Главная страницаZaki.ru законы и право Поиск законов поиск по сайту Каталог документов каталог документов Добавить в избранное добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное




Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 01.10.2009 "Дело "Топорков (Toporkov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]





ted by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102).
48. An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, No. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, No. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
49. An investigation into serious allegations of ill-treatment must be thorough. That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis for their decisions (see Assenov, cited above, §§ 103 et seq.). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; {Tanrikulu} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 104 et seq.; and {Gul} v. Turkey, No. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.
50. Furthermore, the investigation must be expedient. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation is at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy, cited above, § 133 et seq.). Consideration is given to the date of commencement of investigations, delays in taking statements (see {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, No. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
51. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the authorities did carry out an inquiry into the applicant's allegations. The assistant prosecutor conducted it promptly and informed the applicant of the result without undue delay. The Court is not convinced, however, that the inquiry was sufficiently thorough and effective to meet the requirements of Article 3.
52. As regards the thoroughness of the investigation, the Court notes a number of significant omissions capable of undermining its reliability and effectiveness. Firstly, when refusing to institute the criminal proceedings against the police officers, the assistant prosecutor confined herself to questioning the investigator and some of the police officers involved. At no point did she talk to the applicant or organise a confrontation between him and the police officers or investigator B. Nor did she try to identify and question any potential witnesses in an attempt to elucidate the events under inquiry. The Court finds it also striking that the assistant prosecutor even failed to question all the alleged perpetrators. For example, officer Sh. was summoned to testify on the issue only in court, whereas the applicant clearly indicated him as one of the perpetrators.
53. Secondly, the Court observes that the assistant prosecutor applied different standard



> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 22 23 24

Поделиться:

Опубликовать в своем блоге livejournal.com
0.1797 с