Перевод в сфере юриспруденции. Борисова Л.А. - 41 стр.

he decided to sue.
       Ben Emmerson, counsel for Mr. Zung, urged the jury to send a strong
message to Sir Paul Condon by awarding damages that would hit his budget. “In
this case a small award would be regarded as a victory by the officers”.
       A statement issued on behalf of Sir Paul, the Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, said: “We believe the award to be excessive and we are going to
appeal against the size of the award but not the verdict”.
       The Metropolitan Police said no action would be taken against the
constables involved: Christopher Smith, Andrew Morris and Bob Davies.
       In a separate case at the same court Terence Wilkinson, 27, was awarded
64 000 pounds damages. He had accused other officers from the same area of
wrongful arrest and assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
                             DECISION OF THE COURT
        As regards Russia
        During the Moldovan conflict in 1991–92 forces of the former Fourteenth
Army (which had owed allegiance to the USSR, the CIS and the Russian
Federation in turn) stationed in Transdniestria, had fought with and on behalf of
the Transdniestrian separatist forces. Large quantities of weapons from the
stores of the Fourteenth Army had been voluntarily transferred to the separatists,
who had also been able to seize possession of other weapons unopposed by
Russian soldiers. In addition, throughout the clashes between the Moldovan
authorities and the Transdniestrian separatists the Russian leaders had supported
the separatist authorities by their political declarations.
        The Russian authorities had therefore contributed both military and
politically to the creation of a separatist regime in the region of Transdniestria,
part of the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Even after the ceasefire
agreement of 21 July 1992 Russia had continued to provide military, political
and economic support to the separatist regime, thus enabling it to survive by
strengthening itself and by acquiring a certain amount of autonomy vis-à-vis
Moldova. In the Court’s opinion, all of the acts committed by Russian soldiers
with regard to the applicants, including their transfer into the charge of the
separatist regime, in the context of the Russian authorities’ collaboration with
that illegal regime, were capable of engaging responsibility for the consequences
of the acts of that regime…
        That being so, the Court considered that there was a continuous and
uninterrupted link of responsibility on the part of Russia for the applicants’ fate,
as its policy of support for the regime and collaboration with it had continued
beyond 5 May 1998, and after that date Russia had made no attempt to put an
end to the applicants’ situation brought about by its agents and had not acted to
prevent the violations allegedly committed. The applicants therefore came
within the jurisdiction of Russia and its responsibility was engaged with regard
of the acts complained of.

                                        41