Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.07.2010 «Дело Никифоров (Nikiforov) против России» [англ.]

nt to write a confession statement which the applicant refused to do. The officer left and then returned with his colleagues. Together they beat the applicant up and later took him back to the cell.
11. Later on that day the applicant was brought before the Justice of the Peace of the 19th Court Circuit who found him guilty of disturbing public order and sentenced him to five days' detention.
12. On 30 December 2003 the applicant was interviewed as a witness in a robbery case. He refused to make any statements and asked for his injuries to be recorded and for an inquiry to be opened into the beatings he had received.
13. On 31 December 2003 an investigator from Nerekhta district police station, Mr S., commissioned a forensic examination of the applicant's injuries with a view to determining their extent and origin.
14. On 19 February 2004 the expert returned the following findings:
"Mr Nikiforov had a fractured nose, abrasions and a bruise on his face [measuring 7 x 4 cm]. The injuries could have been caused by the impact of a hard blunt object or as a result of falling on such an object... It is impossible to establish when Mr Nikiforov's nose was broken because of his belated request for it to be X-rayed..."
15. On 20 February 2004 an investigator of Nerekhta District Prosecutor's Office, Mr V., refused to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged beatings. He found that since the applicant's jacket had been stained with blood at the moment of his arrival at the police station, the injuries must have been caused at some earlier point in time.
16. On 12 May 2004 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision and directed him to hear the arresting police officers and to examine the detainees' registration log.
17. On 16 May 2004 the investigator Mr V. again refused to institute criminal proceedings. On the basis of an entry in the registration log, he established that from 8.30 to 9.20 a.m. on 29 December 2003 the applicant had not been in the temporary detention wing but with police officer Mr A. However, since both Mr A. and the arresting police officers had denied using any force on the applicant, there were no indications of a criminal offence.
18. On 25 June 2004 a deputy prosecutor of the Kostroma Region quashed the investigator's decision as incomplete. He ordered, in particular, that the officers on duty be heard on the issue of whether any injuries had been present on the applicant's body at the time of his arrival at the police station.
19. On 4 July 2004 the investigator Mr V. refused to institute criminal proceedings for a third time. His decision was an exact repeat of his previous one, save for the statement of the officer Mr P. in which he had claimed that at the time of the applicant's arrival at the police station he had had no visible injuries.
20. On 5 August 2004 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision, further to the applicant's complaint, and ordered him to verify the origin of the blood stain on the applicant's jacket.
21. On 28 January 2005 the investigator Mr V. refused to institute criminal proceedings for a fourth time. He added the testimony of the officer Mr K. who could not remember whether the applicant had been held in the police station on 29 or 30 December 2003.
22. On 23 May 2005 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision, noting that the investigator had not established how the injuries had been caused or obtained statements from the applicant's co-detainees.
23. On 28 May 2005 the investigator Mr V. issued a fifth decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. On 27 September 2005 the regional prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered an additional inquiry.
24. On 25 November 200

> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10