eing (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, No. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, No. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, No. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A No. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, No. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
(ii) As to the establishment of the facts
78. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25). However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
79. Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas, cited above, § 29). Although the Court is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Matko v. Slovenia, No. 43393/98, § 100, 2 November 2006). Where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, however, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch, cited above, § 32).
(b) Application of the above principles in the present case
(i) Alleged ill-treatment by the police
80. Having examined the parties' submissions and all the material presented by them, the Court finds it established that on 19 December 2001 the applicant was arrested and brought to Sverdlovskiy district police station. He was released two hours later. Immediately after his release the applicant reported to the local trauma unit, alleging that a police officer had beaten him up. A medical examination in the unit resulted in his being diagnosed with an injury to the left side of his chest (see paragraph 29 above). The diagnosis was made on the basis of the applicant's complaints that he experienced pain during the palpation of his chest. The doctor did not record any visible traces of injury. No further tests were performed and no treatment was administered.
81. The Court notes the inconclusive character of the applicant's injury, which was consistently called into question by the examining doctor in the course of the criminal investigation. It is also mindful of the fact that the initial diagnosis was not backed up by any subsequent medical findings, with the history of development of the injury not being recorded since the applicant did not request further medical examinations or assistance. In addition, there was no other evidence of ill-treatment, such as testimony by an independent witness.
82. It follows that the material in the case file does not provide an evidentiary basis sufficient to enable the Court to find "beyond reasonable doubt" that the applicant was subjected to the alleged ill-trea
> 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
