Secondly, the Court finds it striking that the investigator did not identify any witnesses who were not police personnel. While the investigating authorities may not have been provided with the names of individuals who might have seen the applicant at the police station or might have witnessed his alleged ill-treatment, they were expected to take steps on their own initiative to identify possible eyewitnesses. In particular, the prosecution authorities could have at least questioned lawyer S. who, as it follows from the information submitted by the Government, represented the applicant during the interview of 18 April 2001 (see paragraph 9). The Court therefore finds that the investigating authorities' failure to look for corroborating evidence and their deferential attitude to the police officers must be considered to be a particularly serious shortcoming in the investigation (see {Aydin}, cited above, § 106).
59. Thirdly, the prosecutor did not launch an investigation after being notified of the alleged ill-treatment. Instead he remitted the applicant's complaint to the local police station, a State authority whose employees were allegedly implicated in the events which were to be looked into, with an order to conduct an official police inquiry (see paragraph 11 above). While the Court acknowledges the necessity of internal inquiries by the police with a view to possible disciplinary sanctions in cases of alleged police abuse, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for the establishment of the truth in cases of police brutality, were conducted by the police force itself (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, No. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009). In this connection the Court reiterates its finding made on a number of occasions that the investigation should be carried out by competent, qualified and impartial experts who are independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], No. 52391/99, § 325, ECHR 2007-..., and {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, §§ 91 - 92, ECHR 1999-III). Furthermore, the Court would stress that it is not convinced that, despite relying on the police officers' statements in the decisions of 3 May and 27 July 2001 (see paragraphs 15 and 21), the assistant prosecutor had heard evidence from them in person. It appears that he merely recounted the officers' statements made during the internal inquiry. The Court, however, is mindful of the important role which investigative interviews play in obtaining accurate and reliable information from suspects, witnesses and victims and, ultimately, the discovery of the truth about the matter under investigation. Observing the suspects', witnesses' and victims' demeanour during questioning and assessing the probative value of their testimony forms a substantial part of the investigative process.
60. Finally, as regards the judicial proceedings pertaining to the applicant's appeals against the prosecution decisions, the Court finds it striking that neither the trial nor the appeal courts manifested any interest in identifying and personally questioning witnesses of the applicant's alleged ill-treatment or hearing evidence from the officers involved in the incidents (see Zelilof v. Greece, No. 17060/03, § 62, 24 May 2007, and Osman v. Bulgaria, No. 43233/98, § 75, 16 February 2006). For the Court, this unexplained shortcoming in the proceedings deprived the applicant of an opportunity to challenge effectively the alleged perpetrators' version of the events (see Kmetty v. Hungary, No. 57967/00, § 42, 16 December 2003).
61. Having regard to the above failings of the Russian authorities, the Court considers that the investigation carried out into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment was not thorough, adequate or effective.
> 1 2 3 ... 7 8 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
