concludes therefore that the Government failed to discharge its burden and that it was not satisfactorily established that the applicant's account of events had been inaccurate or otherwise erroneous.
75. Accordingly, the Court accepts the description of the events of 10 February 2001 as submitted by the applicant.
(c) Assessment of the severity of ill-treatment
76. The Court notes that it has accepted the facts as presented by the applicant, namely, that he was detained by State officials and, while in custody, severely beaten (see paragraph 75 above and paragraphs 8 - 12 in the Facts section).
77. The Court notes that at the time of the incident the applicant had just turned eighteen years old and that the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant caused severe physical and mental suffering which required almost three weeks of in-patient treatment in a hospital. Given these considerations and in view of the Convention case-law in this respect and in particular the criteria of severity and the purpose of the ill-treatment (see, among other authorities, {Ilhan} v. Turkey [GC], No. 22277/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-VII), the Court is satisfied that the accumulation of the acts of physical violence inflicted on the applicant amounted to torture in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
78. The Court will now turn to the question whether the respondent Government have complied with its procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the episode in question.
(a) Existence of an arguable claim of ill-treatment
79. In view of the applicant's injuries confirmed by medical personnel of polyclinic No. 218 and Moscow City Hospital No. 1 (see paragraphs 13 and 16), the body of evidence referred to by the trial court in its judgment of 10 February 2006 and the fact that the domestic authorities had considered these items of evidence to be sufficiently serious to lay the basis of criminal charges against police officer B. and to refer the case for trial (see paragraph 45), the Court finds that the applicant had an arguable claim that he was seriously ill-treated by the State officials.
(b) General principles relating to the effectiveness of the investigation
80. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he or she has been seriously ill-treated by the police 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. The effective official investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV). The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Isayeva and Others v. Russia, Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208 - 13, 24 February 2005).
(c) Application of those principles
81. The issue thus arises as to whether the authorities complied with their obligation to carry out an effective official investigation into the matter.
82. At the outset the Court notes that, despite the Government's failure to provide a copy of the investigation file in respect of the events of 10 February 2001, and even from the fragmented information made available to the Court by the parties, it is clear that the investigation into the events
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 12
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
