Ресурсы в тему



Секс все чаще заменяет квартплату

Новости законодательства Беларуси


СНГ Бизнес - Деловой Портал. Каталог. Новости



Законодательство Российской Федерации

Архив (обновление)




(по состоянию на 20 октября 2006 года)

<<< Назад

                             FIRST SECTION
                      CASE OF MENESHEVA v. RUSSIA
                      (Application No. 59261/00)
                             JUDGMENT <*>
                       (Strasbourg, 9.III.2006)
       <*>  This  judgment will become final in the circumstances  set
   out  in  Article  44 з 2 of the Convention. It may  be  subject  to
   editorial revision.
       In the case of Menesheva v. Russia,
       The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting  as
   a Chamber composed of:
       Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
       Mrs S. Botoucharova,
       Mr A. Kovler,
       Mrs E. Steiner,
       Mr K. Hajiyev,
       Mr D. Spielmann,
       Mr S.E. Jebens, judges,
       and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
       Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2006,
       Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-
   mentioned date:
       1. The case originated in an application (No. 59261/00) 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 Ms Olga Yevgenyevna  Menesheva,  a
   Russian national, on 20 June 2000.
       2.  The  Russian Government ("the Government") were represented
   by  Mr  P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation at  the
   European Court of Human Rights.
       3.  The  applicant  alleged ill-treatment by  the  police,  the
   absence  of  an effective investigation of her complaints  in  this
   respect,   unlawful  arrest  and  detention  and  the  absence   of
   effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaints.
       4.  The  application was allocated to the First Section of  the
   Court  (Rule  52 з 1 of the Rules of Court). Within  that  Section,
   the  Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 з  1  of  the
   Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 з 1.
       5.  By  a  decision of 15 January 2004 the Court  declared  the
   application partly admissible.
       6.  The applicant and the Government each filed observations on
   the  merits  (Rule  59  з  1). The Chamber  having  decided,  after
   consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was  required
   (Rule  59  з  3  in fine), the parties replied in writing  to  each
   other's observations.
       7.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its
   Sections  (Rule  25  з  1). This case was  assigned  to  the  newly
   composed First Section (Rule 52 з 1).
                               THE FACTS
                   I. The circumstances of the case
       8.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bataysk, Rostov
       9. On 11 February 1999 the police started an investigation of a
   murder  case  in  which  they identified L as  a  suspect.  It  was
   believed that L was the applicant's boyfriend.
       10.  On the same day the police decided to search for L. at the
   applicant's place.
       11. On 12 February 1999, about midnight, the police arrived  at
   the  applicant's  flat, apparently to conduct a search,  but  since
   they failed to produce a warrant she would not let them in.
       12.  On the following day, 13 February 1999, at about 4.30 p.m.
   three policemen in plain clothes were waiting for the applicant  at
   her  door. One of them produced the identity card of a police major
   S  and demanded to enter the applicant's flat. As they still had no
   warrant  the applicant again refused to let them in. The  policemen
   insisted   and  the  applicant  clashed  with  them  in  a   heated
   discussion  during  which  both  sides  blurted  out  threats   and
   insults. Ultimately, the major ordered the applicant's arrest.  His
   subordinates,  P  and B, seized the applicant,  turned  her  upside
   down and, while continuing to intimidate her, threw her into a  car
   with  no  police markings on it. In the struggle the applicant  was
   pushed  against  the door and she hurt her leg and  her  head;  she
   also  hit  her head against the car when she was being pushed  into
   it.  On  the way major S threatened the applicant, saying  that  he
   would beat her family and loot her flat while searching it.
       13.  The  applicant was taken to the Zheleznodorozhnyy District
   police  station  in Rostov-on-Don. The applicant was  not  informed
   why  she  had  been taken to the police station. According  to  the
   Government's subsequent accounts, it was necessary to fill  in  the
   official  report on her forceful resistance to the police.  However
   in  the  police  report it was stated that she was brought  in  for
       14.  At  the police station, the applicant was brought  to  the
   Deputy   Head   of   the  Criminal  Investigation  Department   who
   questioned  her  about  the  whereabouts  of  "her  husband".   The
   applicant told him that she had never been married, and after  that
   he  started  strangling  her  with  his  hands  and  several  other
   policemen   started  beating  her.  For  about   two   hours   they
   administered  kicks  and blows to her legs, threw  her  across  the
   room,  beat  her with a baton and hit her head against  the  walls.
   While  beating her they accused her of telling lies,  insulted  her
   and threatened her with rape and violence against her family.
       15.  The  applicant  requested that her relatives  be  informed
   about  her  detention;  she also requested medical  assistance  and
   permission to contact a lawyer, but all her requests were refused.
       16.  At  the  end of the applicant's interrogation  the  Deputy
   Prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District, D, happened to  visit
   the  police station and he entered the room where the applicant had
   been  beaten.  The  applicant seized this opportunity  to  complain
   about  her arrest and the beating. He listened to her and suggested
   that  she write him a complaint about her unlawful arrest,  but  he
   discouraged   her   from  complaining  about   ill-treatment.   The
   applicant  claimed that she wrote her complaint  on  the  spot  and
   handed it to D.
       17.  After that, at about 7 p.m., the applicant was taken  home
   because  the  police wanted to conduct a search in  her  flat.  The
   applicant's neighbour Z who was brought as a witness was told  that
   they  were  looking for L, and she confirmed that L  did  not  live
   there.  The  police  insisted on searching  the  flat,  however  it
   turned  out that they had still no search warrant and the applicant
   again  refused to let them in. After a short struggle the applicant
   was  again seized and carried to the car upside down with her  head
   banging on the walls and the staircase. She was taken back  to  the
   Zheleznodorozhnyy  District  police station  where  she  was  again
   beaten  up,  intimidated  and accused of hiding  L.  She  was  then
   placed in a detention cell.
       18.  The  applicant was kept in the detention cell  until  2.30
   p.m.  on  14  February 1999. Although this fact has never  been  in
   dispute,  no  record  concerning this  period  of  the  applicant's
   detention could be found.
       19.  On  14  February 1999 at about 2 p.m.  the  applicant  was
   subjected  to  a  personal search and the keys  to  her  flat  were
   seized.  Later  on the same day the Prosecutor of Zheleznodorozhnyy
   District  issued a warrant to search the applicant's  flat  and  it
   was carried out.
       20. On the same day the applicant was brought before an officer
   who  without introducing himself told her "five days". Subsequently
   the  applicant learned that it was judge P of the Zheleznodorozhnyy
   District  Court of Rostov, and that "five days" meant a five  days'
   sentence  for the administrative offence of forceful resistance  to
   the  police. On the same day the applicant was taken to  a  special
   centre for administrative detention.
