PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SICILIANOS

1. With all due respect, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the majority in the present case according to which there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive limb. As noted in paragraph 73 of the judgment, “the applicant presented a detailed description of his ill-treatment by agents of the MNS. In support of his claim, he submitted a photograph of his body taken, according to him, by his family immediately after his release from detention and a medical record of 1 October 2007” (see also paragraphs 9-14 and 31 of the judgment). It seems to me that those elements constitute prima facie evidence of ill ‑ treatment. All the more so as the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant dr e w extensive media coverage (see paragraph 29).

2. According to the case-law of the Court, when the applicant provides a detailed description of the ill-treatment to which he has allegedly been subjected, especially by indicating its place, time and duration and when those allegations are consistent, it is up to the Government “to refute the applicant ’ s allegations by providing their own plausible version of events and submitting evidence to corroborate their version” (see, among other authorities , Barabashchikov v. Russia , no. 36220/02, §§ 49-50, 8 January 2009). In the present case, the Government did not provide any explanation whatsoever regarding the applicant ’ s allegations, but simply denied the facts (see para graph 15 of the judgment).

3. In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities ’ obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of a ny convincing and plausible explanation by the Government, the Court should have considered, in my view, that it could draw inferences from the Government ’ s conduct and should have found 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 Barabashchikov v. Russia , cited above, § 50; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94 , § 88, ECHR 1999 ‑ V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey , no. 40154/98 , § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev v. Russia , no. 77617/01 , §§ 104-105, 26 January 2006; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia , no. 7178/03 , §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008).

4. Furthermore, as is clear from paragraphs 84 and 85 of the judgment, the conclusion that there has been no violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention inexorably brought the Court to yet another conclusion, namely that there has been no violation of Articles 5 and 10 either. Given the direct link between those issues – the violation of Article 3 under its substantive limb, on the one hand, and the violation of Articles 5 and 10, on the other – I am also unable to share the Court ’ s conclusions under Articles 5 and 10.