Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 16.09.2010 «Дело Дмитрачков (Dmitrachkov) против России» [англ.]

B. Merits

41. The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been thoroughly examined by the domestic courts at two instances in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and reasonably rejected as unfounded.
42. The applicant maintained his complaints.

1. Alleged ill-treatment in police custody

43. The Court has held on many occasions that the authorities have an obligation to protect the physical integrity of persons in detention. Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A No. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108 - 11, Series A No. 241 A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V). The Court further recalls that, while it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious about taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, it is nevertheless not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, Matyar v. Turkey, No. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002 and, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A No. 247 B, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A No. 235 B).
44. The Court notes that the parties did not dispute the validity of the medical report drawn up on 19 April 2001, immediately following the applicant's arrest and detention between 16 and 18 April 2001, and confirming the presence of various injuries to his head and back. The Government were accordingly under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation of how the applicant's injuries had been caused.
45. At the outset the Court observes that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment were examined first by the domestic authorities in the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the judgment of 4 December 2001, as upheld on 21 May 2002, and also in the course of the preliminary checks conducted upon the applicant's complaints by the decisions of the Buzuluk Prosecutor's office of 3 May and 27 July 2001.
46. The Court observes that the authorities accepted the validity of the medical report of 19 April 2001 and thus the existence of the applicant's injuries. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment were rejected essentially with reference to the lack of a causal link between the applicant's injuries and the actions of the policemen and the lack of further evidence implicating the policemen. The Court notes that the medical report at issue was drawn up by the doctor shortly after the events at issue and there is nothing in the case file or the parties' submissions to suggest that the injuries described in the report had been inflicted either before the applicant's arrest on 16 April 2001 or in the period from his release to the medical examination of 19 April 2001.
47. On the basis of all the material placed before it, the Court finds that neither the authorities at the domestic level nor the Government in the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court have advanced any convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant's injuries (see, by contrast, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, §§ 29 - 31, Series A No. 269). The Court concludes therefore that the Government have not satisfactorily established that the applicant's injuries were caused otherwise than - entir



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet