espondence between a detainee and the Court (see paragraph 50 above). The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to show that the letter of 13 July 2004 was opened and inspected.
83. Thus, there has been no breach by the respondent State of their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention on that account.
84. At the same time, the Court observes that the national authorities have acknowledged the delay in handing over the letter to the applicant. The applicant submitted that he had received the letter on 21 September 2004, that is, after the expiry of the time-limit set by the Court. The Government did not contest this.
85. It is well known that various proceedings before the Court are subject to time-limits, the non-observance of which is liable to entail legal consequences for the parties. It is noted that by the letter of 13 July 2004 the applicant was given a time-limit by which to submit additional documents and information. An applicant's failure to comply with the Court's instructions would in principle lead the Court to decide on the admissibility of the case on the basis of the file as it then stood, or to conclude that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the application and to decide to strike it out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many others, Kupryakov v. Russia (dec.), No. 18792/03, 20 September 2007). While admitting that the responsible prison officer should have handed over the letter to the applicant without delay, the Government submitted that the applicant had contributed to that delay by failing to comply with the order to present himself to the office in charge of correspondence.
86. Bearing in mind the vulnerable position of detainees in so far as their communication with the outside world is concerned, the Court considers that it was incumbent on the respondent State in the present case to ensure that the applicant received the above-mentioned registered letter without undue delay.
87. Thus, the respondent State has not complied with their obligation under Article 34 of the Convention.
B. Other allegations under Article 34 of the Convention
88. The applicant also alleged that the authorities' failure to assist him in gathering evidence in support of his complaint before the Court concerning the conditions of detention amounted to a violation of the respondent State's obligation under Article 34 of the Convention. In addition, he alleged that a letter dated 23 January 2003 had not been dispatched by the prison administration (see paragraph 43 above).
89. The Court has examined those complaints as presented by the applicant. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose an appearance of a breach by the respondent State of its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
90. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention of ill-treatment and threats, to which he had allegedly been subjected on several occasions between 31 October and 2 November 2000.
91. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment brought to it must be supported by appropriate evidence (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV). To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". Such proof may also follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, § 161 in fine, Series A No. 25).
92. Having examined the available material, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant has established that he was subjected to any proscribed treatment at the hands of Sta
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
