lways 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 of their decisions (see Assenov, cited above, §§ 103 et seq.). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see {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. Furthermore, the investigation must be expedient (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV, and {Timurtas} v. Turkey, No. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI).
60. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the present case, the Court has found that the respondent State is responsible under Article 3 for ill-treatment of the applicant (see paragraph 57 above). The applicant's complaint in this regard is therefore "arguable" and the authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov, cited above, § 58).
61. The Court observes that the investigation of the applicant's complaints commenced in May 2001. These complaints were also a subject of review by the domestic courts both during examination of the criminal charges against the applicant and in the course of proceedings on his appeals against the prosecuting authorities' decisions not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The parties did not dispute that there was an inquiry; it is therefore to be examined whether it was conducted diligently, whether the authorities were determined to identify and prosecute those responsible, and accordingly whether the inquiry was "effective".
62. It is to be noted that the investigation was suspended in August 2008 for failure to identify suspects. It thus lasted for more than seven years without any final decision. The proceedings were discontinued on several occasions in view of the lack of prima facie evidence of criminal conduct on the police officers' behalf. Subsequently they were reopened and the case was remitted for further investigation. In the Court's opinion, repeated remittals of a case for further investigation may disclose a serious deficiency in the domestic prosecution system (see, in the context of Article 6 of the Convention, Wierciszewska v. Poland, No. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, applied in the context of Article 3 in Kozinets v. Ukraine, No. 75520/01, § 61, 6 December 2007).
63. The Court also notes omissions capable of calling into question the reliability and effectiveness of the investigation. The first decision of 29 May 2001 not to institute criminal proceedings was based mostly on the applicant's written statements and his medical record. On 6 August 2001 three police officers were questioned for the first time and it was not until October 2001 that the investigator questioned three more officers who had participated in the events. The Court cannot overlook either the fact that the decision of 6 August 2001 not to institute criminal proceedings against police officers was issued by the same investigator who had opened and conducted the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant, and who was thus very close to the police officers who brought about his confession.
64. Furthermore, having relied on the experts' conclusion of 15 October 2001 that the rib fractures had occurred no earlier than June - July 2001, the investigator made no attempt to establish how the applicant - in detention throughout - sustained that chest injury. It is also apparent from the decisions not to
> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 24 ... 25 26