the hearing... [The applicant] explained that the police officers had torn his shirt when they beat him. [The applicant's allegations] were not verified.
According to the information provided by [the remand prison], [the applicant] is receiving medical treatment; certain tests have been carried out, but his condition is not improving. [The investigator] did not verify whether there was a link between [the applicant's] condition and the injuries he had sustained.
The court subscribes to the opinion of the applicant's representative that the inquiry conducted was incomplete in view of [the investigator's] failure to determine the degree of severity of the [applicant's] injuries.
Having regard to the above, the court considers that an additional and comprehensive inquiry is required in order to reconcile all the discrepancies."
16. On 13 July 2004 the Orenburg Regional Court found that the District Court had failed to examine properly all the material in its possession and had based its decision mainly on the applicant's testimony. The Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 June 2004 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
17. On 13 August 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk upheld the investigator's decision of 28 May 2004. The court found the police officers' actions to have been lawful and dismissed the applicant's request for them to be subjected to a polygraph test. In particular, the court observed as follows:
"According to the forensic medical report, [the applicant] had injuries only on his face. No injuries were noted in the lumbar area or on the neck or buttocks. According to the information submitted by the [temporary detention centre], [the applicant] complained about heart pains and diabetes; he was examined and no injuries were noted. The court established that [the applicant] had refused to provide any explanation to the investigator in respect of [his allegations of ill-treatment]. As the police officers who had arrested the applicants submitted, [he] had not been beaten...
The material submitted contains information about the place and time of the applicant's arrest. The court discerns no contradiction between this information and the circumstances of the [applicant's] arrest.
[The investigator] indicated in his decision that a criminal investigation should not be opened... that [the applicant] had resisted arrest and had been handcuffed for that reason. At [the police station] he had resisted again and broken his handcuffs. The investigator did not discern any evidence showing that the police officers' actions {vis-a-vis} [the applicant] had been unlawful."
18. On 16 September 2004 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 July 2004 on appeal.
II. Relevant domestic law
Investigation of criminal offences
19. In response to a complaint of a criminal offence, the investigator is under obligation to verify the complainant's allegations (Article 144 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (the "CCrP")).
20. Should there be sufficient grounds to believe that a crime had been committed, the investigator initiates a criminal investigation (Article 145 of the CCrP).
21. The complainant may appeal against the investigator's refusal to open a criminal investigation to the investigator's superior, a prosecutor or a court (Article 148 of the CCrP).
THE LAW
I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
22. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on 22 April 2004, in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention. He further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the investigation conducted by the authorities in response to his complaint of ill-treatment
> 1 2 3 4 ... 6 7 8
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
