on corresponds to physical sequelae from beatings with a fist or the toe of a boot rather than to injuries sustained as a result of a beating with the rubber truncheon, thus corroborating the applicant's version that in addition to hitting him with the truncheon, Mr L. had hit the applicant with his fists and kicked him.
47. In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities' obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court considers that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct and finds it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment to which he had been subjected by officer L. in the prison and for which accordingly the Government bore responsibility (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin {Yuksel} v. Turkey, No. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev, cited above, §§ 104 - 105; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, No. 7178/03, §§ 78 - 79, 15 May 2008).
48. Against this background, given the serious nature of the applicant's injuries, the burden rests on the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force was not excessive (see Zelilof v. Greece, No. 17060/03, § 47, 24 May 2007).
49. The Court observes that the exact circumstances of the use of force against the applicant were disputed by the parties and were subject to somewhat conflicting evaluations by the prosecution and judicial authorities. The applicant argued that officer L. had initiated the beatings immediately after he had left the cell for outdoor exercise. He gave a detailed account of the events which had allegedly occurred on 11 July 2003, describing the chain of the events, indicating the time, location and duration of the beatings, naming the alleged perpetrator and showing the methods used by him. The Government, relying on the written statements by officer L. and warders who had witnessed the events on 11 July 2003, disputed the applicant's description, insisting that the use of force had been strictly proportionate and necessary, as the applicant had grabbed the warders by their clothing, had threatened them with violence and had attempted to punch them. They submitted that the acts of violence against the applicant had been committed by the officer in the performance of his duties in full compliance with the domestic legal requirements.
50. The Court notes the Government's argument that force had been used lawfully in response to the applicant's unruly conduct. It is mindful of the potential for violence that exists in penitentiary institutions and of the fact that disobedience by detainees may quickly degenerate into a riot (see {Gomi} and Others v. Turkey, No. 35962/97, § 77, 21 December 2006). The Court accepts that the use of force may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security, to maintain order or prevent crime in penitentiary facilities. Nevertheless, as noted above, such force may be used only if indispensible and must not be excessive (see Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, No. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007, with further references). Recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention.
51. In the present case, the Court is not convinced by the Government's description of the applicant's behaviour in view of the particularly confusing and inconsistent versions of events adduced by officer L. and warders (see paragraphs 13, 17 and 19 above). However, even proceeding on the assumption that the Government's description of the circumstances surrounding the appl
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 14 15 16
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
