Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 19.03.2009 «Дело Полонский (Polonskiy) против России» [англ.]

nvestigation or as the basis for their decisions (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 103 et seq., Reports 1998-VIII). They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; {Tanrikulu} v. Turkey [GC], No. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 104 et seq.; and {Gul} v. Turkey, No. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000). Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.
108. Further, the investigation must be expeditious. In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation is at 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 during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, No. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
109. In the present case the parties have disputed whether the applicant lodged a formal complaint about ill-treatment with the competent prosecutor's office. The applicant stated that he had dispatched such complaint through the detention facility administration, while the Government disputed that fact. However, there is no need for the Court to resolve this controversy for the following reasons.
110. It has not been contested by the Government that on 30 January 2003, that is two days after the alleged ill-treatment, the applicant complained about police brutality to the investigator. He thereby drew the authorities' attention to his allegations. The medical examination ordered by the investigator seemed to corroborate the applicant's statements revealing numerous bruises and thermoelectrical burns on his body (see paragraph 9 above). The applicant's claim was therefore shown to be "arguable" and the domestic authorities were placed under an obligation to carry out "a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see, for similar reasoning, Egmez v. Cyprus, No. 30873/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-XII, and Ahmet {Ozkan} and Others v. Turkey, No. 21689/93, §§ 358 and 359, 6 April 2004). Although the investigator was required by domestic law to perform a preliminary inquiry with a view to opening criminal proceedings or refer the complaint to the competent investigative authority (see paragraph 91 above), he took no such action.
111. It was not until a year and a half later, in September 2004, and in response to a complaint lodged by the applicant's mother, that a preliminary inquiry was launched by the prosecutor's office. Its progress was however slow and it spanned over four years. Thus, the only investigative measure conducted before the end of 2005 was the questioning of one of the police officers involved in the applicant's arrest. The other police officers, the applicant, his relatives, co-defendants and co-detainees were questioned for the first time in 2006, that is more than three years after the alleged ill-treatment. In the Court's view, the belated commencement of the inquiry and the delays in its progress imputable to the domestic authorities resulted in the loss of precious time which could not but have a negative impact on the success of the investigation (see Mikheyev v. Russia, No. 77617/01, § 114, 26 January 2006).
112. The Court further notes that the prosecutor's office issued nine refusals to open



> 1 2 3 ... 10 11 12 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet