|
Правовые акты международные
Законы
Кодексы Конвенции Пакты Соглашения Протоколы Правила Договоры Письма Постановления Распоряжения Решения Резолюции Статусы Программы Меморандумы Декларации Другие Правовые акты Российской Федерации Правовые акты СССР Правовые акты Москвы Правовые акты Санкт-Петербурга Правовые акты регионов
|
Постановление Европейского суда по правам человека от 08.01.2009 «Дело Барабанщиков (Barabanshchikov) против России» [англ.]rensic expert was ordered by the same police investigator who could have witnessed the applicant's beatings (see paragraph 48 above). The Court further reiterates that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment. The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and been allocated a mandate which is broad in scope (see {Akkoc} v. Turkey, Nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 55 and § 118, ECHR 2000-X). When the doctor writes a report after the medical examination of a person who alleges having been ill-treated, it is extremely important that the doctor states the degree of consistency with the history of ill-treatment. A conclusion indicating the degree of support to the alleged history of ill-treatment should be based on a discussion of possible differential diagnoses (non-ill-treatment-related injuries - including self-inflicted injuries - and diseases). That was not done in the present case. In his report of 13 August 2001 the expert not only failed to document the applicant's injuries properly, but he also did not make any reference to the degree of support to the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment (see paragraph 48 above). Taking into account the serious defects of the initial expert report, the Court finds it regrettable that the additional expert examination only commenced on 30 November 2001, that is almost four months after the applicant's ill-treatment had taken place. The Court notes that a delay in requesting an additional expert opinion led, among other things, to serious discrepancies between the findings of doctors who had examined the applicant in the Lipetsk Regional hospital and the conclusions of the forensic medical expert.
|