CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 4 juillet 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 18896/91                           Ronald Ribitsch                               against                               Austria                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                      (adopted on 4 July 1994)                          TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             Page   I.    INTRODUCTION      (paras. 1-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        A.    The application           (paras. 2-4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        B.    The proceedings           (paras. 5-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1        C.    The present Report           (paras. 11-15). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS      (paras. 16-84) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        A.    The particular circumstances of the case           (paras. 16-78). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3        B.    The evidence before the Commission           (paras. 79-80). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14        C.    The relevant domestic law           (paras. 81-84). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION      (paras. 85-117). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        A.    Complaint declared admissible           (para. 85). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        B.    Point at issue           (para. 86). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16        C.    Article 3 of the Convention           (paras. 87-116) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16             CONCLUSION           (para. 117) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21   CONCURRING OPINION OF Mr. M. BRATZA . . . . . . . . . . . . 22   DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, A. WEITZEL, F. ERMACORA, J.-C. GEUS, M.A. NOWICKI AND B. CONFORTI . . . 25   APPENDIX I    : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . 26   APPENDIX II   : DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE               ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . 27   I.    INTRODUCTION   1.    The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.    The application   2.    The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1958 and resident in Vienna.   He was represented before the Commission by Mr. H. Pochieser, a lawyer practising in Vienna.   3.    The application is directed against Austria.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. F. Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   4.    The case concerns the applicant's complaint that, during his police custody, he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.   B.    The proceedings   5.    The application was introduced on 5 August 1991 and registered on 3 October 1991.   6.    On 30 March 1992 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   7.    The Government's observations were submitted on 15 July 1992 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose.   The applicant replied on 8 October 1992.   On 10 December 1993, the Commission granted the applicant legal aid for the representation of his case.   8.    On 4 May 1993 the Commission decided to hold a hearing of the parties.   The hearing was held on 20 October 1993.   The Government were represented by Mr. Okresek, Head of International Affairs Division, the Constitutional Service, Federal Chancellery, Mr. Szymanski, Head of the Legal Department, Federal Ministry for the Interior and Mr. Schmidt, Human Rights Division, International Law Department, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   The applicant was represented by Mrs. Haase, Rechtsanwälterin, representing Mr. Pochieser, Rechtsanwalt.   9.    On 20 October 1993 the Commission declared admissible the applicant's complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.   It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   10.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.    The present Report   11.   The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present :        MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President           S. TRECHSEL           A. WEITZEL           F. ERMACORA           E. BUSUTTIL           A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK           J.-C. SOYER           H.G. SCHERMERS           H. DANELIUS           C.L. ROZAKIS      Mrs. J. LIDDY      MM.   L. LOUCAIDES           J.-C. GEUS           M.A. NOWICKI           B. CONFORTI           N. BRATZA   12.   The text of this Report was adopted on 4 July 1994 by the Commission and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   13.   The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is :        (i)   to establish the facts, and        (ii) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose           a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under           the Convention.   14.   A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   15.   The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.    The particular circumstances of the case   16.   On 21 May 1988, in the context of criminal investigations concerning the death of two persons due to opium poisoning, the apartment of the applicant and his wife was searched by police officers of the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion).   17.   On 31 May 1988, at 12 h., police officers of the Vienna Federal Police Authority arrested the applicant on suspicion of drug trafficking.   Subsequent to his arrest, and on 1 and 2 June 1988 the spouse's apartment was again searched.   The applicant was kept in police detention until the morning of 2 June 1988.   18.   He gives the following account of events in the course of his detention:   After his arrest, his personal particulars were recorded. He was first questioned about the suspicion against him from 21.15 h. until 22.10 h., again on the next day from 16 h. until 18.30 h. and on 2 June 1988 for twenty minutes as from 8.10 h.   At the questioning, four to five police officers were present, three of them cross-examined the applicant.   They allegedly suggested various versions of admissions to him, and then grossly insulted him ("Kärntner Sau", "Drogenschwein", "Schweinepriester", "Arschloch").   As these police activities did not produce the intended results, he was punched in the head (Kopfnuß), and was beaten with fists into the renal region and the right upper arm. He was also kicked in his thighs and in the renal area.   He was pulled by his hair to the floor, and his head was beaten against the floor. The police officers allegedly also threatened not to release his wife, who was detained at the same time, if he would not admit his guilt. After his release, he had haematomas in his right upper arm and in one thigh, and he had a cervical syndrome, and suffered from vomiting, diarrhoea and bad headache.   19.   The applicant informed several persons, inter alia a journalist, about his alleged treatment in the course of his police detention.   He was examined at the Meidling hospital on 2 June and by the medical practitioner S. on 3 June 1988.   According to the record of the Meidling hospital, a bruise measuring 2 by 3 cm was ascertained in the middle third of the outside of the applicant's right upper arm. The findings of an annexed neurological report referred to bruising of the outside and inside of the right upper arm.   No other injuries to the extremities were observed.   An X-ray examination did not reveal any bone injuries.   The report of the medical practitioner S. dated 3 June 1988 contained a description of several bruises on the applicant's right upper arm, the typical features of a cervical syndrome, vomiting and intense headache and a temperature of 37.5 °C.   20.   According to a report signed by Police Officer M. and dated 1 June 1988, the applicant was taken out of police detention in the afternoon of the same day in order to be brought to an acoustics research institute to have his voice compared with the voice of an anonymous person who had called the Vienna emergency services.   The applicant was hand-cuffed with his hands in front of his body.   When Police Officer M. opened the left rear door of the police car in order to enable the applicant to get out, the applicant slipped and lost his balance.   The applicant bumped against the frame of the open car door with his right arm.   M., who was standing right next to him, was able to take the applicant by his left arm, but could not prevent him from falling.   Upon M.'s inquiry, the applicant stated that he was not injured.   When interrogated in the early morning of 2 June 1988, the applicant indicated that he had nevertheless sustained a slight injury due to his fall.   A round bruise was found on his right upper arm.   21.   Following reports in a public broadcast on 7 June 1988 about the applicant's accusations of ill-treatment by the police, the Vienna Federal Police Authority opened investigations against the police officers concerned.   The results of these investigations were submitted to the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) on 25 October 1988.   On 22 November 1988 the applicant, represented by counsel, joined these criminal proceedings as a private party under S. 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung) in respect of his compensation claims.   22.   On 26 June 1989 the Investigating Judge at the Vienna District Court (Strafbezirksgericht) heard the applicant as a witness and the Police Officers T., G., F. and M. as accused (Beschuldigte).   23.   The applicant stated that on 31 May 1988 he had been arrested by four police officers, inter alia M. and T.   Following the taking of photographs and fingerprints, the questioning had started in the afternoon and evening.   At the first questioning five police officers had been present, who had interrogated him in turns.   The applicant also indicated that the police officers, with the exception of Police Officer F., were drinking wine.   In the course of the questioning, their superior Mr. G. had started to pull his twisted moustache and to go around the room with him, and then also slapped him in the face. As he still had not confessed, Police Officer M. had begun to hit him. He knew about this Officer's identity as he had seen him signing the record.   Police Officer F. had been sitting at the type writer. He had been the only Officer behaving correctly.   Police Officer M. had continued to hit him in the course of the ensuing interrogations. M. had been the one hitting him most of the time, though, while he had been lying on the floor, others had also kicked him.   On the second day, even a legally qualified person had been present for a short time and had seen that he had been beaten.   Police Officer M. further had attempted to provoke him to hit back.   90% of his injuries had been caused by M.   The haematoma on his right upper arm had been caused by M.'s punches.   M. had further kicked him and caused a haematoma on his right or left lower leg, the print of the shoe had later been seen on his trousers.   Police Officer M. had also grasped his hair and had thrown him to the floor.   Upon questioning, the applicant stated that there had been no accident when he was taken by car to have his voice compared.   24.   Police Officer T. stated that he had been working with inter alia the Police Officers M. and F.   He could not remember whether he had been present upon the applicant's arrest.   He had conducted the questioning of the applicant's wife.   The applicant had been questioned in another room, he had sometimes been there to put questions to the applicant.   He had learnt about the injuries sustained by the applicant in the media.   He himself had not beaten or kicked the applicant, nor seen that his colleagues had done so.   The police officers had not drunk alcohol in the course of the interrogations.   Moreover, though working hard, they had always taken a break at least between midnight and 7 a.m.   25.   Police Officer G. explained that he had been leading the particular work unit since 1983, Police Officer M. had been in this unit for two years, Police Officer F. for one year and Police Officer T. for five years.   He had been present at times at the interrogations of both the applicant and his wife.   He had not touched the applicant or pulled his moustache, though he remembered that the applicant had a peculiar moustache.   At the relevant time, they had worked overtime, but there had not been any particular pressure upon them.   He had been informed at that time that the applicant had stumbled in the course of getting out of a police car, Police Officer M. or F. had informed him of this.   He had not known about any injuries.   He had instructed his colleagues to draft a report on the incident.   There had been no alcohol in the room where the interrogations had taken place.   26.   According to Police Officer F., who had joined the work unit in April 1988, Police Officer M. had conducted the questioning of the applicant in the presence of always two or three colleagues.   Upon questioning, he confirmed that a legally qualified person, namely a superior, had been present for a short time at one of the interrogations.   No alcohol had been drunk in the course of the questioning.   They had worked overtime, but there had been no particular pressure.   F., stating that he had been present at most the questioning, denied that the applicant had been bodily assaulted.   F. continued that on 1 June 1988 he had, together with Police Officer M., taken the applicant to have his voice compared.   F. had driven and M. had been at the rear with the applicant who had been hand-cuffed with his hands in front of his body.   The applicant had probably stepped out of the rear left door.   F. indicated that he had not seen the applicant stumble, but heard something like it.   When he had turned around, he had seen M. already holding the applicant.   The applicant had said that he was not hurt.   The next day the applicant had mentioned the bruise on his upper arm.   One of them had informed Police Officer G. about the bruise, and G. had advised them to draft a report on the incident.   27.   Police Officer M. stated that he had joined the work unit of Police Officer G. in May 1988.   He had at the time interrogated the applicant, but he had certainly not been alone: in order to avoid unfounded allegations, other colleagues had been present for at least part of the time.   M. denied having used violence against the applicant, and supposed that the applicant and his wife, for unknown reasons, wanted to take revenge on them.   As to the course of the interrogations, M. specified that at the beginning the applicant had denied any involvement in the offences at issue; only in the further course of questioning had he given the decisive hint as to the identity of the actual culprit.   As regards the injuries sustained by the applicant, M. confirmed his statements in his report of 1 June 1988. During the drive, he had been sitting next to the applicant, who had been hand-cuffed with his hands in front of his body, in the rear of the police car.   M. continued that he had opened the door on the applicant's side from the outside.   The applicant had stumbled while getting out and fallen, knocking his right arm against the doorframe. M. had only been able to stop him falling.   The applicant had said that he was all right.   Only the next day had he mentioned a bruise on his right upper arm.   M. could not remember any other injuries or a footprint on the applicant's trousers.   M. clarified that he had written the report concerning the accident on 2 June, but had put the date of the incident.   M. further confirmed that a superior, possibly presented as a legally qualified person, had shortly been present at one of the interrogations.   M. also indicated that he worked normally 60 to 70 hours overtime per month; at the relevant time he had possibly done 80 to 90 hours overtime.   Moreover, they had not consumed any kind of alcohol during their work.   28.   On 13 October 1989 the Vienna District Court conducted the trial of Police Officers M., T. and G. on charges of bodily assault (Körperverletzung).   29.   