ute criminal proceedings is a substantial safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of powers by the investigating authorities (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), No. 49790/99, 14 October 2003).
33. Turning to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court observes that, instead of pursuing a normal avenue of appeal against the assistant prosecutor's decision of 21 June 1999 by submitting his complaint about it to a district court in a separate set of proceedings, the applicant raised the ill-treatment issue before the same court during the trial. The court took cognisance of the merits of the applicant's complaint, reviewed the assistant prosecutor's findings summed up in her decision of 21 June 1999, questioned the applicant and the alleged perpetrators, and ruled that there was no case to answer against them. Its findings were upheld by the Regional Court on appeal.
34. The Court reiterates that non-exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be held against the applicant if, in spite of the latter's failure to observe the formalities prescribed by law, the competent authority has nevertheless examined the substance of the claim (see, mutatis mutandis, Dzhavadov v. Russia, No. 30160/04, § 27, 27 September 2007; {Skalka} v. Poland (dec.), No. 43425/98, 3 October 2002; Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova (dec.), No. 45701/99, 7 June 2001; and Edelmayer v. Austria (dec.), No. 33979/96, 21 March 2000). The Court finds in the particular circumstances of the present case that, by raising before the trial and appeal courts a complaint concerning ill-treatment and the inadequacy of its investigation, the applicant provided the domestic authorities with the opportunity to put right the alleged violation and thus cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court is not convinced that a challenge to the assistant prosecutor's decision through the avenue of a separate set of proceedings before the same courts would have been more successful, or that it would have been decided on the basis of different material.
35. It follows that the applicant cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he did not lodge a separate judicial complaint against the assistant prosecutor's decision of 21 June 2001. Thus, the Government's objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must be dismissed.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
36. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody in breach of Article 3 of the Convention which reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
37. The Government denied the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, referring to the fact that he had no visible injuries on his body after the events in question. Nor had he sought medical assistance when detained in the temporary detention unit between 9 and 11 March 1999. The applicant had been released from custody on 12 March 1999. He had consulted the doctors only on 15 March 1999. It was possible that he had sustained the contusion in the lumbar region between 12 and 15 March 1999 when he had been at large. The prosecutor had conducted a proper investigation and had dismissed the applicant's allegations as unsupported by evidence and found no case to answer against the alleged perpetrators. The prosecutor's findings confirmed that the criminal investigation against the applicant had been conducted in strict compliance with the rules of criminal procedure. The applicant's allegations had been verified by the competent authorities and rejected as ill-founded. The Government relied on the assistant prosecutor's decision of 21 June 1999. According to the Government's memorandum of 1 November 1005, they could not submit any other mater
> 1 2 3 ... 16 17 18 ... 22 23 24
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
