CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 octobre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8ED1F3C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E7AA975 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6A849601 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFF4E7F0D { width:16.26pt; display:inline-block } .sC2D09584 { width:168.3pt; display:inline-block } .s576DFC5F { width:15.93pt; display:inline-block } .sAA5C5B93 { width:187.63pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION             CASE OF GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA   (Application no. 24271/03)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   14 October 2010   FINAL   21/02/2011   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 (c) of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Georgiy Bykov v. Russia , The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Christos Rozakis, President,   Nina Vajić,   Anatoly Kovler,   Elisabeth Steiner,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dean Spielmann,   Sverre Erik Jebens, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 September 2010, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 24271/03) 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 a Russian national, Mr Georgiy Alekseyevich Bykov (“the applicant”), on 20 May 2003. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr A. Manov and Mr I. Sivoldayev, lawyers practising in Moscow and Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented Mrs V. Milinchuk, former Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police after his arrest and that there had been no effective investigation into the events. 4.     On 13 June 2007 the President of the First Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 §   1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1963 and lived in Voronezh until his arrest. He is now serving his sentence in the correctional colony in the town of Semiluki, Voronezh Region. The applicant is a former military officer. A.     Applicant’s arrest and alleged beatings by the police 6.     On 12 July 2001 the bodies of two military officers were found at the checkpoint of a military unit. The officers had been brutally killed with an axe. The service gun of one of the officers had been stolen. 7.     Four days later, on 16 July 2001, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of two counts of murder. He was taken to the Sovetskiy District police department in Voronezh where police officers allegedly spent several hours beating him up. According to the applicant, policemen offered him contaminated alcohol. While under the influence of alcohol he signed a statement confessing to the murder of the military officers. 8 .     Later on 16 July 2001 the applicant was placed in the Police department temporary detention centre. As follows from a letter sent by the head of the detention centre to the applicant’s lawyer on 21 November 2001, on admission to the centre the applicant was examined by a doctor, who recorded bruises on his nose and under both eyes. The doctor also noted that the injuries had been acquired prior to the applicant’s admission to the centre and that the applicant had not requested any medical assistance. 9 .     On the same day the applicant, questioned as a suspect in the murder investigation, complained to a military prosecutor that he had written the confession statement under violent duress by the police officers. The applicant, supported by his lawyer, Ms Bautina, requested the investigator to authorise a medical examination for him. 10 .     On 20 July 2001 a senior military prosecution investigator and a doctor examined the applicant in the presence of two attesting witnesses. According to the applicant, a police officer who had taken part in the beatings on 16 July 2001 escorted him to that medical examination and observed it. The senior investigator drew up a report, which in the relevant part read as follows: “The examination established: ... fading bruises on the skin of the median third of the both shoulders, a fading bruise on the left infrascapular region, ([the bruise] was inflicted three to seven days ago). There is a subconjunctival haemorrhage in the pericorneal zone of the right eye   ...” B.     Conviction 11.     On 19 December 2001 the case was committed for trial to the Military Court of the Fourth Circuit. 12.     At the hearing on 4 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Military Court that he had been beaten up after his arrest and that the confession had been extracted from him under torture. In particular, the applicant stated that on 16 July 2001 he had been taken to the police department where three policemen had struck him and kicked him in the face and stomach. They had also thrown him against a wall several times. He had had no choice but to write that confession. After he had signed the statement, he had been given some vodka. A military prosecutor had questioned him in the presence of his lawyer and he had renounced the confession, alleging that it had been extracted under duress. On 20 July 2001 he had written another confession statement. The applicant stressed that he had not been beaten up, but he had been afraid that torture would have been applied if he had not confessed. 13 .     On 16 July 2002 the Military Court of the Fourth Circuit found the applicant guilty of two counts of manslaughter and theft of a weapon and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The Military Court excluded the applicant’s confession made on 16 July 2001. In particular, it held as follows: “Having examined [the applicant’s] complaints that between 16 and 25 July 2001 he was beaten up by police officers of the Sovetskiy District police department of Voronezh, who allegedly kicked and hit him on the head, face and body, and threw him against a wall, the court finds as follows. Witnesses, Mr B., Mr N., Mr P., Mr Y., Mr V., Mr S., [and] Mr O., testified that they had not used physical force or psychological pressure against [the applicant] when he had been kept in the Sovetskiy District police department in Voronezh and no one had beaten [the applicant] up in their presence. An official investigation carried out by the Internal Security Division of the Voronezh Regional police department did not establish as fact that the applicant had been beaten up by police officers of the Sovetskiy District police department of Voronezh. However, as it follows