n 11 July 2003, the warders in their statements on 30 October 2003 provided contradictory descriptions. Several warders only mentioned his attempt to throw a punch by "taking up a boxing position". Others noted his alleged refusal to submit to a body search or his attempts to "diverge from the route". At the same time, the initial reports drawn up immediately after the beatings gave an entirely different description, stating that the applicant had used force by grabbing the warder's uniform. Furthermore, the version that he "diverged from the route" was entirely baseless, as the beatings were carried out in front of the applicant's cell in response to his refusal to proceed to outdoor exercise.
35. The applicant further stressed that the quantity and location of his injuries did not support the official version that the blows had only been administered to his hips and buttocks. The medical evidence showed that he had numerous injuries on his stomach, lumbar region, left cheek, left knee and back. His tooth was also broken. The applicant noted that despite the warders' statements that they had hit him on the buttocks, no injuries had been discovered on that part of his body. He further disputed the authenticity of the warders' reports drawn up on 11 July 2003. He also argued that while recording a long list of injuries on his body, the prison doctors refused to record all his injuries, merely limiting their observations to the largest bruises on his body. Furthermore, although there was evidence that blows were administered to, inter alia, his head (his left cheek was developing a swelling and a part of his tooth was missing), no specific medical examinations were performed to confirm or disprove his allegations.
36. The applicant drew the Court's attention to Mr L.'s official status. He stressed that Mr L. was an officer of a special-purpose unit which is usually called to detention facilities to restore order by carrying out demonstration beatings of inmates. Members of that unit undergo special training and are taught martial arts. The lengthy and intensive beatings to which the applicant was subjected were an exhibition of the successful training Mr L. had undergone.
37. Finally, the applicant addressed the quality of the investigation carried out by the prosecution authorities in respect of his complaints of ill-treatment. He submitted that the investigation had been performed in a hurry in an attempt to justify the officer's actions. Failure to question witnesses, to seize the applicant's and Mr L.'s clothes and examine them, to perform a crime-scene examination, to authorise a forensic medical examination of the applicant and to set up confrontation interviews between the applicant and warders were among the grossest mistakes committed by the investigation authorities. The applicant concluded that the inquiry itself, in the absence of a decision to institute criminal proceedings, left the prosecuting authorities with very limited powers, making it impossible to investigate the events in question effectively. The applicant explained that the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow a number of important investigative steps to be taken unless a criminal case is open. Moreover, the victim's rights are almost non-existent until criminal proceedings are instituted.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
38. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) General principles
(i) As to the scope of Article 3
39. As the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societie
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 ... 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
