Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YUSIV v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  They must take all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 316-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07

  YAVUZ ÇELIK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  Therefore, even if the applicant had indeed been swearing at the officers, had fallen to the ground, and had attempted to kick or bite them, the Court is not convinced that it was strictly necessary for several trained police officers to resort to physical force of such severity as in the present case - at least eighteen blows - in order to make the applicant more cooperative (see also Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Yavuz Çelik v. Turkey, no. 34461/07, § 53, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, § 151, 2 October 2012; and Bouyid, cited above, §§ 83-84; also see, mutatis mutandis, Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" and adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  Therefore, even if the applicant had indeed been swearing at the officers, had fallen to the ground, and had attempted to kick or bite them, the Court is not convinced that it was strictly necessary for several trained police officers to resort to physical force of such severity as in the present case - at least eighteen blows - in order to make the applicant more cooperative (see also Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Yavuz Çelik v. Turkey, no. 34461/07, § 53, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" and adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, § 151, 2 October 2012; and Bouyid, cited above, §§ 83-84; also see, mutatis mutandis, Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, § 151, 2 October 2012; and Bouyid, cited above, §§ 83-84; also see, mutatis mutandis, Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).

• EGMR - 14355/22 (anhängig)

  ZABITA v. LITHUANIA

  Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of police officers (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and Yusiv v. Lithuania, no. 55894/13, §§ 53-62, 4 October 2016)?.