The Vienna District Court heard the accused and several witnesses, namely the applicant and his wife, Police Officer F., Police Officer P., Chief of the three units at the Vienna Federal Police Authority which were investigating drug offences, as well as six further witnesses, two of them physicians who had seen the applicant's injuries and whom he had told about the alleged ill-treatment.   30.   Police Officer M. referred to his earlier statements.   Upon questioning, he explained that due to information given to him, the investigations concerning the case in question had been transferred from another work unit at the Vienna Federal Police Authority. Following their arrest, the applicant and his wife had been brought to the Police Authority.   Questioned about the further development of matters regarding the applicant, Police Officer M. stated that the applicant's identity had been established and he had been questioned about the offences concerned.   M. confirmed that Police Officer F. had been present in the course of the interrogation.   However, he could not remember whether Police Officers G. and T. had been also there.   The applicant had claimed to be innocent, and even claimed that he had nothing to do with drugs and in particular opium.   He had complained that the police was again creating difficulties.   Moreover, the applicant had repeatedly indicated that he would cause troubles and ridicule them.   Police Officer M. then described the events when the applicant had been taken out of the building of the Police Authority: The applicant had been hand-cuffed with his hands in front of his body, he had been sitting in the rear of the police car.   Upon arrival, M. had opened the door where the child lock had been in position as a precautionary measure.   When getting out of the car, the applicant had lost his balance, had fallen and hit his right arm against the door frame.   He had shown his injury, a round bruise, but had not wanted to see a doctor.   Upon further questioning by the Public Prosecutor, M. stated that, upon the arrest, a piece of hashish had been found upon the applicant, nothing upon his wife.   However, police informers had told them that the applicant had been dealing with heroin and had been selling washing powder to drug addicts.   This information had not been recorded as the informers were not prepared to make a statement for the record.   Upon further questioning, M. indicated that, having first denied any relationship to one of the victims, the applicant and his wife had later admitted a close relationship.   31.   Police Officer T. first made some more general remarks about the organisation and distribution of work between the three units dealing with drug offences.   He remembered that he had been present at the arrest of the applicant and his wife and that he had interrogated the applicant's wife.   Though he had not assisted in the questioning of the applicant in the adjoining office, he had occasionally come to put questions to the applicant.   They had mainly inquired about discrepancies in the spouses' statements about their alibi.   He had learnt about the injury sustained by the applicant only after his release.   32.   Police Officer G., the head of the work unit concerned, also explained that following information obtained by Police Officer M. on the particular case, it had been transferred from another work unit which had initially conducted the investigations.   He had seen the applicant for the first time during the interrogation in the afternoon. Together with Police Officer T. he had questioned the applicant's wife, but also the applicant in order to verify their alibi, as there had been discrepancies in their statements.   As regards the applicant's injury, he remembered that either Police Officer M. or Police Officer F. had informed him about the incident in the course of the escorted visit.   He had instructed them to draft a report.   Being asked in detail about the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, G. stated that it appeared practically impossible to pull the applicant around by his moustache without leaving injuries to his face.   33.   The applicant, heard as a witness, stated that, following his arrest in the late morning, he had first been questioned in the late afternoon by Police Officers M. and F., in particular about his alibi. Violence had been used, G. had pulled him around the room by his moustache, and he had been slightly hit on his head.   In the afternoon of the second day, he had again been interrogated, and because he had refused to admit that he had given drugs to the two persons who had subsequently died, he had been beaten every half hour.   He had also been kicked while lying on the floor, and had therefore not seen the persons who had kicked him.   Police Officer M. had hit him on the upper arm and kicked him.   On one occasion, a legally qualified person had been present who had not stopped the beatings.   Police Officers from another group had also been present; there had been continual changes. In between, he had been escorted to have his voice compared. Questioned about the escorted visit, the applicant denied that he had stumbled while getting out of the car.   He also confirmed that Police Officer F. had not hurt him.   34.   The applicant continued that he had been released on 2 June 1988 at the same time as his wife; they had gone home where he had met his brother and a psychologist Tr., with whom he was acquainted.   He had only later noticed that a footprint on his trousers was consistent with an injury to his leg.   After having taken a shower and changed clothes, he had met the journalist B.   Subsequently he had gone to the hospital. Two fingers of his right hand had been numb.   On the next day he had got a stiff neck, he had vomited.   The applicant stated that he had not eaten for two days and that he had a nervous stomach.   He further stated that he had health problems due to the fact that M. had pulled him by the hair off a chair and onto the floor.   35.   The applicant's wife stated that she had been questioned by Police Officer T. , subsequently cross-examined by four persons and later by Police Officers M. and F.   She had been released at the same time as her husband who had told her immediately that he had been hit and beaten and pulled by his moustache and hair.   She had seen the bruises mentioned by him, and also the shoe-print on his trousers.   Her husband had said that Police Officer M. had caused the injuries.   Her husband had complained about pain in the neck, headache, and later a feeling of numbness in his right hand.   36.   Police Officer F. was next heard as a witness.   He stated that following a tip-off about who had given the deceased the drugs the case had been transferred to their work unit.   Because of the rivalry existing between the units, information of such kind would not be   passed on.   Upon his arrest, the applicant had said that he would cause difficulties.   However, during his interrogation, the applicant had been quite calm.   F. denied having seen that the applicant had been hit.   As regards the escorted drive, F. indicated that he had parked the police car rather close to another car.   Police Officer M. had opened the door for the applicant.   According to F., there had been a noise and, turning around, he had seen that M. was holding the applicant.   F. confirmed that Police Officer G. had advised them to draft a report on the incident.   37.   The applicant's doctor S. confirmed that he had examined the applicant who had been undressed.   The applicant had several haematomas, inter alia the largest, on his right upper arm.   S. had the impression that the applicant had either bumped against something or had been hit.   S. excluded that a fall against a doorframe could have caused these haematomas.   The applicant had not indicated that he had been hit by the police.   S. had not ascertained injuries to the legs, but there were other bruises and the applicant had complained about vomiting and headache.   The applicant had not had a concussion but, as a consequence of a cervical syndrome, had been unable to turn his head. Upon questioning, S. stated that such a cervical syndrome could have several causes, inter alia, a cold or the fact that somebody had been several times pulled by his hair.   However, the cause could not be objectively established.   38.   The psychologist Tr., who had seen the applicant after his release, confirmed that the applicant had told him about his arrest and detention and about having been hit and maltreated by the police, in particular one police officer.   Tr. further said that he had not looked for any injuries.   He also stated that he had not for a moment had the impression that the applicant had made up his story.   39.   The Court next heard Mr. P., the Head of the Section - with three work units - at the Vienna Federal Police Authority, which had been responsible for the investigations in the opium poisoning cases.   P. first explained the organisation and distribution of work between the units and, in this context, excluded rivalry between the units. Moreover, P. stated that he had been present at the questioning of the applicant by Police Officers M. and F. for about ten minutes.   P. remembered that he had advised the applicant that a confession could result in the court passing a more lenient sentence.   Being confronted with the applicant's allegations, P. denied that the applicant had been tortured or beaten; rather, the atmosphere had been friendly.   40.   The applicant's sister-in-law H. described the state of the applicant and his wife following the release from detention.   H. confirmed in particular that she had seen the bruise on his right upper arm and that the applicant had told her that he had been pulled around by his hair, thrown to the floor, punched and that two or three police officers had been present most of the time, the most brutal one having been the Police Officer M.   She could not remember having seen a shoe- print on the applicant's trousers.   41.   The applicant's brother R. stated that when they had met at the applicant's apartment the applicant had told him that he had been subjected to physical violence while in detention, namely that he had been beaten, kicked and pulled by the hair to the ground.   R. had seen several bruises on the applicant's body, and a shoe-print on the applicant's trousers.   The applicant had also told him that he had problems with his stomach and had vomited.   42.   The applicant's sister-in-law H. and his brother R. were subsequently questioned about whether the applicant had mentioned an accident in the course of an escorted visit.   H. stated that the applicant had mentioned that one of the police officers had told him that this was the cause of his injuries.   R. had not heard about this.   43.   The reporter B. had been informed by the applicant's sister-in- law H. about the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment in the course of his police detention.   B. had thereupon arranged by phone a meeting with the applicant.   B. had been shown several injuries, haematomas on the applicant's right arm, the largest on the outside, one or two smaller on the inside.   B. had photographed them the next day for the purposes of a story in a magazine.   Upon questioning, B. indicated that the applicant had told him that his voice had been compared, but not that he had fallen out of the police car.   44.   B. then turned to read from the notes which he had made in the course of the conversation with the applicant at the time according to which the applicant had given the following account: the head of the group had pulled him by the beard and hit him on the head with the flat of his hand; during the first interrogations he had been insulted, but not yet been hit.   Following the escorted visit to the Acoustics Research Institute, the police officers had shaken him by the feet and hands and beaten him for about twenty minutes.   There had been bottles of wine in the office and the police officers had been smelling of alcohol.   Police Officer F. had behaved correctly and not hit him, Police Officer M. had hit him the most.   They had also threatened to place his children at a children's home.   Only at the last interrogation in the morning before his release, all police officers, including M., had been friendly and polite.   45.   B. also indicated that he had seen a footprint on the applicant's trousers which appeared to have been dragged over the floor.   B. continued that he had verified that the shoe-print coincided with a haematoma on the applicant's leg below his knee.   Upon questioning, B. stated that he did not have the impression that the applicant had been acting.   46.   The photographer L., a colleague of the journalist B., confirmed that he had photographed the injuries suffered by the applicant, namely a severe bruising on his right upper arm.   He also remembered injuries to the applicant's legs.   He had not taken photographs of the smaller injuries as they would not have been visible.   47.   At the close of the trial, the District Court convicted Police Officer M. of bodily assault and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment on probation.   He was ordered to pay the applicant AS 1,000.   The two other Police Officers T. and G. were acquitted.   48.   The Vienna District Court found M. guilty of having beaten and kicked the applicant and having pulled his hair on 1 June 1988 and thereby caused several haematomas at his right upper arm as well as at his thigh and also a cervical syndrome.   49.   In the reasons of its judgment, the District Court stated that the three accused were members of one of three units of the Vienna Federal Police Authority competent for drug offences; Police Officer G. was the head of this unit.   The District Court then described the main course of the criminal investigations concerning two cases of death due to opium poisoning, which were first conducted by another unit at the Federal Police Authority, and later transferred to the unit the accused were working in.   Due to the publicity of the two cases of death, their unit had been under a particular pressure to complete the inquiries, and had therefore worked many hours of overtime.   50.   The District Court stated that both the applicant and his wife had been charged by third persons with having sold heroin to one of the two persons who had died.   Inquiries were started against the applicant and his wife, their apartment was searched.   On 31 May 1988 they were arrested and questioned by Police Officer M. in the presence of the witness F., the co-accused G. and other police officers.   They were insulted by the police officers, except by F.   Police Officer G. grasped the applicant's moustache and pulled him through the room, M. also beat him.   The applicant was again questioned by M. on 1 June 1988.   In order to obtain a confession, M. had grasped and shaken the applicant's hair, thrown his head forward and backward, beaten him with his fist on his right upper arm, thrown him to the ground and kicked him.   Other officers, whom the applicant could not recognise, had then also kicked him.   51.   The District Court established the facts on the basis of the applicant's allegations as confirmed in particular by one of the witnesses, namely the journalist, whom he had already on 2 June 1988 told in detail about the events and who had taken notes.   Furthermore, on the occasion of a confrontation with various persons one year after the events, the applicant had immediately recognised M. and other participants in his questioning.   52.   The District Court found that the applicant's statements were credible and refuted the partly incoherent allegations of the accused M. and other police officers who mainly tried to discredit the applicant.   The defence of the accused M. that the injuries had been caused accidentally was not credible.   His version according to which the applicant, who had been brought for a test, had climbed out of the police car in a crowded car park and fallen onto the door frame and then to the ground, while M. had attempted to hold him, was unlikely and did not correspond to the applicant's injuries.   53.   Finally, the District Court found that it had not been proven that the two other accused had caused any of the applicant's injuries.   54.   Police Officer M. lodged an appeal (Berufung) with the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) against his conviction.   55.   At the hearing on 2 March 1990 the Vienna Regional Court ordered the further taking of evidence, namely the hearing of the accused Police Officer M. and of the applicant, and the preparation of a forensic expert opinion by the Institute for Forensic Medicine of the Vienna University on the cause of the applicant's injuries.   56.   Dr. M., a senior physician at the Vienna Institute for Forensic Medicine delivered the expert opinion on 23 July 1990.   57.   According to the opinion the applicant had stated at the Institute on 7 June 1990 that in the course of the police questioning he had been pulled by his twirled moustache, struck on the top of his head, pulled by his hair, and had been punched by Police Officer M. on   the outside of his right upper arm; moreover, he had a bruising on his right lower leg coinciding with the mark of a shoe-print on his trousers; his ribs and upper body had also been aching.   The applicant had further stated that following his release he had vomited, he had had a temperature for some days and a diarrhoea, further a stiff neck and a strange feeling in some fingers.   As to the bruises, the applicant had specified that, apart from the large bruise on the outside of his upper right arm, he had seen three or four bruises of the size of a finger-tip on the inside of his upper right arm and on the outside of his right lower leg.   58.   The opinion continued with a description of the reconstruction of the incident during the escorted visit as recounted by police Officer M.   It was noted that the applicant was 186 cm tall and probably 95 kg in weight at the time of the incident.   While the applicant expressed doubts, Police Officer M. had been certain that the police car brought along to the reconstruction had been the one used on the visit concerned.   The expert stated that, with regard to the reconstruction carried out, there had been no considerable differences between the two types of car.   He found that the bruising to the outside of the applicant's right upper arm and further injuries had to be interpreted as non-specific injuries and only permitted the conclusion that this area of the body had either suffered a dull blow or struck against a blunt edge.   There was no certainty from the medical point of view as to the cause: neither the infliction of maltreatment, blows to the upper arm and a kick in the knee area, nor a bump against the car door could be excluded.   The expert added that the version advanced by Police Officer M. could only explain one of several injuries that might have been sustained.   59.   On 14 September 1990, at the hearing before the Vienna Regional Court, the expert opinion was read out, together with a statement by the prison to the Police Authority that the applicant had been seen by a prison doctor only in the early morning of 1 June 1988.   60.   Police Officer M. was again questioned on the accusations against him, brought both by the applicant and his wife.   M. expressed the view that the applicant's wife had suffered from the fact of her detention as such and had, together with her husband, concentrated upon M. against whom to bring their accusations.   M. remembered that upon his arrest the applicant had threatened to cause difficulties.   At a later stage, when his superior P. had been present, there had, as usual, been a rather calm atmosphere.   At the questioning on 2 June 1988, the applicant had shown him the bruising on his right upper arm, but had not wanted to see a physician.   M. also repeated his version of the incident upon the applicant's escorted visit.   61.   The applicant was questioned about his professional training and his past occupations, his financial situation, furthermore about his contacts with drugs.   Questioned about the alleged escalation of the interrogation, the applicant stated that the police officers had wished to find a culprit by any means.   As regards the first questioning on 31 May 1988, he stated that Police Officer G. had disliked one of his answers and, therefore, pulled him by his moustache out of the chair and later put him down again.   As he had not resisted, his moustache had not been torn off.   Police Officer M. had already hit him at that stage, however, not into his face; throughout the beating M. had attempted to avoid marks as far as possible.   The applicant further stated that he had not suffered any accidental incident upon his escorted visit, and he insisted that at the time he had been driven in a two-door car, whereas the reconstruction had been done with a four- door car.   The applicant was subsequently questioned in detail about the course of the maltreatment to which he had allegedly been subjected.   He repeated his earlier statements that M. had mainly beaten and kicked him and pulled him by the hair, though, when lying on the floor, he had the impression of being kicked by more than one person.   Questioned about the varying statements in the course of the proceedings as to the shoe-print, the applicant insisted that the haematoma had been on his lower leg underneath his knee, so had the shoe-print been on his trousers.   He could not say with certainty that M. had kicked him, causing this particular haematoma.   The applicant also said that he had chosen counsel to represent him in this matter only after having gathered information.   