ll-treatment accompanied by the medical certificate of 21 May 2002 may be regarded as raising a reasonable suspicion that his injuries had been caused during his detention after arrest (compare {Cevik} v. Turkey (dec.), No. 57406/00, 10 October 2006). An investigation into the applicant's allegations was thus required.
55. The Court observes that on 2 August 2002, that is on the same day when the applicant complained for the first time about the alleged ill-treatment, the investigator launched an inquiry (see paragraph 14 above). Hence, the Court is satisfied that the authorities reacted promptly to his complaint. At the same time, the Court cannot but note that the applicant waited for more than two months before complaining about the alleged ill-treatment. The Court has emphasised on several occasions that persons held in custody are often in a stressful situation and may be vulnerable to pressure (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, No. 72967/01, § 66, 1 March 2007, and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, No. 34445/04, § 74, 11 January 2007). In the present case the applicant argued that he could not complain about the alleged ill-treatment before his transfer to the remand centre. However, once brought there on 30 May 2002, he still waited until 2 August 2002 before raising the matter with the domestic authorities. Even assuming that the applicant might have feared reprisals while still at the police station and despite the fact that on 22, 23 and 24 May he had access to legal advice, he offered no explanation for the following two-month delay in raising the issue after his transfer to the remand centre.
56. It is further noted that upon receipt of the applicant's complaint the investigator questioned Officers Mur., Mus., S. and L. who had investigated the murder, had apprehended the applicant and questioned him in the police station. In this connection the Court observes that, according to the records of interview and contrary to the applicant's submission, the investigator questioned the police officers not only on 20 September 2002 (see paragraph 14 above). The investigator ordered a medical examination with a view to establishing how and when the applicant had sustained his injuries. Inasmuch as the applicant submitted that the examination had been carried out only five months after the alleged ill-treatment, the Court points out that the applicant himself had waited for more than two months before raising the complaint and it cannot find that it took the investigator an unreasonable period of time to order, and the expert to carry out, the medical examination in the present case. Having examined the applicant's submissions, the testimonies by the police officers and the conclusions of the medical examination, the investigator decided on 20 September 2002 not to institute criminal proceedings against the officers.
57. The Court further observes that, at the applicant's request, the case file on the inquiry into his ill-treatment complaint had been appended to the case file on his murder charges, which was to be examined by the trial court. The trial court questioned the applicant on several occasions about the circumstances of the alleged ill-treatment and the way he had sustained the injuries. It also questioned all police officers allegedly involved in the applicant's beatings and independent witnesses N. and A. who had been arrested and brought to the police station together with the applicant, A. being the person on whose questioning the applicant had insisted to confirm his allegations of beatings. The court also heard the attesting witnesses who had been present during the applicant's medical examination on 21 May 2002 and the crime scene inspection on 23 May 2002 and who could have furnished further information on the alleged ill-treatment (see paragraph 24 above). All the persons heard denied having seen the applicant being ill-treated or hearing him complain about be
> 1 2 3 ... 26 27 28 ... 33 34 35