       21. On 18 February 1999, when the applicant's release after the
   five  days' detention was due, the police major S who had  arrested
   her  checked  her out from the detention centre, took  her  to  the
   Zheleznodorozhnyy District police station and ordered her  to  wash
   the  floor  in the police station hallway. When she finished  doing
   so he released her.
       22.  On  19  February 1999 the applicant underwent  a  forensic
   examination  by  a  medical  expert who established  that  she  had
   multiple bruises on the face and legs, abrasions on the face,  jaw,
   neck  and  legs, and a traumatic edema of the soft tissues  of  the
      1. Proceedings concerning ill-treatment and unlawful arrest
       23.  On  11  March  1999 the Human Rights Commissioner  of  the
   Rostov   Regional  Governor's  office  filed,  on  the  applicant's
   behalf,  a  complaint  with  the  Chief  of  the  Internal  Affairs
   Department  of  the  Rostov  Region  and  another  one   with   the
   Prosecutor  of  the Rostov Region. They requested an  investigation
   of  the  applicant's alleged ill-treatment by the  police  and  her
   allegedly   unlawful  detention;  they  enclosed  the   applicant's
   detailed  statement  of  the facts and the forensic  report  of  19
   February 1999.
       24.  On  15 March 1999 the applicant lodged a claim for damages
   with  the  Bataysk  Town Court of the Rostov Region  alleging  ill-
   treatment  by the police and challenging her arrest and the  search
   of her flat.
       25.  On  30 March 1999 the Deputy Chief of the Internal Affairs
   Department  of  the  Rostov Region informed the applicant  that  an
   internal  inquiry had been conducted in view of her  complaint  and
   that  her  allegations  had been found to be  unsubstantiated.  The
   conclusions  of  the  internal  inquiry  were  forwarded   to   the
   prosecutor's  office.  However, she was  also  informed  that  some
   unspecified  officers had been charged with disciplinary  offences.
   The Human Rights Commissioner received a similar reply.
       26.  On 12 April 1999 the applicant received a letter from  the
   Deputy  Prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District,  D  whom  she
   had  met in the police station (see paragraph 16). He informed  the
   applicant  that her complaint against the police had been forwarded
   to  him  by  the Rostov City Prosecutor's office and  that  he  had
   decided  that no criminal investigation in respect of  the  accused
   police officers was to be opened.
       27.  On  7  May  1999  the Prosecutor of the  Zheleznodorozhnyy
   District,   Kh,   informed  the  Bataysk  Town  Court,   apparently
   following their official enquiry, that no documents concerning  the
   applicant's arrest and detention could be found.
       28.  On  9  June 1999 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Rostov  City
   Prosecutor's Office confirmed that decision.
       29.  On  22 December 1999 the Bataysk Town Court of the  Rostov
   Region  examined the applicant's claim and held that the search  of
   the  applicant's  flat,  the  initial arrest  and  the  five  days'
   detention  had  been lawful. The court found that  the  police  had
   acted  lawfully, as authorised by the prosecutor, and that  it  was
   necessary  for  the investigation of the murder  case.  As  to  the
   allegations   of   ill-treatment,  the  court   referred   to   the
   prosecutor's  refusal to open a criminal investigation  in  respect
   of  the  police  officers  and to the conclusion  of  the  internal
   police  inquiry  that  no ill-treatment had  been  established.  It
   dismissed  the  forensic report as irrelevant  and  held  that  the
   allegations of ill-treatment were unsubstantiated.
       30.  On 23 February 2000 the Rostov Regional Court examined the
   applicant's appeal and upheld the earlier findings.
            2. Appeal against the administrative detention
       31.  On 15 March 1999 the applicant attempted to challenge  her
   five  days' detention before the Rostov Regional Court. She alleged
   that  she was not informed of the name of the officer who took  the
   decision to detain her and that he did not ask questions,  did  not
   inform  her of any charge against her, did not explain the  purpose
   of  her  appearance before him and did not give her a copy  of  his
   decision concerning her detention.
       32.  On 17 March 1999 the same judge who imposed the five days'
   detention informed the applicant that no ordinary appeal  could  be
   brought   against  that  decision,  and  that  it  could  only   be
   challenged by the prosecutor's extraordinary appeal.
       33.  On 25 March 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with  the
   Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Rostov and the Rostov  Regional
   Court.  She challenged the refusal to consider her claim  in  civil
       34.  On 26 May 1999 the President of the Rostov Regional  Court
   replied  to  the applicant that, on the evidence of the  file,  her
   detention  had  been  lawful  as  it  had  been  imposed  for   the
   administrative   offence  in  accordance   with   substantive   and
   procedural law.
       35. On 17 July 1999 the applicant filed another appeal with the
   Rostov Regional Court against the decision on her detention.
       36.  On  23  August  1999 the acting President  of  the  Rostov
   Regional  Court  replied  that  no appeal  against  a  decision  on
   administrative detention was provided for by law.
       37.  The  applicant subsequently tried to challenge  the  above
   decisions,  but none of her claims were accepted, the ground  given
   being  that the courts lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter.
   The  last decision in this respect was taken on 1 December 1999  by
   the Rostov Regional Court.
                        3. Further proceedings
       38.   On  15  January  2003  the  Prosecutor's  Office  of  the
   Zheleznodorozhnyy  District  instituted  a  criminal  investigation
   into  the circumstances of the applicant's arrest and her overnight
   detention and into her allegations of ill-treatment.
       39. On 28 February 2003 the Prosecutor of the Rostov Region  of
   his  own  motion filed a request with the President of  the  Rostov
   Regional  Court to quash the decision of 14 February 1999 by  which
   the  applicant had been convicted of an administrative offence.  He
   stated  that  the  applicant's resistance to  the  police  did  not
   constitute an administrative offence because the police  had  acted
   unlawfully   and   that  the  detention  was   in   any   event   a
   disproportionate punishment.
       40.  On 5 March 2003 the President of the Rostov Regional Court
   granted  the  request and quashed the decision on the grounds  that
   the  judge  who  had convicted the applicant had not  examined  the
   circumstances of the case and had not established whether  she  was
   guilty  of  any  administrative  offence.  It  was  found  that  no
   forceful  resistance  had  taken place,  because  the  police  were
   carrying  out  an investigation and not safeguarding  public  order
   when  the applicant resisted. It was also held that the police  had
   acted in violation of the procedural law.
