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

miliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Peers v. Greece, No. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, No. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
55. As noted above, the use of rubber truncheons and violence on the applicant was retaliatory in nature. It was not conducive to facilitating the execution of the tasks the warders had set out to achieve. The punitive violence to which the officer deliberately resorted was intended to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear and humiliation and to break his physical or moral resistance. The purpose of that treatment was to debase the applicant and drive him into submission. In addition, the Court finds that the use of violence to which the applicant was subjected must have caused him mental and physical suffering, even though it did not apparently result in any long-term damage to his health.
56. Accordingly, having regard to the nature and extent of the applicant's injuries, the Court concludes that the State is responsible under Article 3 on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected in the prison on 11 July 2003 and that there has thus been a violation of that provision.
(ii) Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
57. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Thus, the investigation of serious allegations of ill-treatment must be thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions. They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see, among many authorities, Mikheyev, cited above, § 107 et seq., and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 102 et seq.).
58. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the present case, the Court has found that the respondent State is responsible under Article 3 for the ill-treatment of the applicant (see paragraph 56 above). The applicant's complaint in this regard is therefore "arguable". The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, No. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).
59. In this connection, the Court notes that the prosecuting authorities who were made aware of the applicant's beating carried out a preliminary investigation which did not result in criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the beating. In the Court's opinion, the issue is consequently not so much whether there was an investigation, since the parties did not dispute that there had been one, bu



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet