Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 29.01.2009 "Дело "Антропов (Antropov) против Российской Федерации" [рус., англ.]

/> 45. In such circumstances, the Court considers that the violence inflicted upon the applicant was of a particularly serious nature, capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering which fall to be treated as acts of torture for the purpose of Article 3 of the Convention.
46. In the light of the above, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
(b) Alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation
47. The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he or she has been seriously ill-treated by the police in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation. This investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], No. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV). The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the authorities concerned must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Isayeva and Others v. Russia, Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208 - 13, 24 February 2005).
48. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that immediately after the incident of 15 June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor's office, in which he alleged ill-treatment and requested a criminal investigation to be opened. This complaint was accompanied by a medical certificate attesting his injuries. On 30 September 2001, on 19 November 2001 and on 2 February 2002 he reiterated his complaint to the prosecutor's office and on 13 February 2002 he made the same complaint to the court hearing his criminal case. However, the investigation was not opened until 8 April 2002, that is more than nine months later.
49. The Court considers that the medical evidence and the applicant's complaints together raised a reasonable suspicion that his injuries could have been a result of a criminal offence against the applicant, possibly with the involvement of the officials or their failure to ensure his safety in the custody of the State. It therefore finds that a procedural obligation arose to investigate the applicant's allegation of ill-treatment as soon as he brought the matter before the authorities concerned, namely the prosecutor's office and the detention facility. However, the investigation was only opened more then nine months after the events complained of, and there is no reasonable explanation for this delay. The case was eventually investigated by the Prosecutor's Office of the Khabarovsk Garrison in criminal proceedings which, despite their lateness, were not necessarily doomed to failure, since the file already contained ample evidence. However, this inquiry has been far from satisfactory. It does not appear that there have been any attempts to gather evidence or to clarify the circumstances of the applicant's abduction and ill-treatment. The decision of 8 June 2002 by which the criminal proceedings were discontinued contained little more than a statement that none of the persons accused by the applicant had confessed to the kidnapping. When questioned they were not required to provide any specific information relevant to the abduction. It is striking, in particular, that D., T., and K. were not questioned about the vehicles in which the applicant had been kidnapped or returned, that no description of perpetrators was drawn, that there had been no identification parade with the relatives of G. before T.

> 1 2 3 ... 21 22 23 ... 25 26 27

0.1459 с