tion is at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita, cited above, §§ 133 et seq.). Consideration has been given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, No. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
49. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that, following the applicant's complaint lodged on 2 August 2005, the prosecutor's office carried out an inquiry into his allegations of ill-treatment. The inquiry was completed on 12 August 2005. The applicant's allegations were subsequently subjected to examination by domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction. The final decision on the matter was taken on 23 November 2005. The Court accepts that the authorities promptly reacted to the applicant's complaint.
50. The Court further observes that the authorities took all the steps necessary to verify the applicant's accusations. They questioned the applicant and the prison officers involved in the incident and studied the reports prepared by them and the results of the applicant's medical examinations conducted by two paramedics. The judicial authorities reviewed the materials of the prosecutor's inquiry and ensured both the applicant's and his representative's presence in court. The Court discerns nothing in the materials in its possession to suggest that the domestic authorities' findings in respect of the applicant's allegations were unreasonable or lacking basis in evidence.
51. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the investigation into the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment in police custody was "effective". There has therefore been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
52. Lastly, the applicant referred to the violation of his rights set forth in Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the course of the criminal proceedings against him.
53. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the events complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Articles 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the ill-treatment of the applicant on 30 July 2005 and the effectiveness of the ensuing investigation admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Christos ROZAKIS
President
{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
