the authorities' unorthodox investigative technique (see paragraph 41 above). The Court finds it striking that the deputy prosecutor devoted that interview to verifying the allegations of the applicant's drunkenness rather than to soliciting a medical opinion as to the nature and cause of the applicant's injury.
92. The Court therefore finds that the investigating authorities' failure to look for corroborating evidence and their deferential attitude to the police officers must be considered to be a particularly serious shortcoming in the investigation (see {Aydin} v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, § 106, Reports 1997-VI).
93. Finally, as regards the judicial proceedings pertaining to the applicant's appeals against the prosecution decisions, the Court finds it striking that neither the district nor the regional courts manifested any interest in identifying and personally questioning witnesses of the applicant's alleged beating or hearing evidence from the officers involved in the incidents (see Zelilof v. Greece, No. 17060/03, § 62, 24 May 2007, and Osman v. Bulgaria, No. 43233/98, § 75, 16 February 2006). For the Court, this unexplained shortcoming in the proceedings deprived the applicant of an opportunity to challenge effectively the alleged perpetrators' version of the events (see Kmetty v. Hungary, No. 57967/00, § 42, 16 December 2003). Furthermore, the Court is mindful of the fact that while both the district and regional courts supported the deputy prosecutor's decision of 20 September 2002 to close the investigation, finding it to be well-founded and correct, the very same decision was quashed by a higher-ranking prosecutor two months later on the ground that the investigation was incomplete and the decision had been premature (see paragraphs 42 and 43 above).
94. Having regard to the above failings of the Russian authorities, the Court considers that the investigation carried out into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment was not thorough, adequate or effective. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb.
III. Other alleged violations of the Convention
95. The Court has examined the other complaints submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, and in so far as these complaints fall within the Court's competence, it finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
96. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
97. On 9 September 2005 the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims for just satisfaction. The applicant did not submit any such claims within the required time-limits.
98. In such circumstances the Court would usually make no award. In the present case, however, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 87 - 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 48 - 50, 7 June 2007; Chember v. Russia, No. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Nadrosov v. Russia, No. 9297/02, § 55, 31 July 2008; Rusu v. Austria, No. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008; and, most recently, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, No. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008), plus any tax that may be chargeab
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 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
