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

ties were determined to identify and prosecute those responsible and, accordingly, whether the investigation was "effective".
86. The Court reiterates that the applicant was entirely reliant on the prosecutor to gather the evidence necessary to corroborate his complaint. The prosecutor had the legal power to interview the police officers, summon witnesses, visit the scene of the incident, collect forensic evidence and take all other crucial steps for the purpose of establishing the truth of the applicant's account. His role was critical not only to the pursuit of criminal proceedings against the possible perpetrators of the offences but also to the pursuit by the applicant of other remedies to redress the harm he had suffered (see paragraph 50 above).
87. The Court will therefore first assess the promptness of the prosecutor's investigation, viewed as a gauge of the authorities' determination to identify and, if need be, prosecute those responsible for the applicant's ill-treatment (see Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 1999-V). In the present case the applicant brought his allegations of ill-treatment to the attention of the authorities by making a complaint to the Sverdlovskiy district prosecutor (see paragraph 33 above). The prosecutor did not launch an investigation after being notified of the alleged beatings. Instead he remitted the applicant's complaint to the Sverdlovskiy district police department, a State authority whose employees were implicated in the events which were to be looked into, with an order to conduct an official police inquiry (see paragraph 34 above). While the Court acknowledges the necessity of internal inquiries by the police with a view to possible disciplinary sanctions in cases of alleged police abuse, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for the establishment of the truth in cases of police brutality, were conducted by the police force itself (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, No. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009). In this connection the Court reiterates its finding made on a number of occasions that the investigation should be carried out by competent, qualified and impartial experts who are independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], No. 52391/99, § 325, ECHR 2007-..., and {Ogur} v. Turkey [GC], No. 21594/93, §§ 91 - 92, ECHR 1999-III). Furthermore, although the thoroughness of the investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints will be examined below, the Court would already stress at this juncture that it is not convinced that, despite relying on the police officers' statements in the decision of 18 February 2002, the assistant prosecutor had heard evidence from them in person. It appears that he merely recounted the officers' statements made during the internal inquiry. The Court, however, is mindful of the important role which investigative interviews play in obtaining accurate and reliable information from suspects, witnesses and victims and, in the end, the discovery of the truth about the matter under investigation. Observing the suspects', witnesses' and victims' demeanour during questioning and assessing the probative value of their testimony forms a substantial part of the investigative process.
88. Furthermore, the Court is mindful of the fact that at no point during the investigation were attempts made to conduct a medical expert examination of the applicant. The Court reiterates in this connection that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and been allocated a mandate which is broad in scope (see {Akkoc} v. Turkey, Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 55 a



> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 25 26 27

	Поделиться:	Tweet