CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 juin 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s63D113AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.45pt } .s4D28B2E2 { width:24pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9FD0955A { width:29.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB11B45BD { width:19.32pt; display:inline-block } .sD4B3ABEC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5BA4079A { width:22.66pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s936EB0A2 { width:17.01pt; display:inline-block } .s42715068 { width:268.5pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .sFBBFC6C9 { width:290.51pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION   DECISION   AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF   Application no. 38361/97 by Assya ANGUELOVA against Bulgaria     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 June 2000 as a Chamber composed of     Mr   G. Ress, President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   V. Butkevych,   Mrs   N. Vajić,   Mr   J. Hedigan,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova, judges , and   Mr   V. Berger, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 September 1997 and registered on 30 October 1997,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS   The applicant is a Bulgarian national, born in 1959 and living in Razgrad.   She is represented before the Court by Mr Yonko Grozev, a lawyer practising in Sofia.   A.   Particular circumstances of the case     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.     On 29 January 1996 the applicant’s son, Anguel Zabchekov, aged 17, died after having spent several hours in police custody in Razgrad following his arrest for attempted theft. The ensuing investigations conducted by the prosecution authorities ended with the conclusion that the death must have been caused by an accidental injury which pre-dated Mr   Zabchekov’s arrest. The applicant contests this conclusion.   1.   Evidence in respect of Mr Zabchekov’s personal circumstances     Mr Zabchekov was illiterate and did not attend school at the relevant time. He had four siblings. His parents were unemployed.     Mr Zabchekov had a record at the Juvenile Offenders Pedagogic Centre (Детска педагогическа стая) and at the police in Razgrad on account of alleged numerous thefts.     A note dated 3 July 1995, issued by the Juvenile Centre and addressed to the police in Razgrad, stated that Mr Zabchekov, who at that time was 16 years old, had a speech defect and was mentally retarded and that, according to his mother(the applicant), was mentally ill. Another note, dated 18 November 1995, reiterated these findings, and added that Mr   Zabchekov’s mother demonstrated a tendency to exculpate her son.     On 7 November 1995 the applicant was questioned by an investigator (следовател) in Razgrad in the framework of a criminal investigation into thefts allegedly committed by her son. She stated, inter alia , that her son had always been stammering. He had been ill since the age of three. In particular he had moments when he could not breath and his skin was becoming bluish. Also, his eyes were often swollen and he was fainting in moments of sudden fear. She further explained that Mr Zabchekov had been seen by doctors who had stated that he had problems with his vertebral column. The applicant further mentioned the name of a Dr Miceva who had all documents concerning Mr Zabchekov’s examinations.     On 14 December 1995 Mr Zabchikov was questioned in the framework of criminal proceedings concerning thefts. Asked about his health he stated that he was susceptible to him to faint and to have pain in his head and eyes. On 4 January 1996 an investigator from the District Investigation Service (районна следствена служба) in Razgrad opened criminal proceedings against Mr Zabchekov and other persons on charges of theft. On 15 January 1996 Mr Zabchekov was questioned. He stated, inter alia, that he has been treated by Dr   Miceva, a psychiatrist, and that he was taking medicines. Mr Zabchekov’s lawyer requested a psychiatric examination. Mr Zabchekov was invited to an examination scheduled for 30   January 1996.   2.   Evidence about the whereabouts of Mr Zabchekov on 28 January 1996     According to the testimony of several witnesses Mr Zabchekov spent part of the day on 28 January 1996 doing some physical work for a neighbour and received in exchange food and a bottle of wine. In the evening he was home a while and then went out with his sister, her boyfriend and a Mr M., another friend of his. He then spent most of the evening in their company at a local bar. He consumed alcohol. At about 10.30 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. Mr   Zabchekov’s sister and her boyfriend left the bar, leaving him there with Mr M. The bar closed shortly thereafter. Mr M. testified that he had then left the bar with Mr Zabchekov and that they had parted at the door, Mr M. returning home. All witnesses who have been questioned in respect of those events, the owner of the bar, the person for whom Mr   Zabchekov worked that day, his sister and her boyfriend, and Mr Zabchekov’s father, who was at home when his son dropped in on his way to the bar, were unanimous that he had been in good health, that he had no visible injuries on his body, that he had not been involved in any quarrel or fight, and that he had consumed alcohol.   3.   The chase on Beli Lom Street and Mr Zabchekov’s apprehension     At about midnight or 0.15 a.m. on 29 January 1996 a Ms I.A.,, who was living in an apartment block at Beli Lom Street, noticed from her balcony a man on a parking lot in front of the building. The man was hanging around the parked cars, bending and “doing something”. Having noticed that the presumed thief, who was later identified as Mr   Zabchekov, had approached the car of one of her neighbours, Ms. I.A. telephoned the owner of the car, Ms I.M. The two women then continued observing from their balconies and shouted at Mr Zabchekov to ask him what he was doing. At that moment sergeant Mutafov (“C”), a police officer who was not on duty that day, and a young man (“D”), both of them also living in the same apartment building, were passing on the street. They were alerted by their neighbours. Mr Zabchekov then attempted to run away, and C. ran after him.     It transpires from the testimony of the witnesses that until the moment when Mr   Zabchekov and C., who was chasing him, turned around the corner of the building, they could be seen by D., who remained on the street in front of the building, and by the two persons who watched from their balconies overlooking the street. The chase apparently continued for a minute or two. Then D. and his two neighbours saw C. appearing from around the corner, holding Mr Zabchekov and leading him back to the entrance of the building. The witnesses indicated that there was snow on the ground.     C. testified later that when he was running Mr Zabchekov had slipped and fallen down at the corner of the building, stood up and ran quickly again. This was confirmed by Ms I.A. and Ms I.M., the two persons who had been watching from their balconies. They clarified that Mr Zabchekov had fallen at the corner, on a patch covered by grass. D., who remained on the street and also observed the scene, stated that the first falling of Mr   Zabchekov which he had seen had been after his apprehension. He maintained this testimony at a confrontation with the other witnesses.     C. was the only witness of the events between the moment when Mr Zabchekov and he had turned around the corner and the moment when they had reappeared in front of the building at Beli Lom Street. C. stated that Mr Zabchekov had slipped and fallen down for a second time several meters after the corner of the building. C. maintained that at that time he had been at a distance of about ten meters behind Mr Zabchekov. C. further stated that Mr   Zabchekov had slipped and fallen for a third time when he had reached another apartment building. As a result C. could approach closely and, at a moment when Mr Zabchekov was apparently again on his feet and running, C. tripped him, Mr Zabchekov fell on the ground and C. pounced on him. C. then pulled Mr Zabchikov to stand up, held him by the arm and led him back. Asked to specify on what part of his body was Mr Zabchekov falling, C.   testified that he had been falling on his face. C. could not remember whether Mr   Zabchekov had succeeded to protect his face with his hands. C. also stated that he had had difficulties to apprehend Mr Zabchekov because of an injury in his right leg, and also because his shoe laces had been untied.     Sergeant Dimitrov (“G.”), one of the police officers who arrived later, testified as follows: “When we arrived on the spot [C.] told us that while he had been trying to arrest Mr   Zabchekov the latter had been running and falling two to three times and, had he not been falling, C. would not have been able to catch up with him.”   4.   Events between Mr Zabchekov’s apprehension and the arrival of the police     The witnesses were unanimous that when C. had been leading Mr Zabchekov back to the entrance of the apartment building, the latter had slipped and fallen. There were discrepancies as to how precisely that had happened. Ms I.M., who observed the scene from her balcony, stated that when C. and Mr Zabchekov had reappeared from behind the corner of the building, the latter had slipped, fallen and rolled. D. stated, however, that Mr Zabchekov had slipped on his leg and had fallen on his buttocks. C. maintained that Mr Zabchekov had in fact only slipped but had not fallen, as he had been holding him.     C. stated in his testimony that he had not hit Mr Zabchekov and had not seen anyone hitting him. The same was confirmed by Ms I.A. and Ms I.M.. The latter, who was also the owner of one of the cars in the parking, clarified that she had indeed seen Mr Zabchekov rolling on the ground when C. was leading him after the chase, but that she had not seen anyone kicking him or beating him. She added that she had not heard Mr Zabchekov groaning. From her balcony she had heard him saying: “Please release me, I am drunk.” D.’s testimony did not mention anything on the question whether he had seen anyone hitting Mr   Zabchekov.     C. also stated that when he had been in close contact with Mr Zabchekov after his apprehension he had not noticed any trace of blood or grazing on his face. C. specified that Mr Zabchekov’s hair had covered part of his forehead and that the colour of his face had been dark. D. stated that he had not noticed any blood or grazing on Mr Zabchekov’s face. He added that the latter smelled alcohol and lisped something to himself.     Having apprehended Mr Zabchekov, C. asked Ms I.M. to call the police which she did at about 0.20 a.m. She then remained inside her apartment and did not witness the events thereafter.     C., D. and Mr Zabchekov stayed in the entrance of the apartment building and waited for the coming of the police. None of the testimonies indicates what happened in the interval between the moment when C., D. and Mr Zabchekov came to the entrance of the apartment building and the arrival of the police. It appears that they were waiting for about 10 minutes. According to the witnesses, the police arrived “after a while, quite shortly”. It also appears that Ms I.A., who stayed on her balcony, did not have a view of the entrance to the building where C., D. and Mr Zabchekov had been waiting.     The testimony of the four witnesses contains few details as to whether there had been some verbal communication between Mr Zabchekov and any of them before the arrival of the police. Some of the witnesses stated that Mr Zabchekov had been lisping something hardly understandable. According to Ms I.M., who observed from her balcony, Mr Zabchekov repeated several times that he was drunk. Ms I.A., Ms. I.M. and C. stated that when Mr   Zabchekov had fallen on the ground after his apprehension C. had told him: “Get up, I won’t drag you.” D. stated that he had not heard such words having been pronounced. None of the testimonies indicates whether C. or D. spoke with Mr Zabchekov during the time when they were alone with him at the entrance of the apartment building.     In his testimony given on 29 January 1996, C. stated that after the departure of the police together with Mr Zabchekov he had found a wrench on the spot where D., Mr   Zabchekov and himself had been waiting for the arrival of the police. C. considered that it had belonged to Mr Zabchekov as it was of the size appropriate for removing a car battery. C.   stated in his testimony that he had kept the wrench and had submitted it to the investigator in the morning of 29 January 1996 when he had been called to report to the police station, after the death of Mr Zabchekov. However, in his testimony taken on 31   January 1996 sergeant Atanassov (“H”), who was on duty at the police station when Mr Zabchekov was brought there, stated that he had noticed the wrench on a desk at the police station not later than 1.30   a.m., shortly after the arrival of Mr Zabchekov at the police station. At a confrontation with the other police officers which took place on 26   April 1996, H. recalled that in fact he had seen the wrench in the morning, after its submission by C.   5.   The arrival of the police at Beli Lom Street     Upon the telephone call received at the local police station a patrol car with two police officers, sergeants Penchev (“A”) and Kolev (“B”), was immediately dispatched to the address. When they arrived they saw C. and Mr Zabchekov at the entrance of the apartment block. D. was also standing around.     A. recognised Mr Zabchekov, whom he knew as a suspect in several pending theft investigations, and addressed him by name. He handcuffed him. According to his testimony and the testimony of some of the other police officers, A. warned the others to be careful with Mr Zabchekov as the latter had “an illness related to his head”.     Another police car, with three police officers, sergeants Ignatov (“E”), Georgiev (“F”) and Dimitrov (“G”), arrived shortly thereafter. The officers then proceeded to a search in the area for evidence of Mr Zabchekov’s attempt to break into cars. At some point A. led Mr   Zabchekov to one of the cars which appeared to have been opened and asked him whether he had been trying to steal. Mr Zabchekov allegedly denied this. He was then handcuffed to a small tree, whereupon the police officers continued to search the area. Having identified two cars which had been opened, the police officers rang at the door bell of their owners. One of the owners was not found. The owner of a car with license plate 1117 came out and went to see the damage done to his car. At that time Mr Zabchekov remained handcuffed to the tree.     The witnesses who gave details about the events between the arrival of the police and their departure with Mr Zabchekov were only the police officers on duty. Ms. I.A., and D.   only stated that the police officers had searched the area. C. stated that he had gone to alert the owners of the cars. He had only seen that at a certain point Mr Zabchekov had been with the police officers at the parking lot, where his colleagues had been comparing the soles of Mr Zabchekov’s shoes with traces visible on the snow. The owner of the car with license plate 1117 was questioned by the police officer who visited the site at about 11 a.m. on 29   January 1996 (see below), but only in respect of the damage caused to his car. He was never asked whether he had seen Mr Zabchekov.     According to some of the police officers, at a certain point, when they were searching the area, they noticed Mr Zabchekov lying or sitting on the ground. A. stated that thereupon he had released Mr Zabchekov from the tree, seated him on the back seat of the police car and handcuffed both his hands. All police officers who were present at Beli Lom Street stated that at that time they had not noticed any trace of injury on Mr Zabchekov’s face. Some of them stated that he had been apparently drunk, and that he had been lisping and had not been communicative.   6.   Events after Mr Zabchekov’s arrival at the police station     At about 0.50 a.m. Mr Zabchekov was taken to the police station by A. and B.     The sergeant on duty, H., testified that he had seen A. and B. entering, Mr Zabchekov walking between them. The latter’s hands were handcuffed behind his back. A. and B. were holding him by the arms and leading him in. Mr Zabchekov was put in room no. 1 at the police station and his hands released from the handcuffs. He was not handcuffed again at any later moment.     A written order for Mr Zabchekov’s detention was not issued.     According to the testimony of A., B. and H., Mr Zabchekov stayed in the room with B. and H., while A. went to report to the officer on duty, colonel Iordanov (“I.”). H. further testified that at that moment he had noticed a bruise on Mr Zabchekov’s eyebrow. A. and B. did not mention any injury. H. also stated that Mr Zabchekov’s clothes were wet. None of the police officers mentioned in his testimony whether they had noticed that Mr Zabchekov’s wrists had been injured. They all noticed that Mr Zabchekov was drunk and was lisping.     Colonel I. testified that A. had reported to him the bringing of Mr Zabchekov to the police station and had said that the arrested person had been identified, but had been too drunk for questioning. Colonel I. did not see Mr Zabchekov until about 4.30 a.m. According to the testimony of the police sergeants, colonel I. ordered that Mr Zabchekov be seated in the hall-way and be left to sober up. A. then instructed H. to call over the radio whenever Mr   Zabchekov would be able to communicate. According to all witnesses A. and B. left the police station and returned to their patrol duties. The exact time of their leaving the police station was not mentioned in their testimony.     H. testified that Mr Zabchekov had fallen asleep soon thereafter, on a chair in the hall ‑ way. He had been snoring. At about 3.00 a.m. H. noticed that Mr Zabchekov was lying on the floor and sleeping. H. woke him up and seated him back on the chair, considering that he could catch a cold. H. further testified that at about 3.50 a.m. he had again gone to see Mr   Zabchekov who had been sitting on the chair, sleeping and shivering. H. decided to move him back to room no. 1 where it was warmer. He woke him up and helped him enter the room. Mr Zabchekov was seated again but shortly thereafter slipped from the chair. H.   noticed that he was breathing heavily. H. stated that he had thereupon contacted sergeant Dontchev (“J.”), and had told him “to call sergeant [A.] or an ambulance”.     J. testified that, in accordance with the duty schedule, he had slept at the premises of the police station until 2 a.m. on 29 January 1996 when he had been awakened for duty. At that time he had not been informed that there had been a person in detention. The testimony of J. did not mention whether between 2 a.m. and 3.50 a.m. he had passed through the hallway of the police station where at that time, according to H., Mr Zabchekov had been sleeping on a chair. J. testified that it had not been before 3.50 a.m., when H. had reported that Mr Zabchekov had been displaying signs of deteriorating health, that J. had become aware of the latter’s presence. J. also testified that he had then noticed injuries on Mr   Zabchekov’s forehead. J. had then called A. and B. by radio.     Approximately at the same time H. or J. alerted colonel I., the officer on duty, who then went to see Mr Zabchekov. I. testified that at that moment he had noticed injuries on the latter’s face.     A. and B. testified that at 4.30 a.m. they had been contacted by radio and had been told that Mr Zabchekov’s condition had rapidly deteriorated. Arriving at the police station the sergeants saw Mr Zabchekov lying on the ground, breathing heavily. B. then drove to the hospital and returned together with an ambulance and with Dr Mihailov, the paediatrician on duty.     Dr Mihailov later testified that about 5 a.m. the hospital employee in charge of emergency calls had requested him to go to the police station “for a 15 year old boy”. Dr   Mihailov clarified that he had seen that employee conversing with the police officers. He also recalled that he had not been given any prior information about the boy’s condition. The ambulance with Dr Mihailov arrived at the police station, followed by the police car. Dr   Mihailov examined Mr Zabchekov and advised that he should be taken to the hospital as he had a low pulse. Mr Zabchekov was driven to the hospital in the ambulance, A. and B. following in their police car. Upon their arrival at the hospital A. and B. helped move Mr   Zabchekov out of the ambulance to the hall way in front of the office of the physician on duty. According to the testimony of A. and B. when later Mr Zabchekov was examined by Dr   Ivanova, the internist on duty, there followed a heated discussion between her and Dr Mihailov. The police officers were then informed that Mr Zabchekov had died. B. testified that Dr Ivanova had told him and his colleague that they “had known the condition of Mr   Zabchekov and that she had not seen him breathing”.     Dr Mihailov testified that in the police station he had noticed bruises on Mr   Zabchekov’s chest. At that time Mr Zabchekov had been unconscious and with a weak pulse. According to Dr Mihailov’s testimony, he had asked the police officers about the time since when the boy had been in such a condition to which the police officers had replied that “he [had been] brought to the police in such a condition”.     Dr Ivanova testified that at about 5 a.m. she had been asked by Dr Mihailov to verify whether a patient who had been brought to the hospital had died. Having found that no cardiac activity was noticeable she attempted cardiac massage, but to no avail. She further testified that, in reply to her query why Dr Mihailov, and not her, the internist on duty, had been dispatched to the police station, the hospital employee in charge of emergency calls had answered that the request for an ambulance had been stated to concern a child, which had prompted the decision to send the paediatrician on duty.   7.   The register of the Razgrad police station     According to the normal practice each detention is recorded in a register maintained at the police station. The register contains a series of entries organised in four columns: the number assigned to the detainee, the name of the officer entering information into the register, the name of the detainee, the reasons for detention, the action taken and the time of release. Information corresponding to each detainee is entered in chronological sequence, at the time of initial detention.     Upon the Court’s request the Government submitted a copy of the register of the Razgrad police station for 29   January 1996. It does not contain an entry for the detention of Mr Zabchekov. However, the register contains an entry for an “unidentified person” who was assigned number “72.”     The register form does not contain a separate column for the hour of detention. In respect of some of the detainees listed on the same page of the register the hour of detention is mentioned together with the date of detention. In respect of the “unidentified person”, as well as in respect of some of the other detainees mentioned on the same page, there is no mention of the hour of detention in the column indicating the date of detention. However, immediately after the words “unidentified person”, there appears, spread onto two columns and two lines, the text “29 I 96, 01.°°. A visual examination of the copy of the register shows that there had initially been written “0.3°°” or “5.°°”, but that the figure “1” had then been written over the figure “3” or “5”.     It can be also observed that the registration numbers on the same page have been over-written. From the copy provided by the Government it is difficult to see what were the figures which had been overwritten. Nevertheless, it is clearly seen that an equal empty space separates each of the entries except the numbers “72” and “73,” between which there is a significantly smaller empty space.     The applicant submits that when her lawyer inspected the file he found that the hand ‑ written entry for “70” had been over-written as “69”. Similarly the hand-written entry for “71” had been over-written as “70”, and a previous number “72” had been over-written as “71”. According to the applicant the only number on the page that had not been re-written was 72, which appears on the same line as the words “unidentified person.” It is clear, in the applicant’s view, that the entry for Mr Zabchekov, the “unidentified person”, under number   72, was inserted only after the entire page had been completed, in a subsequent effort to register a detention which had not been registered in the normal course.     The entry under number 72 for the detention of an unidentified person states that that person was brought to the police station by A. At the right hand end of the same line there appears a signature which, as far as it is legible, appears to be that of colonel I.     In the course of the investigation colonel I., the officer on duty, and J., the sergeant who was assistant to the officer on duty that night, were asked questions in relation to the registration of Mr Zabchekov’s presence at the police station. According to the testimony of colonel I., he did not instruct A. to register the detainee since A. knew the procedure. J.   testified that shortly after 3.50 a.m., when he had been alerted by H. about the deteriorating health of Mr Zabchekov, he had checked the register of detained persons, but there had not been any entry concerning Mr Zabchekov.   8.   Investigation by the general prosecution and investigation authorities     Early in the morning of 29 January 1996 the police officers involved submitted in writing to the director of the local police their account of the events of the night. On 30   January 1996 the latter opened police file ZM-I no. 128/30.1.96 which contains a recital of the events, reports of seven police officers and the written testimony of D. and one of the owners of the cars from which Mr Zabchekov had allegedly tried to steal.     Also early in the morning on 29 January 1996 investigator Neshev of the Regional Investigation Service (Окръжна следствена служба) in Razgrad opened criminal proceedings under file no. 13/1996 to investigate the death of Mr Zabchekov.     According to the applicant, at 8 a.m. on the same day investigator Neshev accompanied by two uniformed police officers visited the house of the applicant’s family to inform them of Mr Zabchekov’s death. They spoke to the boy’s stepfather. According to the applicant the investigator stated that during the night Mr Zabchekov had tried to break into two cars, that the police had chased him, and that, during the chase, Mr Zabchekov had fallen down and had hit his head against the asphalt.     On 29 January 1996 investigator Neshev questioned the police officers involved and D., the young man who had been with sergeant Mutafov during the chase on Beli Lom Street. The investigator also visited the hospital and saw the body of Mr Zabchekov. Pictures of the body were taken.     On 29 January 1996 at about 11.45 a.m. a police officer visited Beli Lom Street in connection with the reported car theft attempt. He noted that two cars bore signs of a theft attempt, questioned the owners of the cars. At about 5 p.m., this time apparently acting in connection with the investigation into the death of Mr Zabchekov, he took a sample from a large red spot on the snow. The laboratory analysis revealed that it was animal blood.     It appears that the investigator never attempted to identify the tree to which Mr   Zabchekov had been handcuffed and where he had been lying on the ground.     On 29 January 1996 investigator Neshev ordered an autopsy. He put the following questions to the medical experts:     “What were the causes of Zabchekov’s death? Were there any traumatic injuries on the body of Zabchekov?   Did they have causal relation to the death? How were the injuries inflicted? How long was the period of time between the infliction of the lethal injury and the death and was it possible, as witnesses claimed, that   Zabchekov was conscious until 4.30 a.m.? Was the lethal injury related to injuries at places where the skin was broken? Were there other visible injuries and did they require, in view of their visible characteristics, immediate medical treatment?”     The autopsy was carried out on 29 January 1996 (commencing at 11.30 a.m.) by three medical doctors at the Regional Hospital in Razgrad. These were Dr Minchev, head of forensic department, Dr Militerov, PhD, head of pathology department, and Dr Marinov, medical doctor at the forensic department. In their report, dated 29 January 1996 the experts found the following injuries:     “[1.] Skull and cerebral trauma: Superficial lacerated contusion (a deep bruise) located at the outer side of the left eyebrow along its orbital rim; haematomas in the skin and the soft tissues around this wound and on the eyelids of the left eye; fracture of the back wall of the left ‘eye bone’ reaching its lower external side, with a bow-like fissure under the external injury described above; epidural haematoma on the left side (haemorrhage between the brain and the skull bones – 110 ml; epidural oedema … [identified as the cause of the death].     [2.] Haematoma in the skin, characteristically spotted, and haematoma in the soft tissues on the right side of the chest, along the frontal armpit line.     [3.] Surface skin grazes on the right side of the forehead and on the upper surface of the left wrist with a limited haematoma in the soft tissues under the skin.     [4.] Haematoma of an oval shape and diameter of 0,5 cm on the mucous membrane of the left lower lip.     [5.] Two strip-like surface bruises on the skin with characteristic shape, and haematoma in the soft inside tissues, in the area of the wrist joint of the right hand.”     The experts further concluded:   “[The death was caused by] accumulated epidural cerebral haematoma on the left side, at the forehead level, containing 110 millilitres of blood, followed by a cerebral oedema, with wedging of the cerebellum tonsils into the great foramen; this oedema has caused the suppression and breaking-off of vital brain centres (those of breathing and heart activity, which in turn caused a pulmonary oedema), being the direct cause of the death.”     Addressing the question of the manner in which all injuries have been inflicted, the experts stated:     “1. The injury in the area of the left orbital rim and the left eye-ball and the epidural haematoma was caused by a blow by, or against, a blunt object, or an object with a blunt edge, [which had] a delineated [limited] and uneven surface. The blow was abrupt and sufficiently strong. It caused the fracture of the back wall of the left ‘eye bone’ in its lower outside part (furthermore, the skull bones are 0.2 cm thick);     2.[The injury on the right side of the chest was caused by] a blow by, or against, a hard blunt object, or an object with a blunt edge, having a larger impact surface. The trace in this area is characteristically spotted, as a negative print of the victim’s clothes.     3.[The injuries on the right side of the forehead and on the wrists were the result of] blows, or pressing, by/against hard edgy objects. [The injury on the left part of the lower lip was caused by] a blow by/against hard blunt object having a delineated [limited] surface.”     The experts also stated that in cases of epidural haematoma of the kind Mr Zabchekov had suffered there was a characteristic lucid interval of 4 to 6 hours during which no visible signs would be displayed, except that   “the victim gradually becomes feeble, apathetic and sleepy, after which he falls into coma and dies - as it happened in the present case (during the period of time between 1.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. on 29 January 1996).”     The report concluded that Mr Zabchekov’s death had been inevitable in the absence of an urgent surgical intervention.     The experts did not state their opinion on the question how visible was the fatal injury on Mr Zabchekov’s left eyebrow. Upon their external inspection of the body they noted that:   “[a]t the external end of the left eyebrow, over the orbital rim, a superficial wound can be seen, being of longish shape, measuring 1/0,4 cm, having slightly uneven and grazed edges, covered by a thin brownish skin. The soft tissues around the wound are slightly swollen, the skin being of bluish-purple colour. The eyeball of the left eye is slightly protruded outwardly.”     The laboratory analysis found alcohol concentration of 1,42 per thousand in Mr   Zabchekov’s blood and 2.40 per thousand in his urine, which corresponded to a medium level of alcohol intoxication.     According to the applicant, in the morning of 30 January 1996 she visited the office of the Regional Investigation Service in Razgrad and requested information about the circumstances surrounding the death of her son. Mr Neshev, the investigator, informed the applicant that her son had died of a skull fracture. According to the applicant he explained that her son had been trying to steal car parts, and that, when the police had sought to apprehend him, he had run away, had fallen down and had hit his head against the ground.     According to the applicant during this meeting Mr Neshev asserted that police officers had taken her son to the hospital and that the latter had not been brought to the police station prior to his death. When asked how Mr Zabchekov’s skull could have been fractured as a result of his falling down, Mr Neshev allegedly explained that the autopsy had established that the boy had an “abnormally thin skull”.     In the afternoon of 30 January 1996, upon receiving Mr Zabchekov’s body from the hospital, the applicant and other family members noticed bruises on the right side of the boy’s chest; bruises on the left side of his face around the eye and the lips, and on the right side of his forehead; bruises and haemorrhages on his back, right hand, right thigh and face and what looked to be indentations from handcuffs on both wrists. Family members also saw what the applicant alleges to have been boot marks on her son’s clothes, which had been returned to the family together with the body. Family members believed that Mr Zabchekov’s ribs had been broken in places where chest bruises were visible.     Having observed these traces on her son’s body, the applicant went on the same day to the police station and to the local Prosecutor’s Office in search of an explanation. The applicant requested an examination of the body of her son, but her request was allegedly ignored. The applicant then went to the office of a local newspaper, spoke with two journalists and brought them to her home, where the journalists took pictures of Mr   Zabchekov’s body and clothes. Late in the afternoon of 30 January 1996 the body was buried.     On 31 January and 1 February 1996 the investigator questioned Ms I.M. and Ms I.A.     On 31 January 1996, by order of the regional prosecutor Ms. Hadzhidimitrova, the investigation was transferred to the Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office (Окръжна военна прокуратура). The decision was based on the finding that Mr Zabchekov had died after having been in police detention. The regional prosecutor stated inter alia :   “...for several hours immediately preceding the occurrence of the death, the underage Zabchekov, apprehended at 1 a.m. on 29 January 1996 while attempting to steal, was taken by the officers of the Regional Department of Internal Affairs and placed in a   premise of the unit on duty in order to limit his right to free movement.   Therefore, although he was not detained pursuant to Art. 35(1) in conjunction with Art. 33(1), point 1 of the National Police Act (Закон за националната полиция), as a matter of fact Zabchekov was forcibly held in the police station for about 3 hours and in the course of his stay in the office of the Regional Department of Internal Affairs in Razgrad, his health condition suddenly deteriorated, and he lost consciousness.”   9.   Investigation by the military prosecution and investigation authorities     On 31 January 1996, after having received the materials in the case, the Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office (Oкръжна военна прокуратура) instituted an investigation under a new file number (3-VIII/96, prosecutor’s file 254/96). The case was assigned to a military investigator (военен следовател).     During the following weeks military investigators conducted new interrogations of the police officers involved, questioned five persons who had spent with Mr Zabchekov the afternoon and evening of 28 January 1996, and also heard Dr Mihailov and Dr Ivanova.     On 12 March 1996 the investigator conducted cross-examinations of the witnesses Ms   I.A., Ms I. M., C. and D. These only concerned the number of times when Mr Zabchekov was falling on the ground during the chase on Beli Lom Street and the places where this had happened.     On 18 March 1996 the investigator appointed an expert to analyse the clothes which Mr Zabchekov had been wearing on 28/29 January 1996. In his report of 20 March 1996 the expert stated that upon a visual observation and after an examination under a microscope no traces of shoe soles could be found. He clarified that microscopic remains from particles from a shoe sole would not normally be left on a piece of soft fabric.     On 20 March 1996 the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the events during Mr Zabchekov’s arrest in order to clarify the witnesses’ testimony. There participated sergeant Mutafov (C.), the young man who had been with him on 28/29 January (D.), and the two persons who had observed the scene from their balconies, Ms I.A. and Ms I.M. The police officers who had arrived at Beli Lom Street after the apprehension of Mr Zabchekov by C.   did not participate in the reconstruction, which concerned almost exclusively the events until the arrival of the police. With the exception of one question put to sergeant Mutafov, no attempt was made to reconstruct the scene after the arrival of the two police cars and, in particular, the moment when Mr Zabchekov was led to one of the damaged cars and asked whether he had been trying to steal from it, the handcuffing of Mr Zabchekov to a tree, the moment when he was later seen lying on the ground, or his bringing to the back seat of the police car. The reconstruction was video taped.     On 27 March 1996 the investigator reported in writing on the course of the investigation to the Office of the Military Prosecution (Прокуратура на въоръжените сили), the highest level of the military prosecution authorities, who are under the authority of the Chief Public Prosecutor.     On 11 April, 1996, the applicant submitted to the Varna Military Prosecutor’s Office a request for the exhumation of her son’s body and for the assignment of a new medical expert. The applicant requested the following questions to be put to the expert:   “1. What were the actual injuries on the skull of the deceased (location, size, depth) and how do they correspond to the injuries described by the forensic   finding;   2. Is it true that the skull of the deceased is indeed “soft” and “thin”;   3. Are there other fractures of the skeleton of the deceased and where;   4. Are there lesions of other internal organs and what are they?”     The applicant’s request explained that her son had been buried in haste, before the circumstances surrounding his death had been clearly established, and that an exhumation of the body was essential to ascertain definitively those circumstances. In addition, the applicant reiterated her suspicion that her son’s ribs may have been broken, and that an exhumation was necessary to determine this. The applicant also submitted to investigator Atanasov two X-ray photographs of her son’s head made several months before his death to be used for the purpose of establishing whether his skull had been “soft” or “thin”.     On 17 or 18 April 1996 five medical experts were appointed to re-examine the conclusions as regards the causes of Mr Zabchekov’s death. One of them, Dr Minchev, had participated in the initial group of experts. The other four were Professor Pavlov, PhD, head of forensic department at the Medical University in Varna, Dr Kuichukov, PhD, from the neurosurgery department of the University, and Dr Dokov and Dr Radoinova, senior assistants at the forensic department of the same University. The experts were asked the following questions:   “1. What are the injuries Zabchekov suffered? What is the cause of the death?   2. What is the mechanism of causing these injuries and by how many blows could they have been caused? Could the injuries have been caused by consecutive falls (in accordance with the witnesses’ testimonies and the result of the investigation reconstruction as video recorded), or are they the result of direct blows?   3.   When were these injuries inflicted?   4. What was the alcohol concentration in the blood of Anguel Zabchekov at the time of his apprehension - around 00:15?”     On 26 April 1996 the investigator confronted in cross examination all police officers involved. On 26 April 1999 three additional witnesses were questioned.   Another witness was questioned on 29 May 1996.     On 23 May 1996 the applicant repeated her request for an exhumation. On 29   May   1996 another witness was questioned.     On 11 June 1996 prosecutor Dimitrov from the Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office sent to the applicant a copy of his information note on the proceedings. The note stated inter alia that exhumation could be envisaged if this would be considered necessary by the five medical experts, who had not yet submitted their opinion.     On 28 June 1996 the five experts delivered their report, which was based on an examination of the materials in the investigation case-file. They had also seen the video tape of the reconstruction of Mr Zabchekov’s apprehension, which had been shot on 20   March   1996.     The experts reaffirmed the conclusion that Mr Zabchekov’s death had been caused by an epidural oedema resulting from a skull fracture. They also stated inter alia that the fatal injury could have been inflicted by a kick, a fist blow or a blow by any other unsharpened object or, also, by a fall and collision against a “flat broad surface” (широка удряща повърхност). They noted that the autopsy report had not recorded any morphological data to allow the identification of the object which had caused the injuries. The report also indicated that the blow which had caused the skull fracture had not been very strong. This conclusion was based on the “particularities of the skull structure (as witnessed by the X-ray photographs enclosed and the thickness as described [in the autopsy report])”.     At variance with the first medical report, which had stated that the injury had been inflicted approximately four to six hours before the death, the report of the five experts concluded:   “The haematoma ... which caused the death   of Zabchekov, has been in place for at least ten hours preceding the moment of death. The basis for this conclusion is the appearance of the haematoma (blood clot of dark red colour), which is clearly visible also from the photo-materials attached to the file.   Such clot without the presence of liquid blood is formed during a period of over ten hours from the moment they were caused.   During this period usually the condition of the patients is characterised by the so called ‘lucid interval’ - time during which they do not display visible alerting signs. Their health gradually deteriorates … there appears headache, speech disturbances and problems of coordination of movement, [the persons] become unstable, sleepy, they stagger, etc. until the fall into coma.”     The photographs relied upon by the experts were taken at the time of the autopsy, which began at 11.30 a.m. on 29 January 1996.     The experts also found that in view of the amount of alcohol found in Mr Zabchekov’s blood the gradually appearing symptoms resulting from the head injury had been masked by the symptoms characteristic of the effects of alcohol.     The report of the five experts also dealt with the other injuries on Mr Zabchekov’s body:   “The haematoma on the right side of the chest is the result of a blow with or against a flat object with a larger hitting surface, which could be a kick, fall and concussion against a larger object and other objects. The characteristic appearance of the bruise is like the negative image of the clothes of the deceased, which indicates that the blow has been inflicted through the clothes... The bruises and injuries over the right half of the forehead, the two wrist joints and the lower lip are the result of the treatment of hard, blunt and/or edgy objects with limited hitting surface. The characteristics of the injuries at the two wrist joints make it possible to conclude that they correspond to having been caused when the handcuffs were put on, in accordance with the available information...”     On 25 July 1996 the investigator drew up a report proposing the termination of the proceedings.     On 31 July 1996 the Regional Military Prosecutors’ Office terminated the investigation concluding that there was no connection between the acts of the police and the death of Mr Zabchekov. The decree grounded its conclusion on the finding of the second medical report that at least ten hours had passed between the injury and the death.     On 6 August 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal with the National Military Prosecutor’s Office (Прокуратура на въоръжените сили). She contended that the investigation had been incomplete and pointed to the repeated refusal of an exhumation, to the alleged discrepancies between the testimony of different witnesses, and to the lack of explanation for certain facts, including all the injuries on Mr Zabchekov’s body.     On 18 December 1996 the National Military Prosecutor’s Office confirmed the termination of the investigation and also rejected the applicant’s request for exhumation of the body and further investigation. The decision stated, inter alia:   “[A]part   from the physical force applied during the apprehension of Zabchekov for his attempt to steal cars, there is no evidence of any violence by police officers against him, whether during his contacts with the police inside or outside the building of the police station. Furthermore, the firm conclusion of the report of the five experts, who are highly qualified experts in their field, is that the lethal injury has been caused more than ten