thout the consent of D., T. and K. his abduction would not be possible. Moreover, he considered that the investigation of these events was entirely inadequate, as it was open more than nine months after the ill-treatment and, apart from questioning the implicated persons, did not involve any steps aiming at establishing the culprits.
B. The Court's assessment
1. Admissibility
36. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
(a) Alleged ill-treatment
37. The Court has held on many occasions that the authorities have an obligation to protect the physical integrity of persons in detention. Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A No. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A No. 25). However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch, cited above, § 34, and Salman, cited above, § 100).
38. The Court observes, and it is common ground, that the applicant in the present case sustained injuries when he was transported from the place of his pre-trial detention to take part in an investigative action, thus in the custody of the State. The circumstances of the applicant's abduction and ill-treatment, as described by the applicant, are not as such contested by the Government. What is in dispute between the parties is the existence of a link between the conduct of the officials in this situation and the infliction of injuries suffered by the applicant. The applicant maintained that the acts of ill-treatment were carried out by G.'s relatives with the consent and assistance of investigator D., who had arranged for the abduction. He also alleged negligence of the convoy officers T. and K. in that they had failed to protect him from the assault. The Government, on the other hand, did not accept responsibility on the part of these persons for the damage suffered by the applicant.
39. The Court notes that the applicant was taken out of the detention facility following the order of investigator D. who had allegedly requested the applicant's presence at some unspecified site for undisclosed investigative actions. According to D., T. and K. the attack on the convoy and the applicant's abduction had been a total surprise and that they were unable to put resistance or to track down the perpetrators. The Court, however, considers their account to lack credibility. First, the purpose of the applicant's detour from the detention facility remains unclear because D. has not explained what investigative action was intended to be carried out, at what destination, or why the convoy had to stop and wait half way. T. and K., on their part, failed to explain their lack of attempts to offer resistance to the kidnappers, or to pursue them, or to report that they had lost th
> 1 2 3 ... 19 20 21 ... 25 26 27
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
