not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, No. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A No. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, No. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
(ii) Application of the above principles in the present case
81. The Court reiterates that it has found it established that the applicant was beaten up by police officers and that as a result of that beating he sustained serious injuries (see paragraphs 63 - 65 above). The Court does not discern any circumstance which might have necessitated any use of violence against the applicant. Furthermore, there is no indication that at any point during his arrest or subsequent detention at the police station he threatened the police officers, for example by openly carrying a weapon or by attacking them (see, by contrast, Necdet Bulut v. Turkey, No. 77092/01, § 25, 20 November 2007, and {Berlinski} v. Poland, Nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, § 62, 20 June 2002). It appears that the use of force was retaliatory in nature and aimed at debasing the applicant and forcing him into submission. In addition, the treatment to which the applicant was subjected must have caused him mental and physical suffering.
82. Accordingly, having regard to the nature and extent of the applicant's injuries, the Court concludes that the State is responsible under Article 3 of the Convention on account of the inhuman and degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the police and that there has thus been a violation of that provision.
II. Other alleged violations of the Convention
83. Lastly, the applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that he had been detained without any legal order from 12 to 14 March 2003, that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair in that the domestic courts had been biased, had misinterpreted the facts, had convicted him of crimes he had not committed and had not applied the domestic law correctly, refusing to dismiss the robbery charge.
84. Having regard to all the materials in its possession, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
85. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
"If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party."
86. On 15 March 2007 the Court invited the applicant to submit his claims for just satisfaction. The applicant did not submit any such claims within the required time-limits.
87. In such circumstances the Court would usually make no award. In the present case, however, the Court has found a violation of the applicant's right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Since this right is of an absolute nature, the Court finds it possible to award the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) by way of non-pecuniary damage (compare Mayzit v. Russia, No. 63378/00, §§ 87 - 88, 20 January 2005, Igor Ivanov v. Russia, No. 34000/02, §§ 48 - 50, 7 June 2007, Chember v. Russia, No. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008, Nadrosov v. Russia, No. 9297/02, § 55, 31 July 2008, Rusu v. Austria, No. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008 and, most recently, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, No. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008), plus any tax that may be chargeable.
> 1 2 3 ... 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
