authorities' inquiry, which provided no explanation as to the cause of the applicant's injuries. The inquiry relied on the statements made by the alleged perpetrators, who denied the allegations of ill-treatment, and on the forensic medical report which stated, without further details, that the applicant's injuries must have been inflicted no earlier than 12 noon on the day following the applicant's questioning.
33. While the Court agrees that the applicant's account of the events of 22 April 2004 was not supported by the conclusions of the forensic medical expert or the statements made by the alleged perpetrators, it cannot subscribe to the Government's view that this fact alone, in the absence of any plausible explanation as to the cause of the injuries sustained by the applicant while in police custody, was sufficient to dismiss his allegations of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated.
34. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the Government failed to rebut the presumption of their responsibility for the injuries inflicted on the applicant while in the care of the State. Accordingly, the responsibility for them lay with the domestic authorities.
35. The Court further reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 94, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).
36. The Court considers that the numerous abrasions and bruises noted by the forensic medical expert who examined the applicant indicate that his injuries were sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention (compare Assenov and Others, cited above, § 95).
37. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that on 22 April 2004 the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment for which responsibility lay with the domestic authorities and which amounted to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
2. Adequacy of the ensuing investigation
38. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and 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. This investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102).
39. 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 (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, No. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
40. An investigation into serious allegations
> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 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