       41.   On  25  August  2003  the  Prosecutor's  Office  of   the
   Zheleznodorozhnyy  District terminated the  criminal  investigation
   of  the alleged ill-treatment and unlawful arrest and detention  on
   the  ground that the police officers had not committed any unlawful
       42.  On  3  March  2004  the Office of the  Prosecutor  General
   quashed  the  termination order of 25 August 2003 and  resumed  the
   criminal  investigation  concerning  the  ill-treatment   and   the
   unlawful  arrest.  The Prosecutor's Office of the Zheleznodorozhnyy
   District was given 30 days to complete the investigation under  the
   supervision of the Prosecutor General. This decision, in so far  as
   relevant, read as follows:
       "[The  applicant] consistently maintained that she objected  to
   the  unlawful  entry of the police into her flat and  the  unlawful
   search in the absence of a prosecutor's warrant, and therefore  had
   been  subjected  to unlawful arrest and detention and  been  beaten
       The  medical examination revealed numerous injuries  caused  by
   beating,..., the time of origin and the cause of which  corroborate
   [the   applicant's]   statements...  The  investigation   has   not
   established the circumstances in which these injuries were caused.
       The   reports  on  the  administrative  offence  and   on   the
   applicant's  arrest  of  13  February  1999...  contain  fraudulent
   statements   concerning   the  participation   of   the   attesting
   witnesses...  These circumstances have not been fully investigated,
   although  they served as a basis for the applicant's administrative
   arrest.  The  decision  of 29 April 2003 dispensing  with  criminal
   proceedings  against [the police officer who issued the reports]...
   is unfounded."
       43.  In  their letter of 19 April 2004 the Government submitted
   that the investigation was still in progress. The parties have  not
   provided   any   update   concerning  the  criminal   investigation
                       B. Relevant domestic law
                        1. Forceful resistance
       The  relevant provisions of the Administrative Code (Кодекс  об
   административных  правонарушениях РСФСР), in  force  until  1  July
   2002, read as follows:
       Section 165
       "Forceful resistance to a lawful order or demand by a police or
   a  voluntary brigade serviceman,... shall be punished by a fine  of
   10  to  15  times the minimum wage, ..., or by one  to  two  years'
   corrective   labour...,  or  if  these  measures   are   considered
   insufficient, by up to 15 days' imprisonment."
                      2. Questioning of witnesses
       The  Code  of Criminal Procedure in force at the material  time
   provided, in so far as relevant, as follows:
       Section 155
       "A  witness  shall  be summoned for questioning  by  a  written
   notice  served  on him personally, or in his absence  to  an  adult
   member of his/her family...
       The  notice  shall contain the name of the person called  as  a
   witness,  indicate where, before whom, at what  date  and  at  what
   time  he  is  due to appear and the consequences of  a  failure  to
   appear. A witness may also be summoned by telephone or telegram."
       Section 157
       "The  questioning  of a witness takes place  at  the  place  of
   investigation. An investigator may decide to question a witness  at
   the witness's location."
                3. Administrative arrest and detention
       The   Constitution  of  the  Russian  Federation   adopted   by
   referendum on 12 December 1993 provides, in so far as relevant,  as
       Article 22
       "1. Everyone has a right to liberty and personal security.
       2.  Arrest, detention and placement in custody shall be subject
   to  a  court decision. No one may be detained longer than 48  hours
   before the court decision is taken."
       Chapter 19 of the Administrative Code (see above) provided that
   the  police could subject a person to an administrative  arrest  to
   prevent   an  administrative  offence,  to  establish  a   person's
   identity,  to  issue a document certifying that  an  administrative
   offence  had been committed, if it was necessary and could  not  be
   done  on  the  spot,  and to ensure effective  proceedings  or  the
   enforcement  of administrative sanctions. Section 242 provided,  in
   particular,  that  the  term of administrative  arrest  should  not
   exceed  three  hours, except for certain categories  of  offenders,
   including  those who forcefully resisted the lawful  order  of  the
   police,  who  could  be detained as long as necessary  until  their
   case  was  considered  by  a  district (town)  judge  or  a  police
   superior.  Section  240  set out the requirements  for  the  arrest
       The  Administrative Code did not provide for an appeal  against
   the  administrative  arrest if imposed by  a  judge.  The  relevant
   provisions read as follows:
       Section 266
       "... The decision of a district (town) court or judge to impose
   an  administrative sanction is final and not subject to  appeal  in
   the administrative proceedings..."
       Section 274
       "The  decision  of  a  district  (town)  judge  to  impose   an
   administrative  sanction  under  Articles...,  165,  ...,  may   be
   changed  or  quashed  by  the same judge following  a  prosecutor's
   extraordinary  appeal, or by a president of a  superior  court,  of
   his own motion."
                                THE LAW
          I. Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention
       44.  The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention
   that  she had been ill-treated by the police during her arrest  and
   while  she  was  in  custody  at  the  police  station.  She   also
   complained  that  her  allegations of ill-treatment  had  not  been
   investigated effectively, as required by the procedural  obligation
   imposed  by the same Article. Article 3 of the Convention  provides
   as follows:
       "No  one  shall  be  subjected to  torture  or  to  inhuman  or
   degrading treatment or punishment."
                A. Alleged ill-treatment by the police
                      1. The parties' submissions
       45.  The  applicant submitted that on 13 February 1999 she  was
   arrested  in a manner contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.  She
   furthermore  alleged that she had been beaten up  upon  arrival  at
   the  police  station by the officers who questioned  her  and  then
   again  on  the same day by the police officers when she refused  to
   let  them  search  her  flat. She alleged that  she  had  sustained
   injuries,  such  as  bruises  and  abrasions,  and  that  she  felt
   intimidated  due to such treatment. She also alleged that  she  had
   received no medical assistance thereafter.
       46.  The applicant presented a forensic report drawn up shortly
   after  her  release, which mentioned injuries compatible  with  her
   account of events.
       47.  The  Government submitted in their memorandum of 15  March
   2004  and  in  their letter of 19 April 2004 that the investigation
   of  the  applicant's allegations of ill-treatment was in  progress.
   They  informed the Court that the Office of the Prosecutor  General
   had  reviewed the criminal file No. 3467098 concerning  allegations
   of  abuse  of  authority by the police and on 3 March 2004  resumed
   the  investigation. They claimed that before it was  finished  they
   could not comment on the merits of these complaints.
