episode involving the applicant. The court, having questioned a number of witnesses, including the applicant, his family members as well as the doctors and police officers, found that the statements and other evidence collected by the investigation had been too confusing and contradictory to enable the court to conclude with sufficient certainty that the injuries in question had indeed been inflicted by officer B.
48. In particular, in respect of the statements given by the applicant during the trial, the court stated as follows:
"...The court is critical in respect of the statements made by [the applicant during the trial] and does not trust them, since they are self-contradictory as well as incompatible with the objective information contained in the case file. From his statements it is clear that he believes that the blows were inflicted on him by B., and not anyone else, and that it is his presumption. At the same time, under [domestic law] all doubts concerning the guilt of the accused which cannot be eliminated in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure are interpreted in favour of the accused. Also, the court considers that by giving these statements, the applicant is trying to defend himself and the extortion committed by him by showing that his initial confessions were motivated by police coercion. Later, however, [the criminal case against the applicant] was discontinued owing to an Amnesty Act, that is, on the basis of non-rehabilitative grounds..."
49. Having examined some further witnesses, including the family of the applicant and the medical personnel who carried out the medical examination of the applicant, the court noted that:
"...All the statements by witnesses... to which the prosecution is referring, do not prove the guilt of B. in connection with [the crime], since they only indirectly confirm the fact that injuries were inflicted on [the applicant], on the basis of the descriptions made by [the applicant himself]."
50. The court noted that the police officers who had been on duty on 10 February 2001 had consistently stated that no coercion or violence had been used in respect of the applicant.
51. The court further noted that it had examined the two medical examination reports submitted in the prosecution case file, both confirming the existence of the injuries on the applicant's body. The court accepted one of them as evidence in the case and rejected the other on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the use of copies of documents and the methodology of the examination.
52. The court did not elaborate on other possible causes of the applicant's injuries, having limited the analysis to the issue of B.'s involvement in the incident. At the same time, the court stated that:
"...[it] takes note of the fact that the bodies involved in the preliminary investigation, by bringing criminal proceedings in respect of B. on a request by [the applicant], took the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of N., Ch., Sh. [other police officers], even though [the applicant himself] had sought a finding of liability in respect of all of the persons mentioned, and thus accepted [the applicant's] application only in part..."
53. The judgment of 10 February 2006 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 29 March 2006.
54. In particular, the City Court agreed with the District Court's conclusion concerning the assessment of admissibility of the medical examinations of the applicant. The City Court specifically noted that in a decision of 30 July 2002 the investigator in charge of the case had acknowledged that:
"...medical documents and x-rays of [the applicant] from polyclinic No. 218 and Moscow City Hospital No. 1 could not be submitted for expert examination because they had been lost by an investigator of
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 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