from the statement of the head of the temporary detention centre of the police department in Voronezh, on 16 July 2001, on admission to the centre [the applicant] was diagnosed with haematomas on his nose and under his left and right eyes. In such circumstances, the court accepts that before his admission to the temporary detention centre physical force was used against [the applicant], but it was not applied to the extent described by [the applicant] at the court hearings. Having regard to the above-mentioned matters and taking into account that on 16   July 2001, after writing the confession, [the applicant] was offered some vodka, the court excludes the confession statement from the evidence which confirms [the applicant] as guilty of the murder of [the victims]. As regards the confession statement and the interviews conducted on 20, 21 and 23   July 2001, [the applicant] stated at a court hearing that he had written that confession voluntarily, had answered the investigator’s questions and had described his actions during an investigation experiment in the presence of his lawyer, Ms Bautina; physical and psychological pressure had not been applied to him. The applicant and his lawyer did not make any complaints or representations about any unlawful methods of criminal investigation. The court did not establish any data showing that on 20, 21 and 23 July 2001 [the applicant] had been pressurised, either physically or psychologically, by the investigating authorities into making those statements.” 14.     The applicant appealed against the conviction, arguing, inter alia , that the trial court had not properly addressed his complaints of ill ‑ treatment. He also asked the appeal court to ensure his presence at the appeal hearing. 15.     On 10 January 2003 the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 16 July 2002. Having addressed the applicant’s argument as regards the beatings by the police officers after his arrest, the Supreme Court held as follows: “At the same time the [Military] Court made the correct assessment that there had been a violation of procedural norms by the police officers when they received a confession statement from [the applicant] on 16 July 2001; [the Military Court] rightly excluded [the confession statement] from evidence in the case. Moreover, [the police officers V., K. and A.], who had seen [the applicant] directly after his arrest, stated in open court that the applicant had no injuries on the face and no police officers had hit the applicant... A [police officer], Mr Sh. who had participated as a specialist during an investigating experiment on 23 July 2001, ... had not noticed any injuries on the applicant’s face.” The applicant’s lawyer attended the appeal hearing; however, the applicant was not summoned to it. C.     Proceedings in connection with the complaints of ill-treatment 16 .     In the meantime, as follows from documents submitted by the applicant, on an unspecified date his father, acting in the applicant’s interest, complained to various prosecution, police and military authorities that the applicant had been severely beaten up by the police officers after the arrest. 17 .     The Internal Security Division of the Voronezh Regional police department opened an internal inquiry into the complaints, which resulted in a finding of no criminal conduct in the officers’ actions. In May 2002 the applicant’s father was informed of the results of the inquiry. At the same time he was notified of the transfer of his complaints to the Military Court, which was to examine the criminal case against the applicant. The police authorities reasoned that under Russian law, after the applicant had been committed to stand trial, the trial court had exclusive jurisdiction over any complaints related to the case. The applicant’s father received a similar response from the Prosecutor General’s office. 18.     The Government argued that the first complaint of ill-treatment had only been lodged by the applicant’s father with the Internal Security Division of the Ministry of Internal Affairs a month after the judgment of 16 July 2002. The Government did not support their assertion with any evidence. They also did not produce any document from the file of the investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment, despite the Court’s direct request to that effect. 19 .     On 8 August 2002 an investigator of the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. Having examined the results of the internal police inquiry, the investigator found that on 15 July 2001, while preventing the applicant’s attempt to commit suicide, his fellow officer had hit the applicant on the ear. Having studied a record of the medical examination of the applicant on his admission to the temporary detention centre on 16 July 2001 (see paragraph 8 above), the investigator concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s face “could have been caused by the applicant’s fellow officers” during the prevention of the attempted suicide. The reasoning of the two-page decision was founded on statements by the police officers who had questioned the applicant on 16 July 2001 and had disputed any use of violence against him, and the applicant’s father, who had insisted that the applicant had been beaten up at the police department. All these statements were received during the internal police inquiry. 20.     The applicant appealed against the decision of 8 August 2002. On 27   March 2003 a deputy prosecutor of the Sovetskiy District in Voronezh dismissed the complaint, noting that the investigator had carried out a full inquiry and that his conclusions had been based on “the objective analysis of sufficient and corroborating evidence”. 21 .     On 28 April 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh quashed the decision of 27 March 2003 on the ground that the investigator’s inquiry had been incomplete. It noted that the investigator had not questioned the applicant’s fellow officers and thus his conclusion that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by them had not been based on any evidence. 22.     A deputy prosecutor of the Sovetskiy District annulled the decision of 8 August 2002 and sent the case for an additional inquiry. 23 .     On 17 November 2003 the prosecutor’s office once again dismissed the applicant’s complaint, having found no prima facie case of ill-treatment. That decision was quashed on 4 February 2004 and the case was sent for an additional inquiry. 24 .     On 6 February 2004 the senior investigator of the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The decision was based on the same evidence as the decision of 8 August 2002 and on a statement by the applicant’s fellow officer, Mr L., who had admitted hitting the applicant on the ear. The senior investigator also noted that “the applicant was serving his sentence and was attempting to call into question the trial court’s findings.” 25.     Having found that the previous inquiry into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints was incomplete, on 24 August 2007 the Voronezh Regional Prosecutor’s Office reopened an investigation into the events of 16   July 2001. The new round of inquiry was closed on 3 September 2007 in the absence of any evidence of criminal conduct on the part of the police officers. However, the decision of 3 September 2007 was quashed by a higher-ranking prosecutor and a new round of investigation commenced. That round resulted in the decision of 17 October 2007, by which the complaints of ill-treatment were found to be unsubstantiated. 26.     On 13 December 2007 the acting deputy head of the Investigating Department of the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 17 October 2007. The deputy head noted that that decision was unlawful and the inquiry was incomplete. The new round of investigation was, among other things, to lead to identification and questioning of military officers who had allegedly prevented the applicant’s attempted suicide on 15 July 2001. It appears that the investigation is now pending. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Investigation into criminal offences 27 .     The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (in force since 1 July 2002, “the CCrP”) establishes that a criminal investigation can be initiated by an investigator or a prosecutor on a complaint by an individual or on the investigative authorities’ own initiative, where there are reasons to believe that a crime was committed (Articles 146 and 147). A prosecutor is responsible for overall supervision of the investigation (Article   37). He/she can order specific investigative actions, transfer the case from one investigator to another or order an additional investigation. If there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation, the prosecutor or investigator issues a reasoned decision to that effect, which has to be notified to the interested party. The decision is amenable to appeal to a higher-ranking prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction within a procedure established by Article 125 of the CCrP (Article 148). Article 125 of the CCrP provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court. B.     Medical examinations of arrestees on their admission to police temporary detention centres 28.     Russian law sets out detailed guidelines for detention of individuals in police department temporary detention centres. These guidelines are found in the Decree of the Ministry of Internal Affairs no. 950 on Internal Regulations of Police Temporary Detention Centres (“the Decree”), enacted on 22 November 2005, and the joint Decree of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health no. 1115/475 on Instruction on Medical and Sanitary Assistance to Individuals Detained in Police Temporary Detention Centres (“the Instruction”), enacted on 31 December 1999. In particular, Section II of the Decree sets out the procedure for initial steps to be taken by the staff of a detention centre on admission of a detainee. If, on a detainee’s arrival in a temporary detention centre an accepting officer discovers injuries on his body, the officer should draw up a detailed record of the injuries. The record should be signed by the accepting officer, the official who brought the detainee into the centre and the detainee himself. The latter should be served with a copy of that record. 29.     Section XIV of the Decree and Section III of the Instruction establish that all detainees should be subjected to preliminary medical examination within twenty-four hours of their admission to a temporary detention centre. The examination should be performed by medical personnel and the results of the examination should be recorded in a medical log. The Decree states that the primary purpose of the medical examination is, inter alia , identification of individuals with physical injuries. If physical injuries are discovered, the detainee should immediately be subjected to a more thorough medical examination by the detention centre’s medical staff, or, if the ward does not employ medical staff, by civilian hospital doctors. The results of the medical examination should be properly recorded. 30 .     An inquiry should be carried out into the circumstances in which the detainee sustained injuries. As a result of the inquiry a decision on institution or refusal to institute criminal proceedings should be issued in compliance with the requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (paragraph 129 of Section XIV of the Decree). THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION 31.     The applicant complained that immediately after his arrest he had been subjected to treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had not carried out an effective investigation into the incident. The Court will examine this complaint from the standpoint of the State’s obligations flowing from Article 3, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A.     Submissions by the parties 32.     The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to him under the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, while admitting that the decision of 6 February 2004 was no longer in force, having been quashed by the Voronezh Regional Prosecutor’s office on 24 August 2007, the Government stressed that the applicant had not appealed against the decision of 6 February 2004 either to a higher-ranking prosecutor or to a court. They further noted that the applicant’s complaint was premature as the investigation had been reopened and was still pending. 33.     As an alternative, the Government argued that the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment was manifestly ill-founded as he had not been subjected to treatment in violation of the Article 3 guarantees. They insisted that the applicant had sustained his injuries during a fight with someone who became a murder victim. They further observed that the applicant had not complained of ill-treatment during his medical examination on 20 July 2001, although the examination had been carried out in the presence of the prosecution investigator. The Government stressed that it had only been after the applicant’s conviction that he had for the first time sought institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers. 34.     In response to the Court’s request for provision of the complete investigation file in respect of the events of 16 July 2001 the Government stated that the investigation into the events was still pending, precluding them from lodging the necessary documents with the Court. 35.     The applicant averred that his father had promptly informed the domestic authorities that the police officers had subjected him to severe beatings. In the applicant’s opinion, the prosecutors’ and police officials’ refusals to open a criminal investigation into the events in view of the ongoing trial proceedings and the subsequent trial court judgment of 16 July 2002, containing information about the internal police inquiry into the alleged beatings, supported his assertion that the ill-treatment complaint had been raised before the appropriate domestic authorities without undue delay. Moreover, the Government’s assertion that the ill-treatment complaint had been raised for the first time a month after the conviction, that is not earlier than 16 August 2002, was contradicted by the fact that by 8 August 2002 the prosecution authorities had already issued a decision, having refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. 36.     The applicant also stressed that his medical examination of 20 July 2001, performed in the presence of the prosecution investigator, had been carried out precisely in response to his complaints of ill-treatment at the hands of the police. At the same time he had not made any complaints at the time of the examination itself as he had been escorted to that examination by the same police officer who had participated in the beatings. That police officer had also attended the medical examination. 37.     The applicant further argued that the Government had not provided any explanation for his injuries, which had been discovered during the examination on 16 July 2001, on his admission to the temporary detention centre, and then to additional injuries which had been recorded during the medical examination on 20 July 2001. He stressed that his version of events had been partly supported by the trial court’s decision to exclude his confession of 16 July 2001 from evidence. Having doubted the extent of the force used against the applicant, the trial court had not doubted that the force had in fact been used. The applicant argued that the Government’s submission that he had received the injuries during a fight with one of the victims would not stand up to criticism and was not supported by any evidence. B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility 38.     The Court notes that the Government raised two major objections against the admissibility of the applicant’s complaint. In particular, they listed two possible forms of remedy which the applicant had failed to employ: a complaint against the investigator’s decision of 6 February 2004 to a higher-ranking prosecutor or a court. In addition, they submitted that the ill-treatment complaint was premature as the investigation into the alleged beatings was still pending. (a)     General principles 39.     The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before the Court to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system. The rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention - with which it has close affinity -, that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged breach in the domestic system, whether or not the provisions of the Convention are incorporated in national law.   In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom , 7   December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24). 40.     Under Article 35 of the Convention, recourse should normally be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged.   The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia , Vernillo v. France , 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland , 18 December 1986, § 22, Series A no. 112). Article 35 also requires that complaints made before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Cardot v. France , 19   March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200). 41.     Furthermore, in the area of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, there is a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government had in fact been used, or was for some reason inadequate or ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement. 42.     The Court would emphasise that the application of the rule must make due allowance for the fact that it is being applied in the context of machinery for the protection of human rights that the Contracting Parties have agreed to set up. Accordingly, it has recognised that the rule of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot , cited above, § 34). It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium , 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no.   40). This means amongst other things that it must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned, but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 16 September 1996, §§ 65-68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ IV). (b)     Application of the general principles to the present case (i)     Alleged failure to appeal against the investigator’s decision of 6 February 2004 43.     The Court reiterates that, apart from the police internal inquiry and the criminal courts’ assessment of the ill-treatment issue, the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were also examined by the prosecuting authorities. In particular, in a decision of 8 August 2002 the investigator of the Sovetskiy District Prosecutor’s office decided not to institute criminal proceedings. Following the applicant’s complaint to the Sovetskiy District Court that decision was quashed by a deputy prosecutor and a new round of inquiry was authorised. The inquiry was again closed and reopened, eventually leading to the investigator’s decision of 6 February 2004, by which the institution of criminal proceedings was refused. Under Articles   125 and 148 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure that decision was amenable to appeal to a higher-ranking prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction (see paragraph 27 above). 