       48.  Since then the Government have made no further submissions
   concerning  the  course of investigation or the  facts  established
                       2. The Court's assessment
       49.  The  Court  reiterates that "[w]here an  individual,  when
   taken  in  police custody, is in good health, but is  found  to  be
   injured  at  the time of release, it is incumbent on the  State  to
   provide  a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused,
   failing  which  a  clear  issue  arises  under  Article  3  of  the
   Convention"  (see  Tomasi v. France, judgment of  27  August  1992,
   Series  A  No.  241-A, pp. 40 - 41, зз 108 - 11,  and  Selmouni  v.
   France [GC], No. 25803/94, з 87, ECHR 1999-V).
       50.  In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the
   standard  of  proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Ireland  v.  the
   United  Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A No. 25,  pp.
   64  -  65,  з  161).  However,  such  proof  may  follow  from  the
   coexistence   of   sufficiently  strong,   clear   and   concordant
   inferences  or  of similar unrebutted presumptions of  fact.  Where
   the  events  in  issue  lie wholly, or in large  part,  within  the
   exclusive  knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of  persons
   within  their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact  will
   arise  in  respect  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  Ribitsch  v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995,  Series  A
   No.  336,  з 34, Salman v. Turkey [GC], No. 21986/93, з  100,  ECHR
       51.  The  Court notes that the Government did not  contest  the
   applicant's  account  of  events,  or  the  forensic  report.   The
   investigation  carried out in 2003 - 2004 did not furnish  any  new
   facts  or evidence beyond what had been submitted by the applicant.
   Neither  did  the Government provide an alternative explanation  as
   to  how  her injuries could have been inflicted. In particular,  it
   can  be  assumed  as  common ground that those  injuries  were  not
   sustained before the applicant was taken into police custody.
       52.  Furthermore, the authorities conceded that the applicant's
   allegations were credible. In particular, the Prosecutor  General's
   office  acknowledged that she had consistently maintained  in  full
   her  assertions  of  ill-treatment and noted that  the  applicant's
   injuries  recorded  by a medical expert were  compatible  with  her
   account of events (see з 42 above).
       53.  The Court notes that the police expected the applicant  to
   provide  information relating to the murder allegedly committed  by
   L,  supposedly her boyfriend. It observes the conflicting  official
   statements  why the applicant was taken to the police  station  and
   concludes  that she was taken there for questioning  as  a  witness
   about  that crime and not in connection with a minor administrative
   offence used as a pretext. This interview was not attended  by  the
   usual procedural guarantees under Russian law, such as a record  of
   the  interview,  access to a lawyer etc., hence  the  Court  cannot
   rule  out  the  use  of force by the police to extract  information
   from the applicant.
       54.  Having  regard to the applicant's consistent and  detailed
   allegations, corroborated by the forensic report, and  in  view  of
   the absence of any other plausible explanation as to the origin  of
   the  injuries found on the applicant upon her release from custody,
   the  Court  accepts  that  the applicant  was  ill-treated  by  the
       55.  As  to  the seriousness of the acts of ill-treatment,  the
   Court  reiterates that in order to determine whether  a  particular
   form  of ill-treatment should be qualified as torture, it must have
   regard  to  the  distinction, embodied in Article 3,  between  this
   notion and that of inhuman or degrading treatment. It appears  that
   it  was the intention that the Convention should, by means of  this
   distinction,   attach  a  special  stigma  to  deliberate   inhuman
   treatment  causing very serious and cruel suffering. The Court  has
   previously  had  before it cases in which it has found  that  there
   has  been  treatment which could only be described as torture  (see
   Aksoy  v.  Turkey,  judgment  of  18  December  1996,  Reports   of
   Judgments  and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2279, з 64; Aydin  v.  Turkey,
   judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891 -  92,  зз
   83  - 84 and 86; Selmouni, cited above, з 105; Dikme v. Turkey, No.
   20869/92,   зз   94  -  96,  ECHR  2000-VIII,  and,  among   recent
   authorities,   Bati  and  Others  v.  Turkey,  Nos.  33097/96   and
   57834/00, з 116, ECHR 2004 -... (extracts)).
       56.  The  acts  complained of were such as  to  arouse  in  the
   applicant  feelings  of  fear, anguish and inferiority  capable  of
   humiliating  and  debasing her and possibly breaking  her  physical
   and  moral resistance. In any event, the Court reiterates that,  in
   respect  of persons deprived of their liberty, recourse to physical
   force  which  has  not been made strictly necessary  by  their  own
   conduct   diminishes  human  dignity  and  is   in   principle   an
   infringement  of  the right set forth in Article 3  (see  Selmouni,
   cited above, з 99).
       57.  The Court finds that in the instant case the existence  of
   physical  pain or suffering is attested by the medical  expert  and
   the  applicant's statements regarding her ill-treatment in custody.
   The  sequence  of  events  also  demonstrates  that  the  pain  and
   suffering  was  inflicted on her intentionally, in particular  with
   the  view of extracting from her information concerning L  (see  зз
   53 - 54 above).
       58. To assess the severity of the "pain or suffering" inflicted
   on  the applicant, the Court has regard to all the circumstances of
   the  case,  such as the duration of the treatment, its physical  or
   mental  effects and, as in some cases, the sex, age  and  state  of
   health  of  the  victim (see Bati, cited above, з 120).  The  Court
   observes that at the material time the applicant was only 19  years
   old  and,  being  a female confronted with several male  policemen,
   she  was  particularly vulnerable. Furthermore,  the  ill-treatment
   lasted  for several hours during which she was twice beaten up  and
   subjected to other forms of violent physical and moral impact.
       59. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that, taken  as
   a  whole  and having regard to its purpose and severity,  the  ill-
   treatment  at  issue  amounted to torture  within  the  meaning  of
   Article 3 of the Convention.
       60. The Court concludes that there has been a breach of Article
   3 of the Convention in this regard.
      B. Alleged failure to carry out an effective investigation
                      1. The parties' submissions
       61.  The applicant submitted that immediately after the  events
   she  lodged  several requests for criminal proceedings against  the
   police  officers involved; that she had indicated their  names  and
   ranks  and  claimed  that she could recognise them;  that  she  had
   attached  the  forensic  report confirming her  injuries.  However,
   none  of  her requests had succeeded and no investigation had  been
   carried  out  before her application to the Court was  communicated
   to  the  respondent Government. As for the investigation opened  in
   2003,  the  applicant did not consider it prompt or effective  and,
   furthermore, she was wary of the authorities' negative reaction  to
   the  fact  that  she had lodged an application with the  Court  and
   found  their contacts with her intimidating. Therefore she did  not
   play  an  active  role  in these proceedings.  She  submitted  that
   although  she had given evidence to the investigator she had  never
   been informed of the outcome of these proceedings.
       62.  The  Government  did not comment on  the  merits  of  this
   complaint (see зз 47 - 48 above).
