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

criminal proceedings against the police officers. Eight of them were set aside as insufficiently reasoned by a higher prosecutor or a court. Indeed, the analysis of the prosecutor's decisions reveals that the prosecutor accepted too readily the police officers' denial that force had been used against the applicant and decided not to open criminal proceedings, finding, in total disregard of the medical evidence and witness statements, that there was no proof of ill-treatment or, in later decisions, that there were no grounds to believe that the injuries had been inflicted by the police. The prosecutor did not cite any reasons why he considered that the medical evidence was inconclusive or the witnesses were unreliable. The Court finds it particularly striking that after the decisions of 19 October 2006 and 28 May 2007 had been set aside by a court precisely on the ground of a lack of reasoning, the prosecutor failed to abide by the court's instructions and remedy the flaws in its reasoning. Instead he issued, on 9 June 2008, a new decision repeating verbatim the decision of 28 May 2007. The prosecuting authorities' failure to provide sufficient reasons for the refusals to open criminal proceedings and their deferential attitude to the members of the police force must be considered to be a particularly serious shortcoming in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, {Aydin} v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, § 106, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
113. The Court takes note of the fact that in September 2008 the domestic authorities reconsidered their decision not to open a criminal case and initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. The decision of 4 September 2008 stated, however, that the case was opened against "unidentified police officers" (see paragraph 33 above), rather than against Mr T. or other police officers of police department No. 2 who had been identified by the applicant.
114. The Court is satisfied that the domestic authorities opened an inquiry into the applicant's allegations of police brutality. However, it finds that that inquiry was not conducted diligently, and that the authorities showed a lack of determination to prosecute those responsible. Indeed, more than five years after the events complained of no one had been charged, despite the fact that evidence corroborating the applicant's allegations had been discovered and the police officers accused by the applicant had been identified. Accordingly, the inquiry cannot be said to have been "effective" (see, for similar reasoning, Selmouni v. France [GC], No. 25803/94, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 1999-V).
115. Further, the Court is not convinced by the Government's argument that the effectiveness of the inquiry had been undermined by the applicant's failure to have recourse to available domestic remedies. It has been established above that the applicant alerted the competent authorities to the alleged ill-treatment shortly after the events at issue (see paragraph 110 above). His mother, acting under the power of attorney signed by the applicant, lodged a formal complaint with the prosecutor's office and appealed against the refusals to open criminal proceedings to a higher prosecutor and a court. The mother's standing to lodge complaints and appeals on behalf of the applicant was recognised by domestic courts (see paragraph 27 above). The Court is satisfied that the applicant raised complaints about his ill-treatment before the appropriate domestic bodies and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law.
116. Finally, as regards the Government's argument that the complaint under Article 3 is premature, the Court recognises that the investigation is still pending but, considering its length so far and the very serious shortcomings identified above, the Court does not consider that the applic



> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 ... 24 25 26

	Поделиться:	Tweet