The applicant alleged that he had been tortured by the police in 1997, the year before the Convention came into force in the Russian Federation. Criminal proceedings were commenced in 1997 but had not concluded. The applicant claimed that the state had failed to conduct an adequate investigation into his treatment.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible: ‘The Court observes that the procedural obligation under article 3 arises where an individual makes ‘a credible assertion’ of having suffered treatment contrary to article 3 (see Labita, cited above). However, since the Court is prevented from examining the applicant’s assertions relating to the events outside its jurisdiction ratione temporis, it is unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the applicant has made a ‘credible assertion’ as required by the above provision. Accordingly, it cannot examine whether or not the Russian authorities had an obligation under the Convention to conduct an effective investigation in the present case (see Moldovan v Romania (Application No 41138/98, 13 March 2001) Likewise the alleged failure to conduct the investigation cannot be held to constitute a continuous situation raising an issue under article 3 in the present case, since the Court is unable to conclude that such an obligation existed.’
Citations:
21501/02, Unreported, 8 December 2005
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – McCaughey and Another, Re Application forJudicial Review SC 18-May-2011
The claimants sought a fuller inquest into deaths at the hands of the British Army in 1990 in Northern Ireland. On opening the inquest, the coroner had declined to undertake to hold a hearing compliant with article 2, and it had not made progress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.439813
