Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 18.03.2010 «Дело Максимов (Maksimov) против России» [англ.]

and the loss of standing to sue the State.
70. In sum, the Court concludes that the facts of the present case disclose no violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
on account of the events of 19 Decemeber 2001

71. The applicant complained that on 19 December 2001 the police had subjected him to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State's obligations under Article 3, which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

A. Submissions by the parties

72. The Government, disputing the applicant's version of the events of 19 December 2001, submitted that there had been no objective evidence confirming the applicant's allegations. The investigating authorities had looked into the events in question thoroughly and dismissed the applicant's complaints, finding no case to be answered. In addition, the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction had examined his claims and also considered them manifestly ill-founded.
73. The applicant argued that he had obtained a medical certificate showing that he had been hit at least twice in the chest by the police officer. The investigators' reluctance to conduct a thorough investigation into the events had given the police officers time to come up with an explanation for their actions pertaining to his arrest, detention for two hours in the police station and ill-treatment.

B. The Court's assessment

1. Admissibility

74. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

(a) General principles
(i) As to the scope of Article 3
75. 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, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996-V). Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 of the Convention 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 v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 93, Reports 1998-VIII).
76. The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, §§ 92 - 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
77. In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-b



> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet