urisdiction within a procedure established by Article 125 of the CCrP (Article 148). Article 125 of the CCrP provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court.
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
31. The applicant complained that on 11 July 2003 he had been subjected to beatings in violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out a prompt and effective investigation of that incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's obligations under Article 3, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
A. Submissions by the parties
32. The Government submitted that the medical records drawn up on 11 and 14 July 2003, by which the applicant's injuries had been recorded, entirely refuted the applicant's version of events. They stressed that the use of a rubber truncheon in the applicant's case had been lawful and justified. It therefore did not fall under the notion of "ill-treatment" prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. The Government insisted that the force used against the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity envisaged by Article 3 of the Convention as the injuries sustained by him had not led to "any serious consequences and [had not] caused short-term damage to his health". In addition, the Government noted that having used a rubber truncheon, the warder had not intended to humiliate or debase the applicant or to cause him physical or psychological suffering. The use of force constituted an adequate and lawful response to the applicant's unruly behaviour when he resisted the warders' lawful orders. The warders acted within their official powers and pursued lawful purposes. In the Government's opinion, the fact that the medical personnel which had examined the applicant on 11 and 14 July 2003 had found that in the aftermath of the incident the applicant's behaviour had been "adequate" demonstrated that he had not suffered the psychological trauma which usually accompanies inhuman and degrading treatment.
33. In their further observations, the Government stressed that having used force against the applicant the warders had not intended to punish him for making numerous complaints to various State bodies. The force was used in the specific situation pertaining to the applicant's aggressive behaviour directed against the warders. As no serious damage had been caused to the applicant's health, he continued serving his sentence, taking an hour and a half's outdoor exercise every day, and so on. He did not make any complaints about the state of his health. Citing the Court's case-law establishing the requisite standard of investigation of allegations of ill-treatment, the Government concluded that the investigation of the events of 11 July 2003 complied with the principles of the Court's case-law.
34. The applicant responded that the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected by an officer of the "Monomakh" special-purpose unit, Mr L., had been particularly cruel and had been administered for the purpose of punishing him for complaining about the conditions of detention in the prison. The applicant stressed that the official version that he had intended to attack the warders did not bear analysis. In particular, if the Government's version of events was true and he had in fact attempted to use violence against the warders, his actions constituted an offence and he should have been held, at a minimum, liable for disciplinary action. However, charges were never brought against him. Furthermore, while describing the events o
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 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
