licant had not exhausted domestic remedies because he had not challenged the decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings before a court and because he had not voiced his disagreement with the decision of 18 March 2007.
35. The applicant replied that he had lodged appeals against the investigators' decisions with the Nerekhta District Court. He had not lodged an appeal against the most recent decision of 18 March 2007 because that remedy had proved to be ineffective.
36. The Court observes that, following the applicant's complaint against the decision of 25 January 2006 by which the institution of criminal proceedings was refused, the Nerekhta District Court and the Kostroma Regional Court determined that the investigation had been incomplete and insufficiently thorough. Although the inquiry was subsequently reopened, the institution of criminal proceedings was again refused on 18 March 2007 on the same grounds. As the Court has found in a similar case, a requirement to introduce further appeals against successive decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings would be over-formalistic and place an excessive burden on the applicant. Furthermore, owing to the time that has elapsed since the events complained of, another reversal of the refusal to open criminal proceedings would not constitute an effective remedy (see Samoylov v. Russia, No. 64398/01, § 45, 2 October 2008). Accordingly, the Government's objection must be dismissed.
37. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Compliance with Article 3 as regards
the alleged ill-treatment by police
38. The Court has held on many occasions that the authorities have an obligation to protect the physical integrity of persons in detention. Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A No. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25). However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch, § 34, and Salman, § 100, both cited above).
39. In their initial observations, the Government submitted that it had not been possible to establish the origin and timing of the applicant's injuries with sufficient certainty. The injuries may have occurred as a result of the applicant falling from his own height against hard objects with protruding elements. In such circumstances, the Russian authorities could not be held responsible for the applicant's alleged ill-treatment. In their additional observations, the Government acknowledged that the applicant's injuries had appeared after he was brought to Nerekhta police station. They claimed, however, that during the inquiry the applicant had deliberately misled the authorities by putting forward contradictory stories of the ill-treatment in an attempt to evade liability for the cri
> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
