e second day after his arrest the applicant was examined by forensic medical specialists who recorded numerous bruises, abrasions and electrical burns on his body. Their report contains precise and concurring medical observations and indicates dates for the occurrence of the injuries which correspond to the period spent in custody on police premises (see paragraph 9 above). The Government did not claim that the injuries could have predated the applicant's arrest. The Court is therefore convinced that the applicant sustained those injuries while in police custody.
122. The Court accepts the Government's explanation as to the origin of the abrasions on the applicant's arms. The applicant did not dispute that the abrasions had been caused by his attempt to open his veins using a nail. At the same time it notes that the Government did not provide any explanation for the bruises on the applicant's face and body and the electrical burns on his fingers. By contrast, the applicant presented a consistent and detailed description of the ill-treatment which corresponds to the nature and location of the recorded injuries. His allegations were supported by the testimony of his co-defendants, who stated that they had seen the policemen ill-treating the applicant (see paragraph 26 above).
123. Bearing in mind the authorities' obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control, in custody, and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court finds it established to the standard of proof required in Convention proceedings that the bruises and electrical burns recorded in the medical report were the result of the treatment of which the applicant complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Mehmet Emin {Yuksel} v. Turkey, No. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004).
124. The Court will next examine whether the treatment complained of attained a minimum level of severity such as to fall within the scope of Article 3. It is not convinced by the Government's argument that the minimum level of severity was not reached as the treatment had not resulted in any deterioration of the applicant's health. The absence of long-term health consequences cannot exclude a finding that the treatment is serious enough to be considered inhuman or degrading (see Egmez, cited above, §§ 78 and 79). The applicant was hit at least several times in his face, shoulders, back and legs and was subjected to electric shocks, which is a particularly painful form of ill-treatment. Such treatment must have caused him severe mental and physical suffering, even though it did not apparently result in any long-term damage to his health. Moreover, it appears that the use of force was aimed at debasing the applicant, driving him into submission and making him confess to criminal offences. Therefore, the Court finds that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected was serious enough to be considered as torture.
125. Accordingly, having regard to the nature and extent of the applicant's injuries, the Court considers that the State is responsible under Article 3 on account of torture of the applicant by the police and that there has been a violation of that provision.
II. Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention
126. The applicant complained that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, which provides:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
127. The Court observes that this complaint concerns the same issues as those examined in paragraphs 106 to 117 above under the procedural
> 1 2 3 ... 13 14 15 ... 24 25 26
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