The reporter of the public broadcast had coincidentally been present in a pub where he had told friends about the incidents.   62.   Subsequently, the forensic expert further explained his written expert opinion.   63.   At the close of the hearing of 14 September 1990, the Vienna Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment of 13 October 1989 and acquitted M.   As regards his compensation claims, the applicant was referred to the civil courts, in accordance with S. 366 para. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   64.   With regard to the applicant's credibility, the Regional Court noted that on 6 October 1988 the Vienna District Court had convicted him of drug trafficking.   For several years the applicant had been unemployed, and he was living with two minor children on his wife's earnings and social security benefits.   As consumer of drugs and for various private purposes, he had a considerable need of money.   65.   As regards the relevant events, the Regional Court noted that, according to the findings of the District Court which were solely based on the applicant's account, Police Officer M. had already insulted and beaten him, without, however, causing any injuries.   On the next day, the questioning had escalated, the applicant's wife had been insulted and threatened, and he himself had also been insulted, hit on his head and been kicked.   In this respect, the Regional Court also referred to the submissions of the applicant and his wife in proceedings which they had meanwhile instituted before the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs- gerichtshof).   The District Court had assumed that the public pressure to solve the case of murder in question had been the reason for such escalation.   The applicant, upon detailed questioning at the hearing before the Regional Court, could not explain the escalation in question, as he had acted perfectly correctly.   According to the applicant's further accusations, M. had repeatedly pulled him by his hair to the floor, and had ill-treated and kicked him together with other police officers.   Had not Police Officer F. calmed M. down, he could have been killed by M.   He had also had the impression that the police officers had taken drugs.   The statements of the applicant's wife were on the same lines.   66.   This account of events was contradicted by the statements of Police Officer M. and also of Police Officer F. whom the applicant himself had called correct in his behaviour.   According to the statements of the Police Officers, the applicant had threatened that he would create difficulties and ridicule them.   67.   The Regional Court considered that neither the applicant's nor his wife's statements could logically explain the escalation of the questioning resulting in allegedly criminal behaviour.   Furthermore, the identity of the other police officers who had allegedly kicked him remained unclear.   In this respect, the Regional Court noted in particular the applicant's allegations that only four police officers had been present and also conducted the questioning of his wife, that he himself had exonerated Police Officers T. and G. and never reproached Police Officer F.   68.   Moreover, the Regional Court considered that the applicant's summary of events did not correspond to his injuries, which in any way varied in the applicant's submissions and the statements of witnesses. Had his head been hit repeatedly and had he been kicked, numerous injuries, in particular in his face, were to be expected.   His further submission, according to which he had been beaten in such a manner as to leave few signs, would suggest a careful planning on the part of the accused, whereas the applicant recounted that they had lost any self- control in their intention to obtain a confession.   69.   As regards haematomas on the applicant's right upper arm, the Regional Court, having regard to the opinion of the forensic expert, found that the explanation given by the accused M., as confirmed by Police Officer F., namely an accident on the occasion of the applicant's transport in a police car, could not be excluded.   70.   The Regional Court, having regard to the forensic expert opinion, further considered that the symptoms, namely pain in the neck, numbness of his fingers and, a week later, stiffness of his neck, moreover diarrhoea, which the applicant's physician viewed as cervical syndrome suggesting ill-treatment, could also have resulted from a general infection.   The Regional Court noted in this respect that the applicant had previously had stomach problems and had only drunk water in the course of his detention.   71.   The Regional Court rejected the applicant's requests to take further evidence, on the ground that these requests related to the irrelevant question whether or not particular witnesses had considered his statements credible.   72.   The Regional Court finally noted that the applicant had not laid information against the police officers concerned, but raised charges in public in the context of a broadcast.   There were altogether serious reasons not to trust his allegations.   73.   The Regional Court concluded that, on balance, the version of the accused could not be refuted, nor had at least parts of the applicant's allegations been proven with the certainty necessary for a criminal conviction.   74.   On 26 November 1990 the Constitutional Court, upon the applicant's complaint under S. 144 of the Federal Constitution (Bundes- verfassungsgesetz), held that his arre