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

tment on 19 December 2001 (see, for similar reasoning, Gusev v. Russia (dec.), No. 67542/01, 9 November 2006, and, most recently, Toporkov v. Russia, No. 66688/01, §§ 43 - 45, 1 October 2009). Accordingly, the Court cannot but conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
(ii) Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
83. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible. Thus, the investigation of serious allegations of ill-treatment must be thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions. They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and so on. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see, among many authorities, Mikheyev, cited above, §§ 107 et seq., and Assenov and Others, cited above, §§ 102 et seq.).
84. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that on 20 December 2001, the day following the alleged ill-treatment, the applicant complained to the Sverdlovskiy district prosecutor. The matter was hence duly brought before the competent authorities at a time when they could reasonably have been expected to investigate the circumstances in question. The applicant's allegations, which were detailed and consistent throughout the domestic proceedings and before this Court, were, at least to some extent, corroborated by a medical certificate recording an injury to the left side of his chest. The Court is also mindful of the fact that at the material time the doctor found the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment plausible enough to report the injury to the Sverdlovsk regional police department (see paragraph 29 above). The applicant's claim, as submitted in December 2001, was therefore shown to be "arguable" and the domestic authorities were placed under an obligation to carry out "a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see, for similar reasoning, Egmez v. Cyprus, No. 30873/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-XII; Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, §§ 358 and 359, 6 April 2004; and, most recently, Generalov v. Russia, No. 24325/03, § 139, 9 July 2009).
85. In this connection the Court notes that the prosecution authorities, who were made aware of the applicant's beating, carried out a preliminary investigation which did not result in criminal prosecution. The applicant's ill-treatment complaints were also the subject of examination by the domestic courts at two levels of jurisdiction. In the Court's opinion, the issue is consequently not so much whether there was an investigation, since the parties did not dispute that there was one, but whether it was conducted diligently, whether the authori



> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet