CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 7 juin 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s71220220 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDB660C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sA36C4D91 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBCF41CFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s82EA1BC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s18215599 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s86637692 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCACA8EA8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sE0459D3D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA839E164 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA7051AB1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sFE6327B5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s194CE510 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .sD96DCEDB { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s527A9694 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sE3F21B75 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sED04838E { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .sB5C2B09B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s1AAC210B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; font-size:10pt } .s48F37204 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD59B5169 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s45EC7D31 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s397ED72C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEE35628D { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s31B48246 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF0B473AD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sD33C961E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 33310/96 by H. D. against Poland The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 7 June 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 October 1995 and registered on 2   October 1996, 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 regard to the parties’ oral submissions at the hearing on 7 June 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms H.D., is a Polish national, born in 1952 and living in Samice, Poland. In the proceedings before the Court she was represented by Mr   Hermeliński, a lawyer practising in Warsaw, Poland. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Drzewicki of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by Ms M. Wąsek-Wiaderek and Ms   U.   Wieczorek, advisers. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Since 1971 the applicant has been suffering from diabetes.   She is on insulin. On 19 August 1994 the applicant was arrested by policemen from Warsaw-East Railway Police Station ( Komisariat Kolejowy Policji ) and then taken to the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre ( Izba Wytrzeźwień ). The facts surrounding the applicant’s arrest and her stay in the sobering ‑ up centre are in dispute. 1.     Facts surrounding the applicant’s arrest (a)     As presented by the applicant On 19 August 1994, the applicant took the 3.36 p.m. train from Łowicz to Warsaw-East.   She fell asleep and then fell into a hypoglycaemic coma because she had taken her last injection of insulin at 6 a.m. At some later time, she suddenly woke up on a floor in a one-window room. She was alone. She felt as if she had been beaten up. Her whole body was aching. She could hear a noise made by trains and a voice announcing a train to Prague. She recalled that, beforehand, when she had been in a state which she later described either as a “coma” or “semi-coma”, she had felt hits on her body, in particular, kicks on her thighs and lower legs.   She also recalled that she had been slapped on the face. She remembered persons in police uniforms but was later unable to specify who of them had beaten her up or to depict those persons. Shortly afterwards, she was handcuffed.   Later, in the course of the investigation instituted at her request, she stated that she had probably behaved improperly. On account of her shock, she did not remember how she had behaved. She was then taken to a police car. She was not beaten while taken to the car or in the car. (b)     As presented by the Government The Government, in their version of the relevant facts, relied on evidence heard during the investigation from the policemen involved in the applicant’s arrest, namely, D.R. and M.F. (who arrested her on the train) and E.M. (who did a body search of the applicant at the police station). D.R. and M.F., in response to the applicant’s resistance, disabled her. Furthermore, when she started to behave more aggressively and tried to make it impossible for them to escort her, D.R. hit the applicant on her legs two or three times with a truncheon.   The applicant was aggressive and used vulgar expressions.   That confirmed their suspicion that she was drunk. At the police station, when E.M. entered the cell in which the applicant was kept, she saw the applicant straining and struggling with the policemen who held her. She also kicked them.   In E.M.’s words, “she looked as a person being in a state of madness”. Looking at E.M., the applicant shouted: “what is that whore doing here?” In response to the applicant’s behaviour, the policemen used physical force against her by seizing her hands and legs, and holding her on the floor in order to enable E.M. to do a body search of the applicant. Since all the policemen who dealt with the applicant were convinced that she was in a state of alcoholic intoxication, she was brought to the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre.   The policemen learnt that the applicant was a diabetic only as late as during the investigation. 2.     Facts surrounding the applicant’s detention in the Warsaw Sobering ‑ up Centre (a)     As presented by the applicant Upon her arrival at the sobering-up centre, the applicant immediately reported to W.Z., a doctor who admitted her to that centre, that she had been brutally assaulted by the policemen, that she suffered from diabetes and that she needed medical care. Doctor W.Z. did not order a breath-test and did not measure her pulse rate. When she showed him her bodily injuries, he commented: “They should have beaten you up even more badly”. He disregarded her. When she mentioned that she suffered from diabetes, he did not listen to her, refused to talk to her and ordered the staff to take her to a common lodging room. They took her there and tied her to a bed. Some time later, when the second doctor, W.B., talked to her, she was still tied to the bed. She told him that she needed an insulin injection at 6   a.m. next morning. She demanded a breath test, which was done; however, the staff of the centre refused to inform her of the result, saying: “This is none of your business.” Afterwards, she was again tied to the bed.   It was as late as 19 May 1995 when she eventually learnt from the investigating prosecutor that the breath test had shown 1.70 promille of alcohol in her blood. In sum, she twice requested the doctor to give her an insulin injection: on 19 August 1994 at about 11.00 p.m. and again on 20 August 1994 at about 6   a.m. He promised to give her medicines before her release, but he did not do so. She was released on 20 August 1994 at 9.00 a.m.   As she did not pay the costs of her stay in the centre, the staff took a lien over her gold earrings, which were kept in the centre’s custody. (b)     A s presented by the Government According to the Government, the applicant was admitted to the centre on 19 August 1994 at about 6.00   p.m.   A doctor who examined her ascertained that she was intoxicated and that she had bruises on her thighs and buttocks inflicted by a truncheon. The doctor described the applicant as aggressive and vulgar. An entry in Section VI. 2 of the card recording her stay in the sobering-up centre (see below 5.   Other documentary evidence) indicated that at 10.30 p.m. the applicant claimed that she had not drunk any alcohol and that she suffered from diabetes. At that time she underwent a breath test which showed 1.70 promille of alcohol in her blood. She did not tell the doctors that she was on insulin. Nor did she have on her the so-called “certificate of a person suffering from diabetes“ ( książeczka chorego na cukrzycę ). None of the doctors said that the policemen should have beaten her up even more badly. 3.     Criminal proceedings instituted at the applicant’s request On 23 August 1994 the applicant requested the Warsaw District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen who had beaten her up and then detained in the Warsaw Sobering ‑ up Centre. On 16 September 1994 the applicant was summoned before B.S-F., a prosecutor from the Warsaw District Prosecutor’s Office ( Prokuratura Rejonowa ), in order to make a formal notification of the commission of an offence ( zawiadomienie o popełnieniu przestępstwa). The relevant document read, in so far as relevant: “... On 19 August 1994 I travelled by train from Łowicz to Warsaw East.   ...   I fell asleep and woke up at a police station.    I considered that I was at the Warsaw-East Railway Station [because] I heard a noise made by trains and a voice announcing a train to Prague.   At the police station I was beaten ..., that is to say, slapped on the face; I also felt kicks on my thighs and lower legs.   I saw policemen surrounding me.   At that time I was in a coma or semi-coma.   I am unable to say or describe who of the policemen beat me.   I do not remember that.   In consequence of the beating my whole body was aching, I had bruises on my legs and bumps on my head.   I want to stress that since 1971 I have been suffering from diabetes, although during the incident in question I did not have a certificate [of a person suffering from diabetes] on me. ...” On the same day, the prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant. The relevant part of the record read: “... During last two years states of diabetic coma have most frequently occurred to me in the summer. On average, they occur four-five times over the summer time.   ...[In such a state] I loose consciousness and do not know what happens to me.   I do not control my behaviour; [typical] symptoms are trembling hands and eyelids as well as sweating   ... In a coma I would behave aggressively when someone would wake me up or try to stir me up. ... My state may appear to be similar to a state of intoxication. ... On 19 August 1994, [when] I travelled on my own on the train I was not under the influence of alcohol or any intoxicating drug.   I had an insulin injection at 6   a.m.. ... I fell asleep; that was due to a low level of sugar in my blood.   I do not know when I woke up; it was not dark yet. I was at a police station.   I believe that it was the Warsaw Railway Police Station. [I heard] trains and a voice announcing a train to Prague.   Beforehand, I had not been aware where had I been and what had happened to me.   I was in a diabetic coma.   I do not know who took me to the police station but I am sure that I did not sustain injuries before having been brought to the police station.   I was [lying] on a floor.   ...   When I woke up, I was alone and after a while I became aware of the fact that I had been beaten up.   My whole body was aching; that could not have been the result of a [coma].   ...   When in a coma, I remembered that, having been at the police station, I had felt blows to my body, in particular, kicks on my upper and lower legs.   I also remember that I was slapped on my face.   I cannot recall the number and intensity of the blows because my senses were dulled by a coma.   The blows were, however, strong enough to have resulted in a huge bruise on my right thigh and other bruises described by a doctor. ...   I cannot say who beat me and for how long.   They were, though, persons in police uniforms ...   I cannot describe those policemen.   ...   When I woke up, that is to say, when I regained consciousness, I was alone in the room.   ...   I was in shock resulting from the situation.   After a while I was hand cuffed because I had probably misbehaved.   I cannot describe how I behaved because I was at the time still in shock.   Then, I was taken to a car.   While being taken to that car and during the drive I was not beaten up.   ...   I was taken to the [Warsaw] Sobering ‑ up Centre ... The first person whom I told that I suffered from diabetes was a doctor in the sobering ‑ up centre.   ...   I showed him the injuries I sustained at the police station.   He said: “The policemen should have beaten you up even more badly.”   He did not provide me with any assistance and behaved towards me in an inconsiderate manner.   I think that my state did not require an immediate help but the doctor did not show much interest in my diabetes.   Perhaps, it was on account of a big number of persons who were queuing to be attended by him.   I also asked yet another doctor for help but he disregarded my request.   That is all I want to say.   ...   ” On 17 October 1994 the Warsaw Praga-Północ District Prosecutor instituted an investigation “concerning abuse of their powers by officers from Warsaw-East Railway Police Station while carrying out their duties, resulting in infringement of [the applicant’s] personal rights on 19 August 1994” and on suspicion “that the offence defined in section 142 of the Police Act of 1990 had been committed against [the applicant]”. On 22 December 1994 the investigating prosecutor heard evidence from D.R. The relevant record read, in so far as relevant: “...I do not remember the exact date and hour but, after showing me a copy of my notebook, I see that it was on 19 August 1994 at about 5 p.m. I went to a platform together with M.F. ... Someone from the train service ... told us that a passenger did not want to leave a train and that they could not cope. When we got into the train, we saw a woman lying on the seat, her head leaning against a window. ... She was not asleep. She looked and behaved as though she were intoxicated. She all the time used vulgar words; they were not addressed to any particular person. As the train was already late and was to depart I, together with M.F., took that woman out of the train, supporting her by our arms and brought her to the platform, taking her bags with us. Initially, she did not resist; she only uttered swear words. Trying to check her state, we released her but she immediately lost her balance and could not make a step and we had to hold her to prevent her from collapsing. Since we believed that that woman was excessively drunk, we decided to take her to the police station. We did not search for her documents. We began to escort her, supporting her by our arms but she then started to sit down, to stop and to dig her feet into the ground. We tried to subdue her by twisting her arms in order to make her go with us. That enraged that woman even more badly. In an underground passage she simply became aggressive. She started to swear at us. She struggled to free herself and tried to run away. I do not remember whether she tried to hit us. At that moment, as we could not cope with her, we used truncheons. I remember that I hit that woman on her legs two or three times; those hits were not strong. Today, I cannot recall whether M.F. hit her with a truncheon, too. After being hit, that woman calmed down a bit and we managed to escort her to the police station. She was taken to a cell and I went to find E.M. [to ask her] to do a body search. When E.M. entered the cell, that woman started to insult her and, behaving aggressively, did not let her touch her. E.M. asked us to help her. I and two policemen (M.F. was not present at the time) used physical force against [the applicant]. We seized her arms and legs and put her down on the floor, holding her in order to enable E.M. to do a body search. The woman still struggled, kicked and insulted us. Nothing was found on her. ... Neither myself nor anyone else did ever slap that woman on the face. ... Then I left her and waited for a police car which was to take her to the Warsaw Sobering ‑ up Centre. During that wait, the woman kicked the door of the cell. ... I was sure that that woman was intoxicated: she smelled of alcohol and she behaved as though she were intoxicated. I believe that our action was correct and that, certainly, we did not overuse [physical] force against that woman. I learnt that she suffered from diabetes as late as during the investigation.   She did not have on her any document concerning her disease. ...” On 5 January 1995 the investigating prosecutor heard evidence from M.F. The relevant record read, in so far as relevant: “... Due to the passage of time, I do not remember exactly that event. After showing me a copy of my notebook, I recall that on 19 August 1994 ... I went with D.R. to the 7 th platform. [A] conductor informed us... that an intoxicated woman did not want to leave the train. On the spot, I met the conductor together with that woman... . [S]he appeared to be excessively drunk.   She was lying on the seat.   When she saw us in our police uniforms she began to insult us. There was an evident smell of alcohol on her breath. The conductor asked us to take her out of the train. She struggled and insulted us all the time. When we entered an underground passage, she sat down, saying that she would not go with us to any police station. She did not want to give her personal details. I do not remember whether we twisted her arms on her back or used other holds; we certainly escorted her by supporting her arms. I am sure that I did not hit her with my truncheon. I cannot recall whether D.R. used his truncheon – though – it could well have been so because she was aggressive and hindered us in performing our actions. I remember that we escorted that woman to the police station even though she still resisted. Then, D.R. dealt with the matter because I had my dinner break. I do not know what happened to that woman afterwards.   I would only add that during the whole incident I thought that she was intoxicated. I learnt that she suffered from diabetes today ... During the incident, she did not have on her any documents showing that she was ill. ...” On 6 January 1995 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation, finding that no offence had been committed. He considered that the actions taken by the policemen against the applicant had been entirely legitimate. They had good reasons to believe that she had been intoxicated and they had taken correct actions, without abusing their powers. Furthermore, referring to the evidence gathered in the course of the investigation, the prosecutor stressed that the injuries sustained by the applicant had resulted from her aggressive behaviour and the breaking of her resistance by the policemen. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Wojewódzki ). She maintained, among other things, that she had at the material time been in a hypoglycaemic coma, that her detention had been unlawful and that the policemen had severely assaulted her, in particular by beating her and kicking her in the legs.   She referred, in particular, to a medical certificate of 21 August 1994, listing her injuries (see below 4.   Medical documentary evidence supplied by the parties). On 28 April 1995 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor quashed the contested decision and ordered further investigation, holding, inter alia , that: “... It is beyond any question that [the applicant] was brutally beaten up and kicked by the police officers and that, as a result, she sustained bodily injuries within the meaning of Article 156 § 2 of the Criminal Code.   ... When D.R. and the second police officer were questioned, they said that during the incident “[the applicant] seemed and behaved like one intoxicated ... used abusive expressions ... resisted ... made efforts to free herself ... her breath smelt of alcohol”. If this was so, they should, first of all, have established, by appropriate blood analyses, whether her condition justified her detention in a sobering-up centre. ... [The applicant] states that, upon her arrival at the sobering-up centre, she informed a doctor that she suffered from diabetes and showed him her bodily injuries.   In such circumstances, the lack of response from the doctor and his opinion that, as recalled by [the applicant], “The policemen should have beaten her up even more badly” should carefully be examined in the future investigation. The persons concerned should be questioned and, if necessary, confronted with each other. [Since] the above-mentioned circumstances were not taken into account in the original investigation – not to mention [that no account was taken of] the lawless conduct of the policemen – and because that investigation was limited to hearing evidence from [the applicant] and the two police officers concerned (in whose best interest was to present the incident to their advantage), it is necessary to supplement the investigation.   In particular [the investigating prosecutor] shall: 1.     carefully and diligently hear evidence not only from both policemen concerned (to date, their statements have been vague) but also from all other persons who were involved in the incident in any other way. It concerns, in particular, E.M., a constable, [who did a body search of the applicant]. [She should be questioned] on how [the applicant] was treated during the search; whether she had any injuries to her body; whether she complained that she had been beaten up; whether the constable, unrequested, attended to [the applicant’s] health; how the other officers behaved; why, given that there was a suspicion that [the applicant] was intoxicated, no blood was taken from her and analysed before her detention; 2.     hear evidence from other police officers, including the Chief Constable of the [Warsaw-East Railway Police Station], in order to establish whether he has ever trained his staff how to deal with an arrested person who must not necessarily be intoxicated; 3.     hear evidence from the doctor (and the staff of the Warsaw Sobering ‑ up Centre) in order to establish what are the rules of admission to the centre; what actions were taken by the doctor; whether, examining [the applicant] he was sure that she was intoxicated and, if so, what indicated that she was under the influence of alcohol; what action he took after she had informed him about her disease; what did he mean in saying that “The policemen should have beaten her up even more badly”; whether, in his opinion, a diabetic deserves beating up rather than immediate medical assistance and treatment?; 4.     obtain evidence from a medical expert (specialist in diabetes) in order to establish symptoms of diabetes; whether a hypoglycaemic coma may result in aggressive behaviour and whether diabetes may be masked by, or mistaken for, a state of intoxication; whether being on medicines (and, if so, on which ones) may result in exhaling a smell resembling the smell of alcohol? The above-mentioned evidence (and any evidence that may be necessary) shall be obtained in the further investigation. ... in order to assess objectively the facts of the case and the behaviour of the possible culprits ... That being so, the impugned decision shall be quashed as being premature.” On 16 May 1995 the investigating prosecutor heard evidence from E.M. The relevant part of the record of her testimony read: I recall an event that took place last summer, when a woman, behaving in a very aggressive way and looking as if she was very drunk was escorted to the police station. Probably, that event took place on 19 August 1994. ...At around 6 p.m., I think, D.R. asked me to do a body search of a woman who was to be taken to the sobering-up centre. Entering the cell, I saw two or three policemen who were trying to keep the woman standing still; she was behaving aggressively and struggling. At the first sight, she was looking like heavily drunk. I cannot recall the names of the policemen that kept that woman and prevented her from struggling. When I entered the room along with D.R., the woman was kicking the policemen who were trying to subdue her and she was behaving as if she were mad. When I was entering the cell she shouted: “what is that whore doing here?” Apart from that, she was screaming all the time and swearing at all policemen.   She was using vulgar words; I do not remember exactly those words because I tried to ignore that. When D.R. told her that I came to do a body search before she would go to the sobering-up centre, she went even madder than before. I cannot find the proper words to describe how vulgar and aggressive that woman was at the time. The police officers could hardly prevent her from kicking and struggling. So, I said to the officer D.R. that I could not do a body search, as four young men had to keep her standing still. After some time the police officers managed to put her down on the floor, then it was possible to search briefly her pockets to see if she had any dangerous, sharp objects. ... I told D.R. to take her to the sobering-up centre as soon as possible so that the doctor could examine her, and I went back to my office. I did not hear anything about that woman afterwards, and I was sure she was taken to the sobering-up centre. ... According to me, the following symptoms indicated that the woman was heavily drunk: her breath that smelled clearly of alcohol; she was mumbling, and she had a look of “madness” in her eyes, and her whole behaviour was that of a drunken person. I am very surprised that she claimed to be in a diabetic coma. It was not like this according to me, and as a proof I can tell that when I entered the cell she was able to see me and to notice that I was a woman. I do not think that a person in a coma could notice such things. I think that her blood was not analysed ... because as far as I know, there was no suspicion that she could commit any crime. The policemen escorted her to the police station in order to take care of her and not to punish her for her bad behaviour. There is no breath analyser in our police station. I am of an opinion that the best that could have been done, as she was so aggressive, was to take her to the sobering-up centre for the doctor to examine her. I do not think there was any need for the woman to undergo a blood test. During my contact with the woman, she did not indicate that she might be suffering from diabetes. Apart from swearing at us all, she did not ask us for anything. She did not have any documents concerning her illness. If she had informed us of it, or if we had been able to notice it, she would have received an immediate medical help. ... As to the manner in which she was treated during the body search, it was exactly as I have said before. ... I do not know anything about beating her up. No one beat her in my presence. I do not have any knowledge of what happened before or after I was in the cell. I saw the face and hands of the woman and I noticed neither any signs of beating nor any injuries. I did not see the whole body and cannot tell if there could be any injuries.   [The applicant] did not complain about having been beaten up. The witness, when asked a question whether she had shown any interest in the woman’s state of health, answered: I showed such an interest by telling the police officers to take her, in her state of madness, to the sobering-up centre so that she could be examined by a doctor. I think that D.R. and other officers, whose names I do not know, behaved adequately to the situation. I did not see any of them beating her, they were only holding her hands, so that she could not struggle or hurt anyone. I think that if that woman sustained any injuries on that day, they were caused by herself, and were a consequence of her struggling and trying to free herself from the policemen. ...” On 19 May 1995 the investigating prosecutor again heard evidence from the applicant. The record of her testimony read, in so far as relevant: “... I hereby confirm all what I have already said. ... I add that on 19 August 1994 I did not drink any alcohol. ... I recall that ... in the sobering-up centre, on my own request, a breath test was made ... I was not informed of the result. I do not know how was it possible that there was 1.70 promille of alcohol in my blood. ... As regards the events that took place at the police station, I entirely uphold what I already said before the prosecutor on 16 September 1994 and have nothing to add. I also maintain the description of events at the sobering-up centre given by me [on that day] and would only add that I told the doctor that I would have to be given insulin at 7 a.m. He promised to do so. In the morning, I reminded the staff of that but they laughed at me and I was not given insulin.   ...   I confirm that during the incident I behaved aggressively towards the policemen; I remember that I struggled and tried to free myself, and that I used vulgar words.   I would explain that my aggression resulted from my coma and malaise.    I believe that the policemen should not have kicked and beaten me up even though I looked as I were intoxicated and behaved aggressively.   I certainly remember that I was kicked.   ... I do not know whether I told the policemen that I was ill; I certainly did it upon my admission to the sobering-up centre.   I do not remember whether at the police station a body search was to be made by a policewoman.   ... I remember that I also behaved aggressively in the sobering-up centre but, at that time I felt better and my behaviour resulted from the impossibility of explaining to the doctor that I was sick and that I could not stay in the centre overnight - the doctor showed no interest in [my complaints].   ... I would want to obtain compensation and have my case referred to a court.   ... I have a grievance against the doctor [because] when I showed him the bruises on my legs he said that the policemen should have beaten me up even more badly.   ... Had the policemen only hit me with truncheons, I would not have had a grudge against them but I cannot forgive them kicking me.   ...” On 19 May 1995 the investigating prosecutor ordered that medical evidence be obtained.   He asked M.P., a forensic expert, to prepare a medical report and answer the following questions: “1.     What are symptoms of diabetes?   Can the so-called “coma” result in aggressive behaviour or behaviour [similar to that typical of] alcohol intoxication? 2.     May the taking of medicines (and, if so, which ones) by a diabetic result in his/her exhaling a smell similar to the smell of alcohol? 3.     Was it possible that the reading of the breath test undergone by the applicant was erroneous, for instance on account of an elevated level of acetone in her breath? 4.     Is it difficult to distinguish between the behaviour of a diabetic in a coma and the behaviour of an intoxicated person? 5.     How, under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code, should the injuries sustained by [the applicant] be classified?   Were those injuries caused in the manner described by her or rather in the manner described by the witnesses policemen?” The expert submitted his report on 22 May 1995.   The relevant parts of the report are presented below (see 4. Medical documentary evidence supplied by the parties). On 23 May 1995 the investigating prosecutor heard evidence from W.Z., a doctor from the sobering-up centre.   The relevant record read, in so far as relevant: “Today I am not able to recall how did [the applicant’s] admission and stay proceed on 19 August 1994.   I admit nearly 80-100 patients a day, I cannot therefore remember each of them, and what is more, the event in question took place almost a year ago. The only thing I can say is that, after looking at the card of her stay in the sobering-up centre, I was the doctor on duty who admitted [the applicant] to the centre. The card indicates that the patient was vulgar and aggressive. After examining the patient I could tell there were blood extravasations on her bottom and thighs, resulting from beating with a truncheon.   Since the patient was very excited psychomotorically, she was given an injection containing a calming agent (ataraks) and it was recommended that she be tied up to a bed. The card also contains a note made by doctor W. – no, after a slight reconsideration I think it was a handwriting of doctor [W.] B. – showing that the patient acknowledged that she had drunk vodka and said that she suffered from diabetes. A test was then made by a glucose-analyser. [Such test] is done by stinging a finger with a needle, and analysing a blood drop, one drop is enough to perform the analysis. The result was 170 mg/%. The patient did not tell the doctor about any health problems. I can add that, after admitting her to the centre, a breath test was made and it read 1.70 promille. In my opinion, it is possible that the patient was in such a state that she did not notice that a glucose test was made.   If the patient had notified me that she was a diabetic I would definitely have written it down on the card recording her stay, and made a glucose analysis. Then she would have been detained in the centre as we admit diabetics, too. A person suffering from diabetes can consume alcohol without any negative consequences. The card indicates that the patient was moderately intoxicated and that her stay in the sobering-up centre was highly recommended. I do not recall at all being rude to the patient and saying that the policemen should have beaten her even more badly. Neither me nor any of the doctors working with me are ever impolite towards patients and would ever address the patient in such a manner. ...” On 24 May 1995 the investigating prosecutor heard evidence from A.S. , one of the policemen from the Warsaw East Railway Police Station who was on duty on 19 August 1994.   A.S. said that, given the passage of time, he did not remember whether any incident involving an intoxicated woman had taken place on that day. On 25 May 1995 the prosecutor heard evidence from W.B., a doctor from the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre.   The relevant part of the record of the latter’s testimony read as follows: “... Today I cannot at all recall any incident involving a woman who allegedly suffered from diabetes and was admitted to the centre on 19 August 1994.   What I am going to say will only be the repetition of what is written down on the card recording her stay in the sobering-up centre.   On the basis of that, I can say that [the applicant] was admitted to the centre on that day.   During her admission and examination she was very aggressive and vulgar towards medical personnel and the other persons who were on the shift on that day. I was not personally present during the examination of the woman, she was examined by doctor [W.] Z.   Her card of stay in the centre indicates that at 6.55 p.m. she did not claim to suffer from any disease. After three and a half-hours, during a doctor’s round, the applicant claimed that she had not drunk alcohol and told me that she suffered from diabetes. Therefore, I made a breath test at 11.00 p.m. and the result was 1.70 promille, which confirmed that the woman was intoxicated. The card does not indicate that I made a test by a glucose analyser.   I think that doctor [W.] Z. was not able to read correctly my handwriting on the card, I mean – it is a copy, I made a note concerning the test by a breath analyser. On the basis of the card, I can tell that after carrying out the breath test I assumed that the woman did not say the truth, I mean, she could not tell anything concrete about her illness. I cannot recall right now whether or not I made a glucose test. I also examined that woman on 20 August 1994 at about 8.30 a.m. before she was released from the centre.    At that time, she did not claim that she suffered from any disease either. If the woman had told me that she suffered from diabetes and needed to take insulin during my doctor’s round at 10.30 p.m., I would have checked the glucose level in her blood and ascertained whether there was a need to give her insulin during night hours. The card also indicates that the woman did not say that she needed an insulin injection on her departure from the centre.   During her admission she did not have a certificate of a person suffering from diabetes, which was obligatory and on the basis of which it would have been possible to assess her condition. ... I was sure that the woman was intoxicated, which was confirmed by the breath test.   When the woman told me that she suffered from diabetes, I did not take any action because I came to the conclusion that even if she was really ill, her general condition did not indicate danger to her life. Apart from the words of the intoxicated woman, I did not have any basis to assume that she was really ill. She should have told me whether she was taking insulin or oral hypoglycaemic drugs but I did not receive such information. I do not recall myself saying that “the police officers should have beaten her even more badly” after seeing her injuries. On the basis of the card I can add that the condition of the woman - intoxication - justified her detention in the centre because her behaviour could have been dangerous to her or other persons’ health. ...” On 30 May 1995 the Warsaw-Praga Północ District Prosecutor again discontinued the investigation, finding that no offence had been committed.   This decision read, inter alia, as follows: “... All the evidence obtained in the course of the supplementary investigation only confirmed that the measures applied by the police to the applicant were within the limits of lawful means accorded to them [“ mieściły się w granicach przysługujących im uprawnień ”]. The statements of D.R., F.M. and E.M. are logical and mutually coherent; they unequivocally indicate that [the applicant] behaved as a person in a state of alcohol intoxication. It is telling that whereas [the applicant] agrees that after [being woken up] she might have unconsciously behaved in an aggressive manner, she could unmistakably perceive a person who entered the cell to do a body search. As E.M. has testified: when she entered the cell [the applicant] noticed her immediately and could perceive that she was dealing with a woman. It is therefore difficult to negate the credibility of the policemen’ statements as to the circumstances surrounding [the applicant’s] arrest, the more so as [the latter] has admitted that she hardly remembered the events which took place at the police station. The objective borne in mind by the policemen, when they were taking [the applicant] to the police station – and, to do so, it was necessary to use a truncheon – was not to punish her for her behaviour but to take care of her because she endangered herself.   What were the [true] intentions of the policemen is shown by their try to remove earrings with sharp endings from her ears – which could possibly injure her – and then their [decision] not to do it because of their fear to injure her.    The circumstances surrounding the finding of [the applicant] in the train, her vulgar behaviour, blurred speech, inability to stand on her legs and, first and foremost, the smell of alcohol, gave the policemen grounds [both] to consider that they were dealing with an intoxicated person and to apply the measures they in fact used in the situation.   It was not possible to take blood from [the applicant] and do any analyses or breath-test because the police did not have the necessary equipment. ...   It was a routine decision to take her to the sobering-up centre.   She was endangering not merely other persons but herself and this was the reason why a prompt decision to bring her to the sobering-up centre was made.   There was no suspicion that she had committed any offence; rather, her exceptionally aggressive behaviour and the impossibility of making any contact with her prompted the policemen to take the most correct decision [to detain her in such a centre]. According to a report prepared by M.P., a forensic expert, she was intoxicated and, in consequence, behaved aggressively and could be apprehended in the manner applied by D.R. and M.F. ... On the basis of the expert report, it has to be established that [the applicant] had no symptoms of a diabetic or hypoglycaemic coma. There were, however, noted the symptoms of alcohol intoxication (confirmed by the relevant test which showed 1.70   promille of alcohol in her blood) and on that basis it is legitimate to conclude that on the material day at after 5.00 p.m. [the applicant] was intoxicated and her disease was a matter of secondary importance. ... In her appeal, [the applicant] attached particular importance to the – in her view – brutal manner in which the policemen treated her during the incident in question and to the fact that they ignored her disease.   These arguments are unfounded.   When travelling, she had failed to take any documents, including those relating to her disease. ... She informed the doctor about her disease ... as late as 11.00 p.m., that is to say, six hours after having been arrested. It seems reasonable and clear that the policemen would certainly have provided her with medical care if they had been informed of her disease. .... Her explanations that her actions were unconscious and she could not recall the circumstances of her arrest are not coherent; for instance, her oblivion concerned such important events as hand-cuffing and a body search, whereas she could recall what had she said to the doctor and who had escorted her to the centre, and she could distinguish between being hit with a truncheon and being kicked. Such inconsistency, in particular concerning the beating, does not give grounds to believe that the policemen so behaved, the more so as the medical certificate issued by Skierniewice Hospital and entries made [by the doctors] in the card recording her stay in the sobering-up centre show the contrary. The two certificates describe [the applicant’s state] as injuries on both lower limbs, bruises on both thighs and lower legs in the shape of stripes; that indicates that they were caused by the use of a truncheon. No injuries to her face, although alleged by the applicant, were observed either by the policemen or the staff of the sobering-up centre, or by the doctors who examined her in connection with the incident in question.   The aforementioned findings of fact have been made on the basis of evidence heard from the following witnesses: D.R., M.F.; E.M. and A.S., the doctors from the sobering-up centre W.Z. and W.B. and the above-cited forensic expert report. ... Assessing the facts of the case as a whole, it has to be stressed that all the actions taken by the policemen against the applicant were entirely proved to be right. They had good reasons to believe that they were dealing with an intoxicated and aggressive person and they took the adequate action – without exceeding their powers. In addition, they were not aware of the fact that she was ill because she did not have on her [the so-called] certificate of a person suffering from diabetes. She should, though, have had it on her. The material collected in the investigation justifies the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the applicant had resulted from her aggressive behaviour and the policemen’ attempts to deal with it. It is therefore fully justified to consider that the officers concerned did not abuse their powers and, in consequence, their deeds did not constitute a criminal offence. ...” On 13 November 1995, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor upheld the decision of the prosecutor at first instance and the reasons therefor, stressing that the injuries sustained by the applicant could well have resulted from k