Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 09.07.2009 «Дело Кононович (Kononovich) против России» [англ.]

le 89 of the old CCrP, Article 98 of the new CCrP).

2. Grounds for remand in custody

33. When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody, the competent authority is required to consider whether there are "sufficient grounds to believe" that he or she would abscond during the investigation or trial or obstruct the establishment of the truth or reoffend (Article 89 of the old CCrP). It must also take into account the gravity of the charge, information on the accused's character, his or her profession, age, state of health, family status and other circumstances (Article 91 of the old CCrP, Article 99 of the new CCrP).
34. Before 14 March 2001, remand in custody was authorised if the accused was charged with a criminal offence carrying a sentence of at least one year's imprisonment or if there were "exceptional circumstances" in the case (Article 96). On 14 March 2001 the old CCrP was amended to permit defendants to be remanded in custody if the charge carried a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment, if they had previously defaulted, had no permanent residence in Russia or if their identity could not be ascertained. The amendments of 14 March 2001 also repealed the provision that permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence they had allegedly committed. The new CCrP reproduced the amended provisions (Articles 97 § 1 and 108 § 1) and added that a defendant should not be remanded in custody if a less severe preventive measure was available.

THE LAW

I. Alleged ill-treatment of the applicant

35. The applicant complained that on several occasions between 21 and 26 June 2000 he had been subjected to psychological and physical pressure by police officers in order to make him confess to crimes he had not committed. The Court considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
36. The Government submitted that the complaint must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Neither the applicant nor his counsel asked the prosecutor's office to open a criminal investigation into the applicant's allegations. The fact that the applicant had raised the issue once at a court hearing preceding his initial conviction on 7 December 2001 could not be regarded as satisfying the requirements set forth in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. Lastly, they claimed that the applicant's allegations had not been supported by any prima facie evidence and did not meet the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" established by the Court's case-law.
37. The applicant maintained his complaint.

Admissibility

38. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the Government, as this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
39. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
40. Turning to the circumstances of the case, the Court observes that in support of his allegations of ill-treatment, the applicant relied solely on the certificates issued by a medical emergency response unit and indicating that he had complained of pains in the lumbar area and renal colic. The doctor did not administer any treatment or find it necessary to ta

> 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 7 8