44.     As regards an appeal to a higher-ranking prosecutor, the Court has previously held that such an appeal does not constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention (see Belevitskiy v.   Russia , no. 72967/01, § 60, 1 March 2007). 45.     The position is, however, different with regard to the possibility of challenging before a court of general jurisdiction a prosecutor’s decision not to investigate complaints of ill-treatment. The Court has previously found that in the Russian legal system the power of a court to reverse a decision not to institute criminal proceedings is a substantial safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of powers by the investigating authorities (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003, and Belevitskiy , cited above, § 61). 46.     The Court observes that in the present case the applicant did not make use of the judicial appeal, in the formal sense, as laid down by Article   125 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, by instituting judicial proceedings against the investigator’s decision of 6 February 2004. However, the Court is unable to accept the Government’s objection that the applicant’s failure to appeal against that decision to a court rendered his Article 3 complaint inadmissible. Apart from the fact that the decision of 6   February 2004 is no longer in force, having been quashed on 24 August 2007 by a decision of the Voronezh Regional Prosecutor’s office authorising a new round of inquiry into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint, the Court observes that the decision of 6 February 2004 was preceded by at least two investigators’ decisions with the same content and leading to the same outcome (see paragraphs 19 and 23 above). The applicant successfully challenged those decisions, obtaining their quashing and securing the reopening of the inquiry. The Court considers that in these circumstances, in order to exhaust domestic remedies the applicant could not have been required to lodge, over and over again, new appeals against each subsequent decision by which the prosecution authorities had closed the investigation. As the Court has found in a similar case, a requirement to introduce further appeals against successive decisions refusing the institution of criminal proceedings would be over-formalistic and place an excessive burden on the applicant (see Samoylov v. Russia , no. 64398/01, §   45, 2 October 2008). Moreover, the applicant has invoked before the Court essentially the same arguments as were considered by the domestic courts during the criminal proceedings against him and within the internal police and subsequent prosecution inquiries into the events of 16 July 2001, thus affording the domestic authorities the ample opportunity to remedy the alleged violation of his rights. It follows that the applicant must be considered to have exhausted the domestic remedies, in so far as he did not lodge a separate judicial complaint against the investigator’s decision of 6   February 2004 (see, mutatis mutandis, C.M. v. Sweden , no. 20809/92, Commission decision of 15   February 1993, and, most recently, Akulinin and Babich v. Russia , no. 5742/02, § 33, 2 October 2008, and Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia , no. 19223/04, § 50, 30 July 2009), and that this part of the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be dismissed. (ii)     Failure to await the outcome of the reopened proceedings 47.     The Court further reiterates the Government’s objection that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 are premature, as the criminal proceedings were reopened in August 2007 and are still pending. In this regard the Court first notes that if an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police, a criminal complaint may be regarded as an adequate remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia , cited above, § 58). Indeed, as a general rule, the State should be given an opportunity to investigate the case and give answer to the allegations of ill-treatment. At the same time an applicant does not need to exercise remedies which, although theoretically of a nature to constitute remedies, do not in reality offer any chance of redressing the alleged breach (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , 30 August 1996, § 68, Reports 1996 ‑ IV). If the remedy chosen is adequate in theory, but in the course of time proves to be ineffective, the applicant is no longer obliged to pursue it (see Mikheyev v. Russia , no. 77617/01, § 86, 26 January 2006). 48 .     The Court notes that in the present case the inquiry into the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by the police officers was reopened more than six years after the events in question. The investigation is still pending. The applicant and the Government disagree as to the effectiveness of this investigation. The Court therefore considers that this limb of the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies raises issues which are linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court therefore decides to join this issue to the merits. (c)     The Court’s decision on the admissibility of the complaint 49.     The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 2.     Merits (a)     Establishment of the facts 50.     The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence. In assessing evidence, the Court has generally applied the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25). 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 under 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 Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §   100, ECHR 2000-VII). 51.     Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court’s task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany , 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no.   269). Although the Court is not bound by the findings of the domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Matko v.   Slovenia , no. 43393/98, §   100, 2 November 2006). Where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, however, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis , Ribitsch v. Austria , 4   December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336). 52.     