is unable to conclude that the domestic authorities' failure to provide the applicant with the access to the medical services sought by him had reached a minimum level of severity to fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention.
67. In this connection, the Court notes that, although the applicant claimed that his eyesight, hearing and teeth had deteriorated while he was in detention, he did not provide any medical documentation to confirm his allegations. While the Court accepts that it might have been problematic for the applicant to procure such documentation while he was in custody, there does not, in the Court's view, appear to be any good reason for this omission after the applicant's release in 2008.
68. In view of the above, the Court considers that the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant does not substantiate his allegation that the authorities' failure to provide him with access to the medical services requested by him amount to treatment with a severity above the Article 3 threshold. Furthermore, while it is true that the attainment of the standard of proof the Court employs for assessment of evidence (see paragraph 65 above) may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or unrebutted presumptions (see, for example Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 77, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), in view of the information provided by the parties in the instant case, the Court discerns no prima facie evidence indicating that the applicant indeed suffered from deterioration of his eyesight and hearing or dental problems.
69. Accordingly, the Court finds no basis to conclude that the applicant suffered extensively as a result of insufficient medical care. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
70. Lastly, the applicant complained that he had been beaten up and left without his shoes or jacket during his arrest despite the cold weather. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. In particular, he alleged that he had not been permitted to confront witness D. during the investigation phase; that the court had rejected as untruthful the testimony of the witnesses called to testify on his behalf and refused to examine certain photographs in support of his alibi. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the identification parade had been carried out with serious violations of the rules of criminal procedure.
71. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the complaints, to the extent that they fall within the Court's competence to examine, 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 in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
72. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Damage
73. The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
74. The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations should not give rise to an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In any event, they considered the applicant's claim excessive and suggested that the ackno
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
