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

of Lipetsk to initiate criminal proceedings against the escorts who had beaten the applicant and his co-defendants in the courthouse on 27 June 2002.
92. The prosecutor's office conducted an inquiry. Eight escorts, the applicant's mother, one of the applicant's co-defendants and several eyewitnesses were heard. The presiding judge refused to testify.
93. The applicant's co-defendant Mr Sh. testified that the defendants had refused to go into the courtroom because the applicant and another defendant were unwell and the escorts had refused to call a doctor. They had moreover asked to see their relatives. Once the relatives had been let into the courthouse the defendants had agreed to proceed to the courtroom. As they mounted the stairs they had seen that some of their relatives were absent, so they turned around with the intention of descending back into the basement. At that moment the escorts had started to hit them with rubber truncheons and had driven them into the courtroom.
94. The defendants' relatives all testified that the escorts had hit the applicant and his co-defendants, handcuffed in twos, while they were mounting the stairs.
95. The escorts submitted that after the defendants' refusal to go into the courtroom, the judge had ordered that they be brought in by force. The defendants had been handcuffed and ordered to proceed to the courtroom. On the stairs they had suddenly turned round and attacked the escorts. The escorts had used rubber truncheons against them. The defendants had been forced into the courtroom where the applicant had had an epileptic fit. An ambulance had been called and he had been taken to hospital.
96. On 15 July 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Sovetskiy District of Lipetsk refused to open criminal proceedings against the escorts. In his decision the prosecutor referred to the witness statements collected during the inquiry and found that the applicant and his co-defendants had not complied with the legitimate order of the escorts. He concluded that the force had been used by the escorts in compliance with the Police and Custody Acts. In any event, the applicant and his co-defendants had not received any injuries.
97. The applicant challenged the decision before a court. In particular, he submitted that, contrary to the prosecutor's assertions, he had sustained injuries and had been taken to hospital. He also argued that the inquiry had been incomplete, as many eyewitnesses had not been questioned.
98. On 22 September 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk held that the prosecutor's decision had been lawful. It found that the inquiry had been adequate as it had allowed the prosecutor to collect the necessary evidence and to make a reasoned decision.
99. On 19 October 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal.

II. Relevant domestic law

A. Criminal-law remedies against ill-treatment

1. Applicable criminal offences

100. Abuse of office associated with the use of violence and weapons and entailing serious consequences carries a punishment of three to ten years' imprisonment and a prohibition on occupying certain positions for up to three years (Article 286 § 3 (a, b, c) of the Criminal Code).

2. Investigation of criminal offences

101. Until 1 July 2002 the investigation of criminal offences was governed by the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure of 27 October 1960 (the "old CCrP"). It established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator on a complaint by an individual or on the investigative authorities' own initiative, where there were reasons to believe that a crime had been committed (Articles 108 and 125). A prosecutor was responsible for overall supervision of the investigation and c



> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet