Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOGALADZE v. GEORGIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOGALADZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15

  TIZIANA PENNINO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Rivas v. France, no. 59584/00, § 38, 1 April 2004; Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 54, 10 March 2009; Mete and Others v. Turkey, no. 294/08, § 112, 4 October 2011; and Tiziana Pennino v. Italy, no. 21759/15, § 35, 12 October 2017).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  That investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  SAMESOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  In the absence of such an explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, among other authorities, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 152, ECHR 2012, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, § 47, 20 November 2018).

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 294/08

  METE ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Rivas v. France, no. 59584/00, § 38, 1 April 2004; Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 54, 10 March 2009; Mete and Others v. Turkey, no. 294/08, § 112, 4 October 2011; and Tiziana Pennino v. Italy, no. 21759/15, § 35, 12 October 2017).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Rivas v. France, no. 59584/00, § 38, 1 April 2004; Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 54, 10 March 2009; Mete and Others v. Turkey, no. 294/08, § 112, 4 October 2011; and Tiziana Pennino v. Italy, no. 21759/15, § 35, 12 October 2017).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  The general principles which apply in determining whether such an investigation was effective for the purposes of Article 3 were restated by the Grand Chamber in, among other authorities, Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 316-26 ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health and is found to be injured on 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 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).