s when assessing the credibility of the applicant and that of B. and the police officers. She considered the applicant's complaint to be an attempt to evade criminal responsibility. However, she accepted the statements made by B. and the police officers even though they could also have been interpreted as similar attempts on their part. In the Court's view, the credibility of the alleged perpetrators should have been subjected to equally strict scrutiny since the inquiry was supposed to establish whether they were to be prosecuted on disciplinary or criminal charges.
54. The Court further observes that no attempt was made to explain the inconsistency between the applicant's allegations and the testimonies of the police officers by reference to medical data. No expert opinion was commissioned as to the possibility of the contusion having been caused by the alleged ill-treatment, or to rule out such a possibility. Nor did the prosecutor question the doctors who had attended the applicant. The investigation made by the Regional Prosecutor and the General Prosecutor did not in any way rectify the above shortcomings.
55. The subsequent investigation carried out by the trial court in response to the applicant's complaint did not seem to rectify the omissions of the assistant prosecutor's inquiry. In fact, the court did not discern any flaws in the inquiry and stated in the verdict that it had been thorough. Admittedly, the court did not confine itself to the review of the assistant prosecutor's findings and examined in person the alleged perpetrators, including officer Sh., thus providing the applicant with an opportunity to confront them and challenge their credibility. However, similar to the assistant prosecutor, the trial court rejected the applicant's allegations and gave preference to the account of the events provided by the police officers and investigator B. only because they had been warned of criminal liability for perjury. Neither the appeal court nor superior prosecutors took any further action to investigate the applicant's allegations. They dismissed his complaints on the basis of the findings of the subordinate prosecutor's office and the trial court.
56. Lastly, the Court notes that, apart from a copy of the assistant prosecutor's decision of 21 June 1999 and a statement made by B. some six years after the events in question, the Government have provided no relevant material to substantiate their argument that the investigation in response to the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment was effective. They submitted that the file had been destroyed owing to the expiry of the time-limit for its storage.
57. Having regard to the above, the Court finds that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. Accordingly there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in this respect.
III. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
58. The applicant complained that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
59. The Court observes that this complaint concerns the same issues as those examined above under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 46 - 57). Having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention.
IV. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
60. Article 41 of the C
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 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
