into question the findings in the expert report and considers that the case file contains no materials which would call into question those findings or add probative weight to the applicant's allegations (see Garbul v. Turkey, No. 64447/01, § 36, 19 July 2007).
62. As regards the applicant's reference to witness A., it is noted that in his written statement dated 26 July 2003 A. only claimed that the applicant had had an alibi for the time of murder and that he had not had any bloodstains on his clothes. Contrary to the applicant's submission, the statement by A. contained no reference to the alleged ill-treatment or to the absence of any injuries on the applicant prior to his arrest. Neither is the Court persuaded by the applicant's argument with reference to the police station registration log because that document was deemed to reflect, and reflected in the applicant's case, only basic information concerning the arrested person, such as name, date of birth, address and phone number. Finally, the Court doubts that the three bruises noted in the medical record would correspond with the severe ill-treatment lasting for hours alleged by the applicant (see Ahmet Mete v. Turkey (No. 2), No. 30465/02, § 33, 12 December 2006, and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), No. 33396/02, 30 August 2007).
63. The Court also has regard to certain inconsistencies in the applicant's account of events, noted by the trial court, and to the fact that the witnesses questioned by the court, including independent witnesses, contradicted the applicant's allegations (see paragraph 24 above). The Court has found above that the investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaint complied with the criteria established in its case-law and thus it finds no reason to doubt the findings of the domestic authorities in that respect. The applicant did not submit any evidence or refer to any circumstances which would cast doubt on the conclusions of the domestic authorities. In addition, even if the applicant was subjected to threats and/or verbal abuse as alleged, and as a result he felt apprehension or disquiet, the Court reiterates that such feelings are not sufficient to amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 (see, in particular, {Husniye} Tekin v. Turkey, No. 50971/99, § 48, 25 October 2005, and {Cevik} v. Turkey (dec.), No. 57406/00, 10 October 2006).
64. The Court concludes that the applicant's complaint under the substantive limb of Article 3 is manifestly-ill-founded and should be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
(c) Recapitulation
65. The Court concludes that the applicant's complaints about the alleged ill-treatment on 21 May 2002 and the quality of the investigation are manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention on
account of the conditions of detention at the police station
66. The applicant further complained that the conditions of his detention at the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station in Moscow from 21 to 24 May 2002 had been in breach of Article 3.
A. Submissions by the parties
67. The Government argued that the applicant had not complained about the allegedly appalling conditions of his detention under the 1993 Judicial Review Act and thus had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. With reference to the Court's judgment in the Rytsarev case, they submitted that such an application to a court would have been an effective remedy for the purposes of the Convention. On the merits, they submitted, with reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General's Office, that from 21 to 23 May 2002 the applicant had been held in the temporary detention facility of the Losinoostrovski
> 1 2 3 ... 28 29 30 ... 33 34 35
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
