as a civil-law claim instead of a criminal-law complaint (see the ruling of the Vidnovo Town Court of the Moscow Region of 29 March 2002). Secondly, the Government claimed that the applicant had not been ill-treated and that his allegations in that respect were completely unsubstantiated. They stated that the applicant had not sought medical aid during his detention at the police station.
36. The applicant submitted that a civil-law complaint was a valid attempt to avail himself of a remedy in the circumstances and that his complaint should have been examined by the Vidnoye Town Court on the merits. He further insisted that his account of the events of 22 - 23 February 2001 was accurate. In support he referred to the written submissions of his relatives and neighbours.
37. The Court will examine the Government's objection on non-exhaustion first. The Court observes that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment were considered by the town prosecutor, who did not find a prima facie case of ill-treatment, and by decision of 21 May 2001 decided not to institute criminal proceedings. Pursuant to Article 113 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, which was in force at the material time, that decision was amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor or a court of general jurisdiction.
38. As regards an appeal to a higher prosecutor, the Court recalls its well-established case-law according to which in the Russian legal context a hierarchical appeal to a higher prosecutor is not an effective remedy for complaints about beatings by the police (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, § 60, 1 March 2007; see Slyusarev v. Russia (dec.), No. 60333/00, 9 November 2006). On the other hand, challenging before a court of general jurisdiction a prosecutor's decision not to investigate complaints of ill-treatment, as provided by Article 113 of the old CCrP, was regarded by the Court as an effective remedy to be exhausted in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Belevitskiy, c

> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 8 9