Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 13.07.2010 <Дело Лопата (Lopata) против России» [англ.]

and its ability to establish the relevant facts.
119. The Court further notes that although the trial court interviewed the applicant and some of the police officers about the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment and examined the materials of the prosecutor's inquiry, it did not rectify most of the shortcomings enumerated above. Moreover, there were serious contradictions in the police officers' statements to the prosecutor and the trial court. In particular, whilst I.M. admitted before the prosecutor that he had interviewed the applicant on 9 September 2000, he claimed before the trial court that he had been on leave that day (see paragraphs 43 and 62 above). Furthermore, while V.G. denied his presence during the applicant's questioning, he acknowledged at the same time that he had interviewed the latter (see paragraph 62 above). However, the trial court failed to address those discrepancies. In the same vein, it disregarded the concerns about the reliability of forensic report No. 1060 voiced by the applicant and his lawyer and did not react to their requests to have the forensic expert summoned to the court and interviewed. The appellate court, in its turn, upheld the prosecutor's and the trial court's conclusions and found that those State bodies had carried out a thorough check of the applicant's submissions.
120. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.

3. The alleged breach of Article 3
under its substantive limb

(a) General principles
121. As the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and its Protocols, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others, cited above, § 93).
122. Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, §30, Series A No. 269). To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25).
(b) Application of the above principles to the present case
123. The Court observes that the applicant presented a very detailed description of the alleged ill-treatment. According to statements by the applicant's cellmates and his lawyer, they noticed several injuries on his body on the days following the alleged beatings. It is further noted that the police officers allegedly implicated in the ill-treatment denied having beaten the applicant up and the applicant's forensic examination did not establish any bodily injuries. Nor did the applicant's medical record contain reference to any injuries on his body.
124. The Court has further regard to its findings concerning numerous deficiencies in the domestic investigation into the applicant's alleged ill-treatment and, in particular, those concerning his medical examination (see paragraphs 114 - 119 above).
125. Having regard to the parties' submissions and all the materials in its possession, the Court considers that the evidence before it does not enable it to find beyond all reasonable doubt that



> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 26 27 28

	Поделиться:	Tweet