c examination revealed signs on the applicant's face of having been beaten. The presence of such injuries was indicative of a criminal assault occasioning actual bodily harm or at least the criminal offence of battery. Under Russian law, the applicant's criminal complaint, supported by that information on the elements of a criminal offence, was sufficient grounds for opening a criminal case (see paragraph 31 above). However, a criminal case has never been opened and the institution of criminal proceedings was refused on no fewer than seven occasions. In the absence of a criminal case the applicant could not be granted the procedural status of victim, which restricted his participation in the investigation and prevented him from exercising the rights attached to that procedural status, including the right to lodge applications or the right to put questions to the medical expert (see paragraph 32 above). It cannot therefore be said that the applicant's right to participate effectively in the investigation was secured (compare Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, No. 32704/04, § 126, 17 December 2009).
53. The Court further observes that the manner in which the inquiry was conducted reveals the investigative authorities' determination to dispose of the matter in a hasty and perfunctory fashion (compare Denis Vasilyev, cited above, § 155). The inquiry was passed between authorities and investigators who routinely attempted to discontinue the proceedings on various grounds. Over a period of three years, seven decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings were given, all of which - save for the last one - were set aside by supervising prosecutors or courts because the inquiry that had been carried out until then had been incomplete or deficient. The Court notes that the most fundamental investigative measures, such as inspecting the scene where the applicant alleged to have been beaten or arranging a confrontation between him and the police officers from Nerekhta district police station, were never carried out. These failures alone, for which no explanation has been provided to the Court, suffice to render the investigation ineffective.
54. The inquiry by the domestic authorities also fell short of the promptness and reasonable expedition requirements. It lasted more than three years and was marred by considerable periods of inactivity, such as that from 5 August 2004 to 28 January 2005 and the even longer period between the Regional Court's decision of 18 May 2006 and the most recent investigator's decision of 18 March 2007. The most serious consequence resulting from the excessive length of the inquiry was that the prosecution of those responsible became time-barred under domestic law.
55. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. Accordingly, there has also been a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
56. The applicant further complained that his administrative conviction of 29 December 2003 had been founded on forged evidence. The Court observes that more than six months elapsed between the end of the applicant's detention and the introduction of this complaint. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
57. Lastly, the applicant complained that his trial had not been public, that the prosecutor had intimidated the witnesses and that the trial court did not prevent witnesses from leaving the courtroom after they had made their statements or from talking to each other. It appears, however, that the trial was held in open court where the witnesses gave testimony without any apparent pressure being put on them. It follows
> 1 2 3 ... 6 7 8 9 ... 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