                       2. The Court's assessment
       63.  The  Court  considers,  first of  all,  that  the  medical
   evidence  and  the  applicant's complaints and  testimony  together
   raised  a  reasonable suspicion that her injuries could  have  been
   caused by the police.
       64. Where an individual raises an arguable claim that he or she
   has  been seriously ill-treated by the police in breach of  Article
   3,  that  provision, read in conjunction with the  State's  general
   duty  under  Article  1 of the Convention to  "secure  to  everyone
   within  their  jurisdiction the rights and freedoms  defined  in...
   [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be  an
   effective  official  investigation. This  investigation  should  be
   capable  of leading to the identification and punishment  of  those
   responsible  (see Assenov and Others, judgment of 28 October  1998,
   Reports  1998-VIII, p. 3290, з 102 and Labita v.  Italy  [GC],  No.
   26772/95,  з  131,  ECHR  2000-IV). The  minimum  standards  as  to
   effectiveness  defined  by the Court's case-law  also  include  the
   requirements that the investigation must be independent,  impartial
   and  subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities
   must  act  with  exemplary  diligence  and  promptness  (see,   for
   example, Isayeva and Others v. Russia, Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00  and
   57949/00, зз 208 - 213, 24 February 2005).
       65.  The  Court  finds  that a procedural obligation  arose  to
   investigate the applicant's allegation of ill-treatment as soon  as
   she  brought the matter before the competent authorities, i.e.  the
   prosecutor's  office and the police superior. Her requests  for  an
   investigation  were  filed within one month  of  the  incident  and
   contained  a  detailed  account  of events,  expressly  pointed  at
   certain  individuals  and were accompanied by the  forensic  report
   corroborating  her story. However, no investigation  followed.  The
   inquiry  that  took  place in the Internal  Department  (see  з  25
   above), although it resulted in some disciplinary charges, did  not
   disclose  the  names  of  those charged or the  grounds  for  their
   punishment.  For  this  reason alone it could  not  qualify  as  an
   effective  investigation,  and  the Government,  rightly,  did  not
   invoke it as such.
       66.  The investigation was only opened almost four years  after
   the  events  complained  of, when the matter  was  brought  to  the
   attention  of  the  domestic authorities  in  connection  with  the
   applicant's   proceedings   before  the   Court.   The   case   was
   investigated   in   criminal  proceedings  which,   despite   their
   lateness,  were not necessarily doomed to failure, since  the  file
   already  contained  ample  documentary evidence  submitted  by  the
   applicant.  However, this investigation has not been  satisfactory,
   as  it  has failed to establish the material circumstances  and  to
   address  the  questions put before it, such as the  origin  of  the
   applicant's injuries (see з 42 above).
       67.  On 3 March 2004 the Prosecutor General gave orders for the
   investigation  to  be resumed, but since then  there  has  been  no
   follow-up.  Therefore  the Court cannot but conclude  that  in  the
   past  three  years the authorities have not remedied the shortfalls
   of which they had been acutely aware.
       68.  Accordingly there has been a violation of Article 3 of the
   Convention  on  account  of the lack of an effective  investigation
   into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment.
                  II. Alleged violation of Article 13
            of the Convention as regards the ill-treatment
       69. The applicant also claimed to have been denied an effective
   remedy  in  respect  of her Convention complaint of  ill-treatment.
   She   submitted  that  all  her  attempts  to  have  the   criminal
   proceedings  instituted failed, and so did her attempts  to  secure
   redress  through civil proceedings before the courts.  She  invoked
   Article 13, which provides as follows:
       "Everyone  whose  rights and freedoms as  set  forth  in  [the]
   Convention  are  violated shall have an effective remedy  before  a
   national  authority  notwithstanding that the  violation  has  been
   committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
       70.  The Government made no submissions other than those  under
   Article 3 of the Convention.
       71.  The  Court  recalls  that Article  13  of  the  Convention
   requires  that  where an arguable breach of  one  or  more  of  the
   rights  under the Convention is in issue, there should be available
   to  the victim a mechanism for establishing any liability of  State
   officials  or  bodies for that breach. The Contracting  States  are
   afforded  some  discretion as to the manner in  which  they  comply
   with  their  Convention  obligations under  this  provision.  As  a
   general  rule,  if  a  single remedy does not  by  itself  entirely
   satisfy  the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of  remedies
   provided  for under domestic law may do so (see, among  many  other
   authorities, {Kudla} <*> v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96, з 157,  ECHR
   2000-XI;  see  also {Conka} v. Belgium, No. 51564/99,  з  75,  ECHR
       <*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны
   латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
       72.  However, the scope of the State's obligation under Article
   13  varies  depending  on the nature of the applicant's  complaint,
   and  in  certain  situations the Convention requires  a  particular
   remedy  to be provided. Thus, in cases of suspicious death or  ill-
   treatment,   given  the  fundamental  importance  of   the   rights
   protected by Articles 2 and 3, Article 13 requires, in addition  to
   the  payment  of  compensation where appropriate,  a  thorough  and
   effective  investigation capable of leading to  the  identification
   and  punishment  of those responsible (see Anguelova  v.  Bulgaria,
   No.  38361/97,  зз 161 - 162, ECHR 2002-IV; Assenov and  Others  v.
   Bulgaria,  cited above, з 114 et seq.; {Suheyla} Aydin  v.  Turkey,
   No. 25660/94, з 208, 24 May 2005).
       73.  On the basis of the evidence adduced in the present  case,
   the  Court  has  found that the State authorities were  responsible
   for  the  injuries sustained by the applicant on 13 February  1999.
   The  applicant's  complaints to the domestic  authorities  in  this
   regard   were  based  on  the  same  evidence  and  were  therefore
   "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see the Boyle  and  Rice
   v.  the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A No. 131,
   p.  23, з 52). The authorities thus had an obligation to carry  out
   an  effective investigation into her allegations against the police
   officers.  For  the  reasons set out above  no  effective  criminal
   investigation  can  be  considered  to  have  been   carried   out.
   Consequently,   any  other  remedy  available  to  the   applicant,
   including  the claim for damages, had limited chances  of  success.
   While   the   civil  courts  have  capacity  to  make   independent
   assessment of fact, in practice the weight attached to a  preceding
   criminal  enquiry  is  so important that even the  most  convincing
   evidence  to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would  often  be
   discarded  as  "irrelevant". The civil proceedings brought  by  the
   applicant   illustrate  that.  The  court   simply   endorsed   the
   prosecutor's  opinion that the applicant's claim was  unmeritorious
   without  assessing the facts of the case (see зз 29  -  30  above).
