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

that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into that incident.

A. Admissibility

152. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

1. Submissions by the parties

153. The applicant submitted that on 27 June 2002 he and his co-defendants had been beaten with truncheons by escorts in the building of the Lipetsk Regional Court. He had been taken to the courthouse for a hearing despite a medical conclusion that his participation in court hearings was inadvisable owing to his precarious state of health caused by a severe psychiatric disorder. Although he and his co-defendants had indeed at first refused to proceed to the courtroom, they had changed their minds and had agreed to follow the escorts after they had been informed of the judge's order to bring them in by force. He denied attacking the escorts and argued that the escorts' testimony about the attack had been generic and lacking in essential detail. In particular, the escorts had not explained which of the defendants had attacked them or what the applicant's role had been in the attack.
154. The applicant further submitted that the force used by the escorts had in any event been excessive. Firstly, the defendants had been handcuffed in twos, their hands fastened behind their backs. They did not therefore present any danger for the escorts, who had been armed with rubber truncheons and who had moreover outnumbered the defendants (eight escorts to five defendants). Secondly, force had been used against the applicant despite the fact that he was seriously ill. The escorts had administered numerous and random blows to the applicant, who had shown no resistance, those blows provoking an epileptic fit and causing a head injury. Accordingly, the applicant maintained that he had been subjected to inhuman treatment contrary to Article 3.
155. Finally, the applicant argued that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment had been ineffective. Only one of his co-defendants had been questioned. The applicant and the other co-defendants, their counsel, the judge and the court clerks present during the incident had never been invited to testify. The scope of the investigation had been insufficient as it had been limited to establishing whether the use of force had been legitimate under domestic law. Neither the prosecutor's office nor the courts had enquired into the issue of whether the force had been excessive. Moreover, in the decision not to open criminal proceedings the prosecutor's office had found, in total disregard of the medical evidence and witness statements, that the applicant had not sustained any injuries. Therefore, the applicant considered that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
156. The Government submitted that the applicant and his co-defendants had intended to escape and attacked the escorts. Physical force and rubber truncheons had been used against them to suppress the attack. In those circumstances the use of force had been lawful and justified. The domestic authorities had conducted a thorough and effective inquiry into the incident and had decided not to open criminal proceedings against the escorts. That decision had been confirmed by domestic courts.

2. The Court's assessment

(a) Whether the use of force was justified
157. The Court reiterates that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-...



> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet