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

5 the investigator Mr Ku. issued a sixth decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings, which was set aside by the Nerekhta District Prosecutor on the same day.
25. On 25 January 2006 the deputy Nerekhta district prosecutor, Ms P., refused to institute criminal proceedings for a seventh time. She noted the testimony of the investigator Mr S., the applicant's partner Ms R. and the applicant's sister Ms E., who had all seen the applicant's swollen nose and bruised face on the morning of 29 December 2003. The Deputy Prosecutor acknowledged that light injuries had been inflicted on the applicant after his arrival at the police station on 28 December 2003, but declared the prosecution time-barred because the limitation period for the offence of light injuries was set at two years. The applicant complained to a court.
26. On 30 March 2006 the Nerekhta Town Court ruled in the applicant's favour, finding that the inquiry had been incomplete. It also noted that, although it was established that the applicant had been beaten at the police station, the investigation had failed to use all possible means to identify the perpetrators.
27. On 18 May 2006 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the Town Court's decision on appeal.
28. On 18 March 2007 the investigator Mr L. from the Nerekhta District Prosecutor's Office issued the most recent decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings. He noted that, according to the arrest record and testimonies of many witnesses, the applicant had had no visible injuries at the time he was placed in the temporary detention wing at 11.50 p.m. on 28 December 2003. On 31 December 2003 a forensic expert had examined the applicant and recorded multiple injuries, including bruising to the eye, a broken nose, chipped tooth and abrasions on his face. Officer A. had admitted taking the applicant out of his cell on 29 December 2003 but denied having beaten him. The investigator thus confirmed that the applicant had suffered bodily injuries shortly after he was detained at Nerekhta district police station. However, the prosecution was time-barred because of the two-year limitation period and no evidence implicating officer A. or any other police officers had been obtained.

B. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

29. From 18 March to 2 April 2004 the Nerekhta District Court examined the case against the applicant on the charge of robbery.
30. On 2 April 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment in a high-security colony. On 5 August 2004 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kostroma Regional Court.

II. Relevant domestic law

31. A criminal case may be instituted on the basis of a criminal complaint if there is sufficient evidence of elements of a crime (Article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). A criminal case may be opened by a prosecutor or by an investigator with the prosecutor's consent (Article 146 § 1 of the CCrP).
32. The victim is the individual who has suffered physical harm, emotional distress or pecuniary damage as a consequence of the crime. The victim has, in particular, the right to give statements, to take part in procedural acts, to put questions to experts, and to lodge requests (Article 42 of the CCrP).

THE LAW

I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention

33. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been beaten by police officers on 29 December 2003 and that his complaint had not been properly investigated. Article 3 provides as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Admissibility

34. The Government submitted that the app

> 1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10