t issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV). Consideration was given to the starting 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).
45. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the authorities did carry out an inquiry into the applicant's allegations. It is not convinced, however, that the inquiry was sufficiently prompt, thorough and effective to meet the requirements of Article 3.
46. The Court notes that the materials submitted by the Government disclose a number of significant omissions in the way the inquiry was conducted.
47. It appears that the prosecutor's office was duly notified by the administration of the remand prison of the seriousness of the applicant's injuries (see paragraph 18). However, the prosecutor took no action until the applicant lodged a formal complaint some seven months later.
48. As regards the scope of the inquiry, the Court notes that the prosecutor confined himself to the questioning of the police officers involved. At no point did he talk to the applicant or organise a confrontation between him and the police officers. Nor did the prosecutor examine Mr T. and Mr Z., who had been arrested together with the applicant and could undoubtedly have contributed to establishment of the truth.
49. The Court further observes that no attempt was made to resolve the inconsistency between the applicant's allegations and the testimonies of the police officers on the basis of the medical data. The applicant was subjected only to a brief visual examination upon arrival at the remand centre. No expert opinion has been commissioned as to the possibility of the bruises having been caused by the alleged ill-treatment or to rule out such a possibility.
50. The Court finds it particularly striking that the authorities did not make any effort to establish the cause of the applicant's injuries.
51. Lastly, the Court observes that the subsequent judicial proceedings did not remedy the deficiencies of the prosecutor's inquiry. The courts merely upheld the prosecutor's findings without even ensuring the applicant's participation in the proceedings.
52. 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 under its procedural limb.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention
53. The applicant complained under Article 6 that, owing to belated notification, he was denied the opportunity to attend the supervisory-review hearing before the Presidium of the Kurgan Regional Court and his submissions were disregarded. The relevant parts of Article 6 read as follows:
"1. In the determination of... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing... by a... tribunal established by law...
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
...
(c) to defend himself in person..."
54. The Government submitted that, when lodging the application for supervisory review of his case, the applicant did not ask the court to ensure his presence at the hearing. They further conceded that, due to postal delays, the applicant belatedly received the notification of the supervisory-review hearing and was prevented from applying for participation once the decision to review his ca
> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 8 ... 9 10
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
