Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 14.05.2009 «Дело Алибеков (Alibekov) против России» [англ.]

ce, No. 44803/04, § 42, 6 December 2007).
58. Therefore, the Court considers that there is no sufficient evidence for it to conclude that there has been a violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention.
(b) Alleged inadequacy of the investigation
59. The Court notes that in a number of judgments it has found that where a credible assertion is made that an individual has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. The investigation into arguable allegations of ill-treatment must also be thorough. This means that the authorities must always 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 and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 103 et seq, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII). 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).
60. The procedural limb of Article 3 is invoked, in particular, where the Court is unable to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, deriving, at least in part, from the failure of the authorities to react effectively to such complaints at the relevant time (see {Ilhan} v. Turkey [GC], No. 22277/93, §§ 89 - 92, ECHR 2000-VII).
61. In the present case the Court notes at the outset that the investigation of the applicant's complaints commenced in September 2002 and is still pending. The proceedings were discontinued on several occasions in view of the lack of prima facie evidence of criminal conduct on the warders' behalf. Subsequently, following appeals by the applicant, 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 Kozinets v. Ukraine, No. 75520/01, § 61, 6 December 2007).
62. The Court also notes essential omissions capable of calling into question the reliability and effectiveness of the investigation. On the basis of information on the investigative measures reflected in the decisions of 30 August 2002, 25 January and 11 June 2003, the Court observes that certain potential sources of evidence have not been properly explored. In particular, the colony doctors who treated the applicant following his alleged injury were never questioned and no attempts were made to investigate how the applicant sustained the chest injury reported on 4 September 2002.
63. The first decision of 30 August 2002 not to institute criminal proceedings was based merely on the statement of one of the warders and the applicant's medical record. It was not until several months later that the investigator questioned the other warders who had participated in the events and ordered an expert examination of the applicant's medical records. The police officers who had visited the colony on 1 August 2002 were not questioned until June 2003 and it was only in May 2005, that is to say about three years after the events, that a reference to the statements of the applicant's fellow inmates first appeared in the prosecutor's decision (see paragraph 32 above). Despite the existence of two completely different versions of the events, at no stage of



> 1 2 3 ... 5 6 7 ... 9 10 11

	Поделиться:	Tweet