ments from detainees of the colony suggesting, on the one hand, that the administration respected the inmates and, on the other, that it was not true. However, in the present case the Court is not dealing with the general situation in the above colony but with a specific complaint concerning the alleged breach of the obligations under Article 34 on account of pressure being put on the applicant with a view to having him sign a specific statement. Hence, it will focus on the applicant's specific allegations in this respect and examine whether they can be found to be well-founded.
68. The Court notes that the applicant alleged that on 16 May 2005 colony officials had ordered him to sign a statement addressed to a prosecutor and the regional department of the Federal Service of Execution of Sentences to the effect that he had no complaints about the conditions of his detention and, when he refused, had allegedly beaten him. They had allegedly prevented him from seeing doctors to record his injuries and he had finally signed the declarations to avoid further beatings.
69. It observes that in the course of an inquiry into the opening of the Court's letter, while questioned by the prosecutor about the alleged pressure, the applicant explicitly stated that he had not been directly pressurised in LIU-2. He further explained that he had considered as pressure the fact of having suddenly become a persistent regime breaker, the delays in posting his correspondence to the Court and the opening of the Court's letter. Nowhere in his explanation did he refer to statements he had been allegedly forced to sign, the beatings which had allegedly accompanied them or the related refusals of access to a doctor (see paragraph 29 above). In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is fully aware of the vulnerability of the applicant, as a prisoner who sought to accuse officials of his own colony of putting him under pressure (see {Cotlet}, cited above, § 71). However, it cannot but observe that in the same conversation with the prosecutor the applicant complained vigorously and raised all his considerations and suspicions in connection with the censorship of the Court's letter. The Court does not find convincing the applicant's explanation that he "did not want" to raise the issue before the prosecutor because he did not trust him (see paragraph 64 above). Lastly, even being mindful of the problems the applicant might have encountered in getting access to doctors after his alleged intimidation, the Court cannot but observe that he produced statements by twenty inmates contesting the credibility of the witnesses whose statements had been furnished by the Government (see ibid.).
70. As regards the applicant's submission that he had "suddenly" and arbitrarily been classified as a "regime breaker", although the Court will not look in depth at this matter, it nonetheless cannot disregard the findings of the inquiry, uncontested by the applicant, to the effect that he had had a long record of breaches of regime before as well as after his conviction (see paragraph 32 above). In the same vein, the Court finds unsubstantiated his submission that he had been placed in a PKT in connection with his complaints about the opening of the Court's letter.
71. In the light of the above facts and considerations the Court considers that an alleged breach of the State's obligation under Article 34 of the Convention has not been established.
IV. Other alleged violations of the Convention
72. Lastly, the applicant alleged violation of his rights under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 17 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 on various grounds.
73. 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 tha
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
