Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Барабанщиков (Barabanshchikov) против России» [англ.]

rensic expert was ordered by the same police investigator who could have witnessed the applicant's beatings (see paragraph 48 above). The Court further reiterates that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and been allocated a mandate which is broad in scope (see {Akkoc} v. Turkey, Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 55 and § 118, ECHR 2000-X). When the doctor writes a report after the medical examination of a person who alleges having been ill-treated, it is extremely important that the doctor states the degree of consistency with the history of ill-treatment. A conclusion indicating the degree of support to the alleged history of ill-treatment should be based on a discussion of possible differential diagnoses (non-ill-treatment-related injuries - including self-inflicted injuries - and diseases). That was not done in the present case. In his report of 13 August 2001 the expert not only failed to document the applicant's injuries properly, but he also did not make any reference to the degree of support to the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment (see paragraph 48 above). Taking into account the serious defects of the initial expert report, the Court finds it regrettable that the additional expert examination only commenced on 30 November 2001, that is almost four months after the applicant's ill-treatment had taken place. The Court notes that a delay in requesting an additional expert opinion led, among other things, to serious discrepancies between the findings of doctors who had examined the applicant in the Lipetsk Regional hospital and the conclusions of the forensic medical expert.
60. The Court also considers it extraordinary that in delivering her decision of 19 October 2001 the assistant prosecutor did not make any reference to the medical evidence collected during the inquiry and merely dismissed the applicant's complaints because he had insisted on assistance by his counsel (see paragraph 18 above). It was not until 7 December 2001 when the assistant prosecutor restated the expert and hospital reports which listed the injuries sustained by the applicant. However, she limited herself to a selective reiteration of the expert findings (see paragraph 21 above) and did not attempt to examine the medical evidence before her or to draw conclusions on that basis. In this connection the Court is concerned that the lack of any "objective" evidence - which medical reports could have been - was subsequently relied on by the assistant prosecutor as a ground for her decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers (see paragraph 21 above).
61. Secondly, the Court observes a selective and somewhat inconsistent approach to the assessment of evidence by the investigating authorities. It is apparent from the decision submitted to the Court that the assistant prosecutor based her conclusions mainly on the testimonies given by the police officers involved in the incident. Although excerpts from the applicant's testimony were included in the decision not to institute criminal proceedings, the assistant prosecutor did not consider that testimony to be credible, apparently because it reflected a personal opinion and constituted an accusatory tactic by the applicant. However, the investigator did accept the police officers' testimonies as credible, despite the fact that their statements could have constituted defence tactics and have been aimed at damaging the applicant's credibility. In the Court's view, the prosecution inquiry applied different standards when assessing the testimonies, as that given by the applicant was deemed to be subjective but not those given by the police officers. The credibility of the latter testimonies should also have been questioned, as the prosecution investigation was suppo

> 1 2 3 ... 12 13 14 15