   Therefore the action for damages was, in the circumstances  of  the
   case,  only  a  theoretical and illusory  remedy,  not  capable  of
   affording redress to the applicant.
       74.  The  Court  therefore finds that the  applicant  has  been
   denied  an  effective  domestic  remedy  in  respect  of  the  ill-
   treatment  by the police. Consequently, there has been a  violation
   of Article 13 of the Convention on that account.
              III. Alleged violation of Articles 5 and 6
       of the Convention as regards the administrative detention
       75.  The  applicant complained that her arrest on  13  February
   1999,  the  overnight  detention in  the  police  station  and  the
   subsequent   five   days'  detention  had  been   unlawful.   These
   complaints have been declared admissible under Articles 5 and 6  of
   the Convention.
       Article 5
       "1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of  person.
   No  one  shall  be  deprived of his liberty save in  the  following
   cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
       (a)  the  lawful  detention of a person after conviction  by  a
   competent court;
       (b)  the  lawful  arrest or detention  of  a  person  for  non-
   compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order  to  secure
   the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
       (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the
   purpose  of  bringing him before the competent legal  authority  on
   reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when  it  is
   reasonably  considered  necessary  to  prevent  his  committing  an
   offence or fleeing after having done so;
       (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of
   educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose  of
   bringing him before the competent legal authority;
       (e)  the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of  the
   spreading  of  infectious  diseases, of persons  of  unsound  mind,
   alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
       (f)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent  his
   effecting  an unauthorised entry into the country or  of  a  person
   against  whom  action is being taken with a view to deportation  or
       4.  Everyone  who  is  deprived of his  liberty  by  arrest  or
   detention  shall  be  entitled to take  proceedings  by  which  the
   lawfulness  of his detention shall be decided speedily by  a  court
   and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
       Article 6
       "In  the  determination of... any criminal charge against  him,
   everyone   is   entitled   to  a  fair...  hearing...   by   [a]...
       76. The Government acknowledged that the applicant's arrest and
   detention  had  been  unlawful.  However  they  claimed  that   the
   applicant  had  ceased  to be a victim of  the  violations  alleged
   under  this  head. They referred to the ruling of the President  of
   the  Rostov  Regional Court of 5 March 2003 which established  that
   the  applicant's  arrest had been in breach  of  domestic  law  and
   quashed the decision of 14 February 1999.
       77.  In  the  Government's view, this decision  opened  to  the
   applicant  the  possibility of claiming  compensation  in  separate
   civil  proceedings  for  the non-pecuniary  damage  caused  by  the
   unlawful  deprivation of liberty, as provided by Sections 1070  and
   1100  of  the  Civil Code. They consider that since  the  applicant
   failed  to  bring such an action for damages she has not  exhausted
   domestic  remedies  and, accordingly, the  Court  must  reject  the
   complaints relating to her detention.
       78.  The  applicant  contested the  Government's  position  and
   maintained her complaints.
       79.  In  their objection the Government requested the Court  to
   find  that  the ruling of 5 March 2003 had affected the applicant's
   status  as  a  victim  and  that she must apply  for  compensation.
   However,  the  Court notes that essentially the same objection  has
   already  been  put  forward by the respondent  Government  and  was
   rejected by the Court in its decision on the admissibility  of  the
   application.   Accordingly,  the  Court  will   not   examine   the
   Government's objection.
                      A. Lawfulness of detention
       80.  The  Court  observes  from the outset  that,  as  was  not
   disputed  by  the  parties, the applicant's arrest,  her  overnight
   detention  at  the  police station and the  subsequent  five  days'
   administrative detention amounted to deprivation of liberty  within
   the meaning of Article 5 з 1 of the Convention.
       81.  The  first  question  to  be  considered  is  whether  the
   detention   was  covered  by  any  of  the  permitted  grounds   of
   deprivation  of  liberty  listed exhaustively  in  paragraph  1  of
   Article 5. The Court observes that the applicant's detention  falls
   into  two distinct periods, i.e. before and after her meeting  with
   the  judge  on  14 February 1999. On that day five days'  detention
   were   imposed   on   the   applicant  in   connection   with   the
   administrative  offence allegedly committed  by  her;  accordingly,
   from  that point her detention had clearly defined grounds. As  for
   the  preceding overnight detention, it remains mainly  unexplained.
   The Court will examine these periods separately.
                   1. Arrest and overnight detention
       82.  The  Court  notes  that at one stage  of  the  applicant's
   detention she was formally charged with the administrative  offence
   and  theoretically  could be assumed to be detained  under  Section
   242  of  the Administrative Code until her administrative case  was
   heard  by a judge. Nevertheless, it transpires that the true reason
   why  she  was taken to the police station was to force her to  give
   information on L's case and to make her surrender the  key  to  her
   flat.  Charging her with the administrative offence was  clearly  a
   mere pretext for having her available for that interrogation.
       83. In these circumstances the Court may dispense with deciding
   whether  the applicant's overnight detention was at all covered  by
   any  of the sub-paragraphs of Article 5 з 1 of the Convention since
   the following considerations would in any event apply.
       84.  Firstly,  the Court observes that no documents  pertaining
   specifically  to the applicant's initial arrest and  her  overnight
   stay  at  the  police  station  could subsequently  be  found  (see
   paragraph  27 above). It follows that for some 20 hours  after  the
   applicant's  arrest  there  existed  no  records  as  to  who   the
   applicant was and what was the reason for and expected duration  of
   her  detention.  Even assuming that the police  intended  to  press
   charges  for the administrative offence, this did not absolve  them
   from  complying with such basic formalities before locking her  up.
   That  fact in itself must be considered a most serious failing,  as
   it  has  been  the Court's traditional view that the unacknowledged
   detention  of  an  individual  is  a  complete  negation   of   the
   fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article  5  of  the
   Convention  and discloses a most grave violation of that provision.
   The  absence  of  a record of such matters as the  date,  time  and
   location  of  detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons  for
   the  detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen
   as  incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness  and  with  the
   very  purpose  of  Article  5  of  the  Convention  (Anguelova   v.
   Bulgaria,  cited above, з 154, and Kurt v. Turkey, judgment  of  25
   May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, з 125).
       85.  Moreover,  it  can be deduced from the Government's  post-
   admissibility submissions that the applicant's arrest was  unlawful
   under domestic law (see paragraphs 39 - 40 above).
       86. Against this background the Court concludes that the period
   of  the  applicant's detention until her appearance before a  judge
   on  14  February 1999 did not comply with the guarantees of Article
   5 з 1. There has accordingly been a violation of this Article.
