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

r /> Christos Rozakis, President,
Anatoly Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and {Soren} Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 January 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (No. 1750/03) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by a Russian national, Mr Vasiliy Konstantinovich Andreyevskiy ("the applicant"), on 27 November 2002.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mrs O. Preobrazhenskaya, a lawyer of the International Protection Centre in Moscow. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights.
3. On 1 March 2006 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
4. The Government objected to the joint examination of the admissibility and merits of the application. Having examined the Government's objection, the Court dismissed it.

THE FACTS

I. The circumstances of the case

5. The applicant was born in 1982 and is now serving a prison sentence in the correctional facility USh/382/10 in the Saratov Region.

A. The applicant's arrest and alleged ill-treatment

1. The alleged ill-treatment

6. On 21 May 2002, at 9 a.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered M., the mother of his girlfriend, and was brought to the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station in Moscow. The arrest record indicated that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of murder. The applicant countersigned the record, noting that he had been notified of his rights and had understood them. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended by prosecutors and courts.
7. According to the applicant, upon arrival at the police station on 21 May 2002, he was placed in the office of Officer Mus. The latter and another officer started beating him up. They hit and kicked him in the solar plexus, on the head, in the kidney area and the groin with a view to extracting a confession to the murder. After their prolonged beatings the applicant was placed in a cell. After a while Officers S. and L. started beating him up again. They hit him on the head, on the body and in the groin, insisting that he confess to the murder. Despite the ill-treatment, he did not confess. Only when they threatened to rape his mother and girlfriend, the applicant's psychological resistance was broken and he confessed.
8. On 21 May 2002, at 10 p.m., the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert in the presence of the investigator in charge of the criminal case and two attesting witnesses. The expert detected and noted in the examination record the following injuries on the applicant's body: a pinkish-bluish bruise on the left ear measuring 1.2 cm, two reddish-purple bruises on the left side of the thorax measuring around 2 x 2.25 cm and 2.2 x 0.6 cm and a cut on the back of the left wrist. According to the record, the persons present at the examination were apprised of their right to make declarations and objections in connection with the examination. The applicant made no observations and countersigned the examination record.
9. On 22 May 2002 the investigator questioned the applicant about the murder but he denied all accu



> 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 33 34 35

	Поделиться:	Tweet