Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2010 «Дело Рудаков (Rudakov) против России» [англ.]

ication of force to the applicant is the more accurate one, the Court does not discern any necessity which might have prompted the use of rubber truncheons or of violence of such a degree, as confirmed by the materials of the case file, against the applicant (see paragraph 46 above). On the contrary, the actions by the officer L. were grossly disproportionate to the applicant's alleged misconduct and manifestly inconsistent with the goals he sought to achieve. Thus, it follows from the Government's submissions that, having entered the corridor, the applicant refused to proceed to outdoor exercise and attempted to punch the warders, taking up a boxing position, using threats and grabbing their clothes. The Court accepts that in these circumstances the officers may have needed to resort to physical force to put a stop to the applicant's unruly behaviour. However, the Court is not convinced that hitting a detainee with a truncheon or kicking him a number of times was conducive to the desired result.
52. Furthermore, the Court notes that the applicant was not beaten up in the course of a random operation which might have given rise to unexpected developments to which the warders would have been obliged to react without prior preparation. The Government did not deny that the officers of the special-purpose unit and warders, including those involved in the incident of 11 July 2003, had received the necessary training and were well equipped to deal with the type of behaviour allegedly demonstrated by the applicant. It is also evident from the parties' submissions that a group of officers and warders was involved and that they clearly outnumbered the applicant. The Court thus rejects the Government's argument that the use of truncheons, as well as other forms of violence, was inevitable.
53. In addition, the Court finds it particularly disturbing that a series of blows and kicks was administered in response to the applicant's behaviour. In the Court's view, the extent of the force used against the applicant shows that it was merely a form of reprisal or corporal punishment. This finding is further supported by the Government's argument that the truncheon blows had been administered to the applicant's buttocks, a highly unlikely action if the force was used merely to prevent an attack on the warders. The punitive nature of the use of truncheons is even more salient in such a situation. This sort of mental and physical invasion was intended precisely to demean the applicant, render him passive and ashamed, to subdue him, to deter the dissent and to reinstate the authority of the warders.
54. As to the seriousness of the acts of ill-treatment, in determining whether a particular form of ill-treatment should be characterised as torture, consideration must be given to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court has already noted in previous cases that it was the intention that the Convention should, by means of this distinction, attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering. In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element which defines torture in terms of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering with the aim, inter alia, of obtaining information, inflicting punishment or intimidation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 114, ECHR 2000-VII). According to the Court's consistent approach, treatment is considered "inhuman" if it is premeditated, applied for hours at a stretch and causes either actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. It is deemed to be "degrading" if it is such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see {Kudla}, cited above, § 92). The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to hu



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet