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

§ 32).
(b) Application of the above principles in the present case
(i) Establishment of facts and assessment of the severity of ill-treatment
44. Having examined the parties' submissions and all the material presented by them, the Court finds it established that on 17 June 2003, on the applicant's admission to Vladimirskiy Tsentral, a prison doctor examined him and found no injuries on his body. On 11 July 2003, immediately after the alleged confrontation between the officer of the special-purpose unit, Mr L., and the applicant, a prison nurse recorded an elongated bruise, fifteen centimetres long and five centimetres wide, on the applicant's hip. Later in the day a medical assistant, called to attend to the applicant, recorded abrasions and bruises on his stomach, waist and chest. On 14 July 2003, as a result of yet another medical examination by a prison doctor, a report was issued, recording numerous bruises, having approximately ten centimetres in diameter, on the applicant's torso, the upper part of his back and upper and middle parts of the right thigh. In addition, the prison doctor noted a swelling of the applicant's left cheek, hip and knee and a broken left upper corner tooth (see paragraphs 6, 12, 14 and 15 above).
45. The Court observes that it was not disputed by the parties that the applicant's injuries as shown by medical reports were sustained in the Vladimirskiy Tsentral prison. In response to the findings of the medical reports the Government, while accepting that the applicant had been hit a number of times with a rubber truncheon on the buttocks and hips, remained silent on the origin of the remaining injuries discovered on his body during the medical examinations on 11 and 14 July 2003. The Court remarks that it was open to the Government to provide their own plausible explanation as to how the applicant had acquired numerous injuries on his chest, upper part of the back, stomach, knee and face and to submit, for instance, witness testimony and other evidence to corroborate their version. They did not however put forward any version of events which could have led to the applicant sustaining injuries in addition to those discovered on his hips. Furthermore, although the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints will be examined below, the Court would already stress at this juncture that it is struck by the fact that, despite the seriousness of the applicant's allegations, the investigating authority also did not advance any explanation as to the nature of the majority of the applicant's injuries, while declining to institute criminal proceedings against the warders. It apparently did not occur to the investigators that the applicant's injuries should be accounted for.
46. In this respect the Court attributes particular weight to the fact that the Government did not argue that the applicant's injuries had been caused prior to or after the events on 11 July 2003. It further notes that the nature and distribution of the injuries on the applicant's body as recorded by medical reports on 11 and 14 July 2003 sit ill with the Government's submissions that officer L. had only hit the applicant on the buttocks and hips and had only used the rubber truncheon for that purpose. In particular, the Court does not lose sight of the nurse's discovery of an elongated bruise, measuring fifteen to five centimetres, on the right side of the applicant's lumbar region. The location of that skin lesion reflecting the shape of a rubber truncheon supports the applicant's argument that Mr L. had not restricted the blows to his hips and buttocks. Furthermore, the doctor who had examined the applicant on 14 July 2003 discovered numerous circular bruises measuring approximately ten centimetres in diameter on various parts of his body. The Court notes that this descripti



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 14 15 16

	Поделиться:	Tweet