nd 118, ECHR 2000-X). The Court observes that an expeditious expert medical examination of the applicant was particularly crucial in the circumstances of the present case in the absence of conclusive medical evidence of the physical violence alleged by the applicant. In addition, having regard to the psychological effects which physical violence usually produces, the Court considers that evidence of psychological symptoms or trauma could also have been collected and assessed. A combination of physical and psychological evidence could, accordingly, have been used to corroborate or disprove the applicant's allegations. In this connection the Court notes with concern that the lack of objective evidence - such as medical expert examinations could have provided - was subsequently relied on as a ground for refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.
89. With regard to the thoroughness of the investigation, the Court further notes a number of significant omissions capable of undermining its reliability and effectiveness. Firstly, the Court observes that there was a selective and somewhat inconsistent approach to the assessment of evidence by the investigating authorities. Although excerpts from the applicant's testimony were included in the decision not to institute criminal proceedings, the prosecution authorities did not consider that testimony to be credible, apparently because it reflected a personal opinion and constituted an accusatory tactic by the applicant. However, the investigator did regard the police officers' testimonies as credible, despite the fact that their statements could have constituted defence tactics and have been aimed at damaging the applicant's credibility. In the Court's view, the prosecution investigation applied different standards when assessing the testimonies, as that given by the applicant was deemed to be subjective but not those given by the police officers. The credibility of the latter testimonies should also have been questioned, as the prosecution investigation was supposed to establish whether the officers were liable on the basis of disciplinary or criminal charges (see Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, No. 46317/99, § 99, 23 February 2006).
90. Secondly, the Court finds it striking that despite the direct order from a higher-ranking prosecutor (see paragraph 43 above), the investigator did not identify any witnesses who were not police or medical personnel. While the investigating authorities may not have been provided with the names of individuals who might have seen the applicant at the police station or might have witnessed his alleged beating, they were expected to take steps on their own initiative to identify possible eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the Court considers it odd that it took the investigator almost a year to question the former police trainee, Ms I. (see paragraph 41 above). By the time of the first interview in September 2002 Ms I. was already a serving police officer within a system which requires loyalty and submission to certain constraints. The Court considers that the change in Ms I.'s status could have influenced the content of the statements she made.
91. In any event, the Court is under the impression that the primary focus of the investigation into the applicant's complaints was not the instance of alleged ill-treatment. Instead the authorities concentrated on finding an explanation for the applicant's arrest and detention in the police station and on disproving his allegations of forgery of the records. The Court would stress once again the odd nature of the prosecution authorities' actions when in the first days of the investigation they commissioned an expert examination of the signatures on the arrest report but omitted to request a medical examination of the applicant (see paragraph 36 above). An interview with the head of the trauma unit is another example of
> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 25 26 27