espect 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 Zelilof v. Greece, No. 17060/03, § 44, 24 May 2007).
26. The parties presented different versions of the applicant's arrest. The applicant affirmed that he had been beaten up during and immediately after his arrest. At the trial he pleaded that the police officers had forcibly pinned him to the ground, handcuffed him and beat him up. As can be seen from the medical report submitted by the applicant, after the arrest he had a bruise on his left shin and an injury to his left shoulder (see paragraph 6 above). While the Court does not exclude that the applicant could have sustained them during the arrest, no sufficient and cogent elements have been provided which could support the applicant's allegation of police brutality. Accordingly, the Court is unable to find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the applicant's complaint is sufficiently substantiated. Overall, the Court has doubts as to whether in the circumstances of the case the use of force by the police was excessive and whether the applicant's resulting injuries reached the level of severity required under Article 3. Finally, the Court notes that the parties made no submissions as regards the advancement of the investigation after its resumption in 2005. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
II. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention
27. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that the domestic courts had arbitrarily rejected his requests to examine several witnesses whose testimony would confirm his alibi for 19 October 1999. This provision, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:
"3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(d) ...to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;..."
A. Admissibility
28. 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.
B. Merits
29. The Government contended that the applicant could have raised the matter in the course of the preliminary investigation. The trial court rejected his request for witnesses as unfounded. The applicant and his representatives had raised no objections to concluding the trial proceedings in their absence. The court of appeal had no power to hear witnesses but could have remitted the case for further investigation, if need be (see paragraph 20 above).
30. The applicant maintained his complaint.
31. The Court reiterates that the right to call witnesses is not absolute and can be limited in the interests of the proper administration of justice. Article 6 § 3 (d) does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf; its essential aim, as indicated by the words "under the same conditions", is full equality of arms in the matter (see Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A No. 235-B, pp. 32 - 33, § 33). An applicant claiming a violation of his right to obtain the attendance and examination of a defence witness should show that the examination of that person was necessary for the establishment of the truth and that the refusal to call that witness was prejudicial to the defence rights (see Guilloury v. France, No. 62236/00, § 55, 22 June 2006). Although it is normally for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which
> 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 ... 15
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
