; Sarban v. Moldova, No. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, No. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). However, it is mindful of the potential for violence that exists in prison facilities and of the fact that disobedience by detainees may quickly degenerate into a riot (see {Gomi} and Others v. Turkey, No. 35962/97, § 77, 21 December 2006). It therefore accepts that the use of force may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security, to maintain order or prevent crime in such facilities. Nevertheless, such force may be used only if it is indispensible and must not be excessive (see Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, No. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007, with further references). Any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, No. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A No. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, No. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
158. It was not disputed between the parties that on 27 June 2002 the applicant was beaten with rubber truncheons in the building of the Regional Court. The beatings caused a swelling of his neck and provoked an epileptic fit. The applicant had to be taken to hospital. Against this background the burden rests on the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force was not excessive (see Zelilof v. Greece, No. 17060/03, § 47, 24 May 2007).
159. The Court takes note of the Government's argument that the use of force had been in accordance with the domestic law. However, it reiterates that the manner in which the domestic law regulates the use of force against detainees does not absolve Russia from its responsibilities under the Convention (see Antipenkov v. Russia, No. 33470/03, § 55, 15 October 2009, with further references). The Court must therefore assess whether the use of force in the present case was compatible with the Convention standards summarised in paragraph 157 above.
160. The Court observes that the exact circumstances of the use of force against the applicant were disputed by the parties. The applicant argued that the escorts had initiated the beatings while he and his co-defendants were mounting the stairs in the direction of the hearing room, without any defiance or provocation on their part. The Government disputed the applicant's description, insisting that the force had been used lawfully in response to an attack on the escorts committed by the applicant and his co-defendants.
161. The Court is not convinced by the Government's version of the events. It notes, firstly, that none of the eyewitnesses questioned during the inquiry mentioned that they had seen the defendants attacking the escorts. On the contrary, they all stated that they had seen the escorts hitting the defendants while they were mounting the stairs in the direction of the hearing room. Secondly, the Court doubts that it was feasible for the defendants, who had been handcuffed in twos and were closely surrounded by the escorts in the limited space of the staircase, to launch an attack. Further, the escorts had an explicit order from the judge to use force against the defendants in order to bring them into the hearing room. In those circumstances, it might be reasonably supposed that the escorts complied with that order and used rubber truncheons as soon as they saw the defendants stop in their pace and turn round, as described by Mr Sh. (see paragraph 93 above). Finally, the Court finds it significant that in his decision not to open criminal proceedings against the escorts the prosecutor refrained from making any clear statements as to the existence or otherwise of an attack on the escorts. Instead he used circumspect wording from which it appears that the force was used in resp
> 1 2 3 ... 20 21 22 ... 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
