Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.07.2010 <Дело Копылов (Kopylov) против России» [англ.]

July 2004).
135. Finally, the investigation must be expeditious. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation is at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV). Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, No. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
136. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant started to complain about ill-treatment at the beginning of February 2001. He lodged numerous complaints describing in detail the treatment to which he had been subjected, naming the police officers who had been implicated in it, and referring to the injuries he had sustained (see paragraph 41 above). His allegations seemed to be corroborated by medical documents describing numerous bruises and abrasions on his body (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above). The applicant's claim was therefore "arguable" and the domestic authorities were placed under an obligation to carry out "a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see, for similar reasoning, Egmez v. Cyprus, No. 30873/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-XII, and Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, §§ 358 and 359, 6 April 2004).
137. It was however not until four months later, in June 2001, that a preliminary inquiry was launched by the prosecutor's office. That inquiry was limited to questioning some of the police officers accused by the applicant and culminated in a refusal to open criminal proceedings (see paragraph 43 above). Criminal proceedings were ultimately opened in October 2001, that is eight months after the first complaint about ill-treatment lodged by the applicant. In the Court's view, the belated commencement of the criminal proceedings resulted in the loss of precious time which could not but have a negative impact on the success of the investigation (see Mikheyev, cited above, § 114).
138. Further, the Court notes that there was an evident link between the officials responsible for the conduct of the criminal proceedings and some of those allegedly involved in the ill-treatment. The investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment was conducted by the prosecutor's office of the Lipetsk Region. However, according to the applicant, investigators from that office, Mr Andreyev and Mr Ibiyev, had been present during the ill-treatment, had urged him to confess and had threatened that the ill-treatment would continue until he admitted his involvement in the murder. Given that the investigation was conducted by the prosecutor's office, whose officials were allegedly implicated in the mistreatment of the applicant, it cannot be regarded as independent. The Court attaches particular weight to the fact that the applicant's requests for criminal proceedings to be opened against Mr Andreyev and Mr Ibiyev were examined by their colleagues who had carried out an internal inquiry and refused to open criminal proceedings against them. The Court considers that the internal inquiry could not be regarded as adequate for the purposes of Article 3 (see {Jasar} v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), No. 69908/01, 11 April 2006). Accordingly, the scope of the criminal proceedings was limited to the conduct of the police officers of Dolgorukovskoe police station. No independent investigation was ever conducted in respect of Mr Andreyev and Mr Ibiyev, the investigators from the prosecutor's office of the Lipetsk Region, that would have allowed the applicant

> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 24 25 26

0.154 с