of compensation to the victim. This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, No. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and mutatis mutandis, {Yasa} v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, § 74; {Tanrikulu} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, No. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII; {Gul} v. Turkey, No. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, No. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001; and {Avsar} v. Turkey [GC], No. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII).
53. It is apparent from the above that a judicial award of compensation to the applicant represents only one part of the group of measures necessary to provide redress for ill-treatment by State agents (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, No. 7888/03, § 56, 20 December 2007). In particular, in the case of Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (cited above, §§ 71 - 91), the Court found that a successful civil action could not, in the absence of an efficient investigation into the alleged instance of ill-treatment, provide the applicant with the appropriate redress and remove his victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention for his complaints raised before the Court under Article 3 of the Convention.
54. The Court also reiterates its finding in the context of a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention that there is no case-law authority for Russian civil courts being able, in the absence of any results from a criminal investigation, to consider the merits of a civil claim relating to alleged serious criminal actions (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, No. 4353/03, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Isayeva v. Russia, No. 57950/00, § 155, 24 February 2005; and Isayeva and Others v. Russia, Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 147, 24 February 2005). The Court stressed that while the Russian civil courts in theory have the capacity to make an independent assessment of fact, in practice the weight attached to a preceding criminal inquiry is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would be discarded and such a remedy would prove to be only theoretical and illusory (see Menesheva v. Russia, No. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III). The Court has found that in a case where criminal proceedings against public officials were discontinued without any finding of guilt, any other remedy available to the applicant, including a claim for damages, had limited chances of success and could be regarded as theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective (see Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, No. 7178/03, § 101, 15 May 2008).
55. The Court therefore finds that the question whether an action for damages could have been considered an accessible and effective remedy capable of providing the applicant with adequate redress for the alleged violation of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention is closely linked to the question whether the investigation into the events in question was prompt, thorough and effective. However, that issue relates to the merits of the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court therefore decides to join this issue to the merits.
(iii) Failure to appeal against the decision of 27 July 2007
56. The Court notes the further argument by the Government that a judicial complaint against the decision of 27
> 1 2 3 ... 9 10 11 ... 17 18 19
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