In the present case it was not disputed between the parties and the Court finds it established that on 16 July 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Sovetskiy District police department in Voronezh. Later that day he was admitted to the temporary detention centre in the police department. Following a medical examination of the applicant on his admission to the centre, a prison doctor drew up a report listing bruises on the applicant’s nose and under both eyes (see paragraph 8 above). Another medical examination of the applicant performed on 20 July 2001 in the presence of the senior military prosecution investigator and two attesting witnesses produced an additional list of injuries, including bruises on both shoulders and below the left shoulder-blade (see paragraph 10 above). 53.     The Court observes that in response to the findings in the medical reports the Government put forward one version of events, which could have led to the applicant sustaining at least some of his injuries. 54.     In particular, citing materials of the prosecution inquiry into the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints which they did not submit to the Court, the Government argued that the applicant had sustained injuries during a fight with one of the victims. However, the Court is not convinced by that explanation. As it appears from the materials of the police and prosecution inquiries produced by the applicant and the judgments of the criminal courts which had heard the applicant’s case, that version of events was never considered by any domestic authority which had dealt with the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment. At the same time, having heard statements by the police officers who had insisted that the applicant had no visible injuries immediately after his arrest and having examined the record of the applicant’s medical examination drawn up in the detention centre, the Military Court concluded that “physical force [had] been used against [the applicant]”, although the court doubted the applicant’s description of the extent of the force used against him (see paragraph 13 above). That finding prompted the Military Court to exclude from evidence the applicant’s confession made on 16 July 2001, a pointless procedural action should the trial court have believed that the confession was voluntary and the applicant’s injuries had resulted from the actions of a private individual. 55.     The Court also does not lose sight of another version of events which was adduced by the prosecution authorities in their attempt to provide an explanation for the applicant’s injuries. In particular, the Court finds it striking that despite the criminal courts’ finding supporting, save for the extent of the violence, the applicant’s account of the events of 16 July 2001, in a number of decisions the investigating authorities declared that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by his fellow officer on 15 July 2001 when the latter had hit the applicant on the ear in an attempt to stop him from committing suicide (see paragraphs 19 and 24 above). Without prejudice to the examination of the question of the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment which the Court is about to carry out, the Court considers it worth noting that, even assuming that the incident had in fact taken place, the investigator’s explanation sits ill with the nature of the applicant’s injuries as recorded in the medical reports on 16 and 20 July 2001 (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). The Court is appalled by the fact that in the absence of any statements by the applicant or his fellow officer confirming that the latter had administered blows to the applicant’s face or shoulders and in disregard of the police officers’ statements that they had not observed any injuries on the applicant’s face at the time of his arrest, the investigators concluded that the injuries could have resulted from the encounter between the applicant and the military officer. 56.     At the same time the Court observes that the applicant provided a detailed description of the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected and indicated its place, time and duration. It notes the consistency of the allegations made by the applicant that he had been ill-treated by police officers while in custody, and the fact that he maintained his allegations whenever he was able to make statements freely before the investigating authorities or the domestic courts. The Court reiterates the Government’s argument that the applicant did not make any complaints to the military prosecutor during the medical examination on 20 July 2001. However, it is not surprising that the applicant did not raise his grievances while still in the presence of the alleged offender. The Court cannot rule out the possibility that the applicant felt intimidated by the persons he had accused of having ill-treated him (see Colibaba v. Moldova , no.   29089/06, §   49, 23 October 2007, and Batı and Others v. Turkey , nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 100, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts). 57 .     To sum up, if the Government considered the applicant’s allegations to be untrue, it was open to them to refute them by providing their own plausible version of events and submitting, for instance, witness testimony and other evidence to corroborate their version. Indeed, the Government did not provide any satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicant had acquired the injuries. The Court further notes that it was open to the respondent Government to submit a copy of the complete investigation file relating to the applicant’s ill-treatment complaints. The Government, citing the ongoing investigation into the events of 16 July 2001, failed to provide the Court with any materials. 58 .     In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities’ obligation to account for injuries caused to persons under their control in custody, and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court considers that it can draw inferences from the Government’s conduct and finds it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no.   25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey , no.   40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev , cited above, §§ 104-105; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia , no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008). The Court shall therefore proceed to an examin