                 2. Five days' detention on the charge
                 of forceful resistance to the police
       87.  On  14 February 1999 the applicant was brought before  the
   judge, who ruled that she had committed forceful resistance to  the
   police,  an  administrative  offence  under  Section  165  of   the
   Administrative Code, and sentenced her to five days'  imprisonment.
   On  5  March 2003 this decision was declared unlawful and  quashed.
   It  must be determined whether serving this sentence following  the
   conviction in the administrative proceedings complied with  Article
   5  without  prejudging the merits of the complaint under Article  6
   referring to the same decision.
       88.  The  Court  recalls the following general principles  that
   were  stated in Benham v. the United Kingdom (judgment of  10  June
   1996,  Reports 1996-III, зз 40 - 42) and reiterated in other  cases
   (see  Lloyd  and  Others v. the United Kingdom,  Nos.  29798/96  et
   seq.,  1  March  2005; and Perks and Others v. the United  Kingdom,
   Nos. 25277/94 et seq., 12 October 1999):
       "40.  The  main issue to be determined in the present  case  is
   whether  the disputed detention was 'lawful', including whether  it
   complied with 'a procedure prescribed by law'. The Convention  here
   essentially  refers back to national law and states the  obligation
   to  conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof, but it
   requires  in  addition that any deprivation of  liberty  should  be
   consistent  with  the  purpose  of Article  5,  namely  to  protect
   individuals from arbitrariness...
       41.  It  is  in  the first place for the national  authorities,
   notably  the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law.  However,
   since  under  Article  5 з 1 failure to comply  with  domestic  law
   entails  a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court  can
   and  should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has
   been complied with.
       42. A period of detention will in principle be lawful if it  is
   carried  out  pursuant to a court order. A subsequent finding  that
   the  court  erred under domestic law in making the order  will  not
   necessarily  retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening
   period  of  detention. For this reason, the Strasbourg organs  have
   consistently refused to uphold applications from persons  convicted
   of  criminal  offences  who  complain  that  their  convictions  or
   sentences were found by the appellate courts to have been based  on
   errors of fact or law."
       89.  The  Court  observes  that the five  days'  detention  was
   carried  out pursuant to the order by a judge who was in  principle
   competent   to   take  the  decision  at  issue.  The   substantive
   correctness  of  this  order generally falls  outside  the  Court's
   review,  as  follows from the case law cited above.  However,  this
   case  is different from the cases where the impugned decisions were
   taken  by  judicial  authorities  in  good  faith,  following   the
   procedure prescribed by law. The judge in the instant case, on  the
   contrary,  exercised his authority in manifest  opposition  to  the
   procedural  guarantees  provided for by the  Convention.  Therefore
   the  ensuing  detention  order was inconsistent  with  the  general
   protection  from  arbitrariness guaranteed  by  Article  5  of  the
       90. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 5 з 1
   in respect of the applicant's five day's detention.
                       B. Right to a fair trial
                   1. Applicability of Article 6 з 1
       91.   Although   the  applicability  of  Article   6   to   the
   administrative proceedings in question is not in dispute the  Court
   considers  it  necessary to address this issue of its  own  motion.
   For  the  reasons set out below it considers that these proceedings
   involved determination of a criminal charge against the applicant.
       92.  The  Court observes that in order to determine whether  an
   offence   qualifies  as  "criminal"  for  the   purposes   of   the
   Convention, it is first necessary to ascertain whether or  not  the
   provision defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of  the
   respondent  State, to criminal law; next the "very  nature  of  the
   offence" and the degree of severity of the penalty risked  must  be
   considered  (see Ozturk v. Germany, judgment of 21  February  1984,
   Series  A  No. 73, p. 18, з 50, and Demicoli v. Malta, judgment  of
   27 August 1991, Series A No. 210, pp. 15 - 17, зз 31 - 34).
       93. As to the domestic classification, the Court has previously
   examined   the   sphere  defined  in  certain  legal   systems   as
   "administrative" and found that it embraces some offences that  are
   criminal  in nature but too trivial to be governed by criminal  law
   and  procedure  (see  Palaoro v. Austria, judgment  of  23  October
   1995,  Series  A  No.  329-B, p. 38, зз 33 - 35).  In  the  Russian
   system that also appears to be the case.
       94.  The  Court also observes that loss of liberty  imposed  as
   punishment  for  an  offence belongs in  general  to  the  criminal
   sphere,  unless by its nature, duration or manner of  execution  it
   is   not   appreciably  detrimental  (Engel  and  Others   v.   the
   Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A No. 22, зз 82 -  83,
   and  Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], Nos. 39665/98 and
   40086/98,  зз  69  -  130, ECHR 2003-X). In the  present  case  the
   applicant was deprived of her liberty for five days and was  locked
   up  in  the  detention  centre during the  term  of  her  sentence.
   Finally,  the purpose of the sanction imposed on the applicant  was
   purely punitive.
       95.  These considerations are sufficient to establish that  the
   offence  of  which the applicant was accused may be  classified  as
   "criminal"  for  the purposes of the Convention.  It  follows  that
   Article 6 applies.
            2. Whether the applicant received a fair trial
       96.  The Government accepted that the proceedings at issue  had
   been  defective both under domestic law and the Convention.  Indeed
   the  court  ruling  quashing the above judgment  stated  that  "the
   judge   who   convicted  the  applicant  had   not   examined   the
   circumstances of the case and had not established whether  she  was
   guilty  of  any  administrative  offence".  That  corroborates  the
   applicant's   allegations  that  there  had  been  no   adversarial
   proceedings  as such and that even the appearances of a  trial  had
   been  neglected to the extent that she did not get a chance to find
   out the purpose of her brief appearance before judge P.
       97.  It follows that there has been a violation of Article 6  з
                  IV. Impossibility to appeal against
                conviction of an administrative offence
       98.  The  applicant  complained that  under  domestic  law  the
   decision  ordering her administrative detention was not subject  to
   appeal.  She  therefore  maintained that  there  was  no  effective
   domestic remedy in this respect. She referred to Article 13 of  the
   Convention which provides as follows:
       "Everyone  whose  rights and freedoms as  set  forth  in  [the]
   Convention  are  violated shall have an effective remedy  before  a
   national  authority  notwithstanding that the  violation  has  been
   committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
       This complaint was also declared admissible under Article 5 з 4
   of the Convention, which provides as follows:
       "4.  Everyone  who  is  deprived of his liberty  by  arrest  or
   detention  shall  be  entitled to take  proceedings  by  which  the
   lawfulness  of his detention shall be decided speedily by  a  court
   and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
       99.  The Government accepted that under domestic law no  appeal
   lay against such a decision.
