Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 30.07.2009 «Дело Евгений Корнев (Yevgeniy Kornev) против России» [англ.]

inquiry had been insufficient because he had never been interviewed by a prosecutor with regard to his allegations of ill-treatment.
22. On 31 December 2002 the Kurgan Town Court upheld the prosecutor's decision, finding that the scope of the inquiry had been adequate given the lack of evidence supporting the applicant's allegation of ill-treatment. In particular, the court found as follows:
"The Kurgan prosecutor's office carried out a proper investigation into the allegations concerning the use of unlawful investigation techniques by the police officers. Messrs M., Ch., and K. were questioned. They explained that they had not put any physical or psychological pressure on [the applicant] during his arrest. [The applicant] did not confess to the crime. It is true that on [10] August 2001 after his transfer from [the temporary detention facility] to [the remand prison] bruises on the small of [the applicant's] back were detected. However, earlier, when [the applicant] had been brought to [the temporary detention facility], he had been examined and questioned by an officer on duty. At that time [the applicant] had no injuries and did not complain of the alleged ill-treatment or his condition. Having regard to those facts, the Kurgan prosecutor's office drew a justified conclusion that the [bruises] detected upon the applicant's arrival at [the remand prison] could not have been caused by the policemen in the circumstances described by [the applicant]. There are no other materials in the court's possession to prove that the policemen had committed any unlawful acts {vis-a-vis} [the applicant]."
23. On 1 July 2003 the Kurgan Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.

II. Relevant domestic law

A. Supervisory-review proceedings

24. The parties to the criminal proceedings, including the defendant and his or her counsel and the prosecutor, may ask a superior court for supervisory review of judgments rendered by the courts of first or second levels of jurisdiction (Article 402 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (the "CCrP").
25. In the event that the court decides to open supervisory-review proceedings, it should notify the interested parties of the date, time and place of the hearing within 30 days. The parties to the proceedings should inform the court if they wish to participate in the hearing. The parties present at the hearing may make oral submissions to the court (Article 407 of the CCrP).
26. The court may uphold, amend or quash any of the earlier judgments on the matter, discontinue the proceedings or remit the matter for fresh consideration to a trial or appeal court (Article 408 of the CCrP). In particular, a judgment will be quashed if there is an inconsistency between the conclusions reached by the court in the judgment and the facts established (Articles 409 and 379 of the CCrP).
27. The court is not bound by the scope of the application for supervisory review and may consider the matter in its entirety. It may commute the sentence or reclassify the offence as a less serious one (Article 409 of the CCrP). It cannot, however, increase the sentence or reclassify the charges as a more serious offence (Article 405 of the CCrP).

B. Investigation of criminal offences

28. In response to a complaint of a criminal offence, the investigator is under obligation to verify the complainant's allegations (Article 144 of the CCrP).
29. Should there be sufficient grounds to believe that a crime had been committed, the investigator initiates a criminal investigation (Article 145 of the CCrP).
30. The complainant may appeal against the investigator's refusal to open a criminal investigation to the investigator's superior, a prosecutor or a court (Article 148 of the CCrP).

> 1 2 3 4 ... 8 9 10