ial pertaining to the prosecutor's inquiry since all such material had been destroyed on the expiry of the time-limit for its storage. In their additional observations of 29 January 2009, the Government submitted that the material in question had been destroyed on 5 April 2004. The Government also submitted a statement made by Investigator B. on 8 August 2005 in which she denied the applicant's allegations.
38. The applicant maintained his complaint. As regards the statement by B. submitted by the Government, the applicant argued that it could not be taken into consideration since it had been made some six years after the events in question.
39. The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
40. Where an individual claims to have been injured by ill-treatment in custody, the Government is under an obligation to provide a complete and sufficient explanation as to how the injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A No. 336).
41. The ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 94, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).
42. The Court considers that the contusion diagnosed by the doctors who examined the applicant indicate that his injuries were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the scope of Article 3 (compare Assenov and Others, cited above, § 95). It remains to be considered whether the State should be held responsible under Article 3 in respect of those injuries.
1. Alleged ill-treatment
43. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that the parties did not dispute that the applicant sustained the injuries. They disagreed as to their time and cause.
44. The Court notes that the medical evidence submitted by the parties conclusively demonstrates that the applicant had a contusion in the lumbar region six days after the events in question. However, the remainder of the material in the Court's possession, including the results of the authorities' inquiry into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, does not elucidate the disputed facts as to the time and cause of the applicant's injuries.
45. In the circumstances of the case, the Court finds it impossible to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" whether or not the applicant's injuries were caused by the police as he alleged. Accordingly, the Court cannot but conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb.
2. Adequacy of the investigation
46. The Court does, however, consider that the medical evidence and the fact that the applicant was being held in custody until three days before he sought medical assistance raise a reasonable suspicion that the injuries he sustained might have been caused by the police.
47. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-trea
> 1 2 3 ... 17 18 19 ... 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
