by special-purpose squads in Russian prison colonies. In Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia (No. 7178/03, 15 May 2008), the Court found that the applicants were subjected to torture. In Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (No. 41461/02, 24 July 2008), the Court again found that the applicant was subjected to treatment which can be described as torture. In Sharomov v. Russia (No. 8927/02, 15 January 2009), the Court, on the basis of a report, statements and the fact that the presence of a squad had been authorised and the officers had been advised of the applicable rules on the use of force, found no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3. In that case, no separate claim concerning an alleged ineffective investigation was made.
4. The applicant made very serious allegations, namely that as a result of the use of force, his ribs were broken and his left kidney damaged. The recollection of the events as presented by the applicant do not contain the slightest contradiction. It is undisputed that he was X-rayed but was never given a copy of the results (see paragraph 15). Admittedly, the colony doctor indicated "no injuries" on the applicant's medical card on 1 August 2002 (see paragraph 18). Subsequently, after having been admitted to the colony hospital in early September 2002, the applicant was diagnosed with a kidney disease (according to the applicant) or with diabetes (according to the documents submitted) (see paragraph 20). A surgeon at the colony hospital examined the applicant and diagnosed him with "an injury to the left side of the chest" (see paragraph 21). More than a month later, the applicant underwent a "large picture from photoroentgenography", which revealed no pathological changes" (see paragraph 22). However, an expert noted in January 2003 that it was necessary to perform a plan (survey) X-ray of the applicant's chest in order to "establish whether he had [sustained] fractures of the ribs" (see paragraph 26). An X-ray performed in November 2005 showed some deformation of the applicant's left rib No. VIII, which, according to the forensic experts "was consistent with a united fracture that occurred at the time and in the circumstances described in the documents" (see paragraph 34).
5. It should also be noted that the use of force as such (see paragraph 27) has not been disputed by the respondent Government.
6. For my part, I consider those limited findings - established only within the closed prison environment, that is, within the prison colony - taken together with the applicant's account of the events, very worrying. I am satisfied that the applicant has, at the least, established an arguable claim.
7. As the Court rightly notes in paragraph 54 of the judgment, a particularly thorough scrutiny should be applied where the applicant raises an arguable complaint of ill-treatment.
8. In paragraph 57, however, the majority regrettably places emphasis on the fact that "the applicant's version of events has not been backed up by persuasive evidence or reliable witness testimonies". In my view, the majority view does not take sufficient account of the enormous difficulties faced by the applicant in gathering evidence in the context of a closed prison environment.
9. The applicant's arguable complaint of ill-treatment should have prompted a serious and detailed investigation. The numerous shortcomings of the investigation (paragraphs 59 - 65) have led the Court to find a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3. The inadequacy of the investigation deprived the Court of more precise information concerning the substance of the claim.
II. As to the uncertainties surrounding the burden
and standard of proof in proceedings concerning alleged
violations of Article 3 of the Convention
10. This case highlights once again the two technical problems faced by the Cour
> 1 2 3 ... 8 9 10 11
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
