Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.07.2010 «Дело Никифоров (Nikiforov) против России» [англ.]

mes he had committed.
40. The applicant submitted that on the day of his arrest he had had no visible injuries. The absence of any injuries had been noted in the arrest record and also in the detainee registration log of the temporary detention wing. On the following day his wife and sister had visited him and seen his swollen and bruised face, broken nose and chipped tooth. Those same injuries had been recorded by the forensic expert on 31 December 2003. In the applicant's view, the Government's claim that the injuries had been self-inflicted was absurd and unrealistic. Had he indeed sustained his injuries during his detention, that incident would have been recorded in documents because the police officer on duty would have called an ambulance and drafted an incident report.
41. On the facts, the Court observes that on 28 December 2003 the applicant was taken into custody and placed in a cell in Nerekhta district police station. The domestic authorities (see paragraph 28 above) and the Government in their additional observations acknowledged that the applicant had been arrested in good health and that he had had no injuries.
42. Three days later, on 31 December 2003 a forensic expert had seen the applicant and noted multiple physical injuries, including abrasions and large bruises on his face and a broken nose.
43. According to the applicant, these injuries were a result of the ill-treatment inflicted on him by police officers at Nerekhta district police station who had attempted to extract a confession by force. Mr A. and other officers had repeatedly hit his face and body, and punched and kicked him. The Court notes that his account coincides with the findings of the forensic expert. Moreover, since he remained at the material time in custody within the exclusive control of the Russian police, strong presumptions of fact arise in respect of the injuries that occurred during his detention. However, the Government failed to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how those injuries had been caused. Their version of the self-inflicted nature of the injuries is not supported by any evidence and does not appear plausible.
44. Having regard to the applicant's consistent and detailed allegations, corroborated by the medical report, and in view of the absence of any other plausible explanation as to the origin of the injuries found on the applicant by the forensic examination, the Court accepts that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment by police.
45. As to the seriousness of the acts of ill-treatment, the Court reiterates that in order to determine whether a particular form of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, it must have regard to the distinction, embodied in Article 3, between this notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment. It appears that it was the intention that the Convention should, by means of this distinction, attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; {Aydin} v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83 - 84 and 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, No. 20869/92, §§ 94 - 96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, {Bati} and Others v. Turkey, Nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
46. In the instant case the Court finds that the existence of physical pain or suffering is attested by the medical report and the applicant's statements regarding his ill-treatment in the police station. Although his injuries were classified as "light injuries" in the domestic proceedings, the Court considers that his broken nose and multiple bruises and abrasions attest to the severity of the ill-treatment to which he was subjected. It is also relevant for the assessme



> 1 2 ... 3 4 5 6 ... 8 9 10

	Поделиться:	Tweet