       100.  The  Court  first refers to the above  finding  that  the
   decision  ordering the applicant's administrative arrest was  taken
   by  a  "tribunal  established by law" in  the  proceedings  falling
   within the ambit of Article 6 (see зз 90 and 95 above).
       101.  The  Court  recalls that a right of  recourse  against  a
   faulty  judicial decision is not recognised as a general  guarantee
   (see  Delcourt  v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970,  Series  A
   No.  11, p. 14, з 25). This right is provided for in criminal cases
   in Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 with the exception of offences of  a
   minor  character.  However, the applicant  did  not  rely  on  this
   Article  and  presented no argument whether  or  not  her  criminal
   charge  concerned  anything but an "offence of a minor  character".
   The  Court did not consider it necessary to raise this issue of its
   own motion.
       102. As regards Article 13, the Court observes that Article 6 з
   1  is a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, in other words the
   requirements  of  Article 13 are less strict  than,  and  are  here
   absorbed  by,  those  of  Article 6  (see,  mutatis  mutandis,  the
   Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series  A  No.
   168,  pp.  45 - 46, з 110). As a rule, Article 13 is not applicable
   where  the alleged violation of the Convention has taken  place  in
   the  context  of  judicial  proceedings  (see  Pizzetti  v.  Italy,
   judgment  of 26 February 1993, Series A No. 257-C, p. 40  -  41,  з
   41).  The  only exceptions to this principle have been the  Article
   13  complaints  relating  to  a breach  of  the  "reasonable  time"
   requirement  (see {Kudla} v. Poland [GC], No. 30210/96,  зз  146  -
   149,  ECHR 2000-XI). Since this is not the case here, there  is  no
   room for a separate breach of Article 13.
       103. In so far as Article 5 з 4 concerned, the Court notes that
   its   guarantees  are  in  principle  redundant  with  respect   to
   detention  under Article 5 з 1 (a), since judicial control  of  the
   deprivation  of  liberty  has already been  incorporated  into  the
   original conviction and sentence (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp  v.
   Belgium,  judgment of 18 June 1971 (merits), Series A  No.  12,  p.
   40,  з  76).  Turning  to  the  facts  of  the  present  case,  the
   applicant's   five  days'  detention  was  based  solely   on   her
   conviction  by the judge, therefore Article 5 з 4 did  not  require
   that a separate judicial authority review that decision.
       104.  In  view  of  the  above, the Court concludes  that  this
   complaint raises no separate issue under Article 13 or Article 5  з
   4 of the Convention.
            V. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
       105. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
       "If  the  Court  finds that there has been a violation  of  the
   Convention  or  the Protocols thereto, and if the internal  law  of
   the   High   Contracting  Party  concerned  allows   only   partial
   reparation  to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford  just
   satisfaction to the injured party."
                               A. Damage
       106.  The  applicant  claimed  100,000  euros  (EUR)  for  non-
   pecuniary  damage in respect of the injuries and distress  she  had
   suffered  as  a result of her ill-treatment by the police  and  the
   anguish  caused by the administrative proceedings and  the  ensuing
   detention,  as  well  as  by the authorities'  failure  to  act  in
   response to her complaints about the ill-treatment.
       107.  As  pecuniary  damage she claimed 25 roubles  (RUR),  the
   money   charged  by  the  detention  centre  for  her  five   days'
       108.  The  Government submitted no comments on the  applicant's
   claims,  indicating  that  it  was  in  part  due  to  the  pending
   investigation  of  the  ill-treatment and  in  part  due  to  their
   objection  concerning non-exhaustion in respect  of  her  complaint
   about the detention.
       109.  The  Court  observes that it has  found  above  that  the
   authorities tortured the applicant and failed to provide  a  prompt
   and  public investigation meeting the requirements of Article 3  of
   the  Convention. It has also been established that she was deprived
   of  liberty  in  violation  of Article 5  and  through  proceedings
   conducted  contrary to Article 6. In addition, the applicant  spent
   months in unsuccessful attempts to secure domestic redress for  the
   acts  of  ill-treatment. The applicant must have  suffered  anguish
   and  distress  from all these circumstances. Having regard  to  all
   these  considerations,  the  Court  awards  the  applicant,  on  an
   equitable  basis, EUR 35,000 for non-pecuniary damage  and  RUR  25
   for  pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these
                         B. Costs and expenses
       110.  The  applicant claimed RUR 5,000 for costs  and  expenses
   incurred  in  the  domestic  proceedings  and  before  the   Court,
   including  stamp  duty,  translation  fees,  postal  expenses   and
       111. The Government did not object.
       112.  Against this background, the Court finds the  applicant's
   claim  reasonable and therefore awards her RUR 5,000 for costs  and
   expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
                          C. Default interest
       113.  The  Court  considers  it appropriate  that  the  default
   interest  should  be  based on the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank, to which should be added three  percentage
       1.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3  of  the
   Convention as regards the ill-treatment;
       2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3  of  the
   Convention  as regards the absence of effective investigation  into
   the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment;
       3.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of  the
   Convention on account of the lack of effective remedies in  respect
   of the ill-treatment complained of;
       4.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з  1  of
   the  Convention in respect of the applicant's arrest and  overnight
       5.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 з  1  of
   the Convention in respect of the applicant's five days' detention;
       6.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 з  1  of
   the Convention;
       7. Holds that there are no separate issues under Articles 5 з 4
   and  13  of the Convention as regards the absence of the  right  of
   appeal   against   the   decision   imposing   sanction   for   the
   administrative offence;
       8. Holds
       (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant,  within
   three  months from the date on which the judgment becomes final  in
   accordance  with  Article 44 з 2 of the Convention,  the  following
       (i)  RUR  25  (twenty  five roubles) in  respect  of  pecuniary
       (ii) EUR 35,000 (thirty five thousand euros) in respect of non-
   pecuniary damage to be converted into the national currency of  the
   respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
       (iii) RUR 5,000 (five thousand roubles) in respect of costs and
       (iv) any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
       (b)  that  from the expiry of the above-mentioned three  months
   until  settlement  simple interest shall be payable  on  the  above
   amounts  at  a  rate  equal to the marginal  lending  rate  of  the
   European  Central  Bank  during  the  default  period  plus   three
   percentage points;
       9.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim  for  just
       Done  in  English,  and notified in writing on  9  March  2006,
   pursuant to Rule 77 зз 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
                                                      Christos ROZAKIS
                                                       {Soren} NIELSEN

<<< Назад




Новости сайта Тюрьма

Hosted by uCoz