1. The Government
112. In their initial observations the Government pleaded non-exhaustion. They submitted that the criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant were still pending and that the applicant's complaints were premature. In the alternative, they argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule. In the absence of the final decision at the domestic level, the six-month period had started to run from the date of the acts complained of, that is from April 2001. The applicant had introduced his application on 25 December 2003, that is two years and seven months later.
113. The Government also argued that the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment had been adequate and effective. Its length had been reasonable, having regard to the complexity of the case, its volume, the large number of defendants and witnesses and the necessity of obtaining numerous expert opinions.
114. In their further observations the Government submitted that the police officers who had ill-treated the applicant had been convicted and the applicant had been awarded compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the ill-treatment. The domestic authorities had therefore acknowledged a violation of his rights and had afforded adequate redress. The applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicant
115. The applicant maintained his claim that he had suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the police. The ill-treatment had lasted for weeks and had caused him severe injuries. He argued that the treatment to which he had been subjected was serious enough to be qualified as torture.
116. Further, the applicant submitted that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had been ineffective. His complaints about ill-treatment had remained without reply for several months. During those months he had had no access to a doctor who could have noted his injuries and established their origin. The criminal proceedings against the police officers had not been opened until eight months later. The investigation had been entrusted to the prosecutor's office of the Lipetsk Region, although the investigators from that office, Mr Ibiyev and Mr Andreyev, had been accomplices in the ill-treatment. Accordingly, the investigation had not been independent. Nor had it been prompt. It had procrastinated for years and, in the applicant's opinion, the complexity of the case did not suffice, in itself, to account for its length. There had been substantial delays in the conduct of the proceedings at both the pre-trial and the trial stages, in particular because of long intervals between trial hearings. Moreover, the scope of the investigation had been insufficient, as no proceedings had been brought against the investigators Mr Ibiyev and Mr Andreyev, who had been implicated in the ill-treatment. The applicant also submitted that during the entire duration of the criminal proceedings the police officers who had ill-treated him had continued to serve in the police and some of them had even been promoted.
117. In reply to the Government's argument that the complaint under Article 3 was premature, the applicant submitted that, given the length of the investigation and its manifest ineffectiveness, he had considered himself absolved from any obligation to wait for its completion before filing his complaint with the Court.
118. The applicant finally argued, as regards his victim status, that the amount awarded to him in respect of non-pecuniary damage had been insufficient to compensate for the very serious and irreversible damage to his health caused by the ill-treatment. Moreover, his claims in respect of pecuniary damage had been rejected. He therefore considered that he
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
