r />
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
31. The applicant complained that he had been beaten up by police officers on 7 August 2001. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
32. The Government denied the applicant's allegations. They submitted that he had not been subjected to any form of ill-treatment while in custody. They referred to the documents indicating that the applicant had had a medical examination the day after the alleged incident and that no injuries had been detected. The bruises the applicant mentioned had been documented only on 10 August 2001 and a proper investigation had been instituted to follow up on the applicant's complaint of 5 March 2002. The prosecutor and then the courts had dismissed the applicant's allegations as unsupported by evidence and found no case to answer against the alleged perpetrators. The Government opined that, even though it was impossible to determine the origin of the bruises, it was certain that they came into being later than 8 August 2008. Given that the applicant had bruises in the lumbar spine area, they had probably been caused by an accidental fall or a bump into a blunt object. In any event, they reasoned that the injuries the applicant had sustained were not sufficiently serious to attain "a minimum level of severity". Nor could they amount to "inhuman or degrading treatment".
33. The applicant maintained his claims.
A. Admissibility
34. The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes that the complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.
B. Merits
1. Alleged ill-treatment
35. 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, § 34, Series A No. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, 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, cited above, § 34, and Salman, cited above, § 100).
36. Turning to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court observes that the parties did not deny the fact that the applicant did sustain the injuries while he was in custody. Accordingly, the Government were under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused.
37. The Court notes that the Government did no more than suggest that the applicant could have hurt himself after having fallen over or having bumped into a blunt object. In the a
> 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
