CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 avril 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7640BE9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s97A4CC8C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD5C72CDD { width:189.76pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 15028/04 by Jānis BRŪZĪTIS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12   April 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ján Šikuta,   Ineta Ziemele,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 April 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Jānis Brūzītis, was a Latvian national who was born in 1960 and died on 4   September 2008. He had designated his niece, Ms Brūzīte, to represent him in the proceedings before the Court.   The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The applicant's conviction and imprisonment 3.     On 25 July 2003 the applicant was arrested. 4.     On 17 October 2003 the Gulbene District Court ( Gulbenes rajona tiesa ) convicted the applicant of an attempted rape and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and imposed police control for further three years. His conviction was based on testimony of the victim, one witness and some forensic evidence. 5.     On 23 March 2004 the Vidzeme Regional Court ( Vidzemes apgabaltiesa ) upheld the verdict on appeal. 6.     On 6 May 2004 the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court ( Augstākās Tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments ) in a   preparatory meeting dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. 7.     On 17 May 2004 the applicant was transferred to Valmiera prison to serve his sentence. 8.     On 16   January 2006 the applicant was transferred to Jelgava prison to continue serving his sentence. 9.     On 13 December 2006 the applicant was transferred to Pārlielupe prison to continue serving his sentence. 10.     On 16 January 2008 the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital in Olaine following the events of 3 January 2008. 11.     On 22 February 2008 the applicant was transferred to Liepāja prison to continue serving his sentence. 12.     On 25 July 2008 the applicant was released, having served his sentence in full. He moved in with his niece and he lived there until his death on 4 September 2008. 2.     Events of 25 July 2005 in Valmiera prison 13.     On 24 July 2005 a prisoner on the third floor in cell no. 308 was murdered by another inmate in Valmiera prison. 14.     On 25 July 2005 a special unit of the Prison Administration (“ Vairogs ”) was called upon to ensure security in a planned search of all cells in that prison. 15.     According to the applicant, the search begun at 3.30 p.m. when men in masks, with truncheons and dogs broke into a block of cells in Valmiera prison. They ordered the inmates to lie face-down on the ground and to leave their cells one after another, starting from the cells located on the third floor. The inmates were gathered in a sports yard. 16.     The special unit entered the applicant's cell at about 4.30 p.m. The applicant and his cellmates had already been lying on the floor for some time. They did not resist. Allegedly, a member of the prison personnel drew the special unit's attention to the applicant by pointing at him and saying: “There is one complainant; [he] likes to write”. The inmates were then ordered to run down a staircase to the sports yard, some 200   m away through a line of men. The applicant claimed that he had received three blows with truncheons on his body during this run. In the sports yard, the inmates were ordered to sit down on the ground, to have their legs pulled close to their body, and to lean down with hands behind their backs for about three hours from 4.30 p.m. to 7.40 p.m. The inmates who tried to stretch their body to relief themselves from this uncomfortable position were kicked or received blows with truncheons. 17.     Upon the applicant's return to his cell, he noticed that his watch, an   electricity current transformer, a ruler and darning needles had been taken away. According to the applicant, he complained about the lost effects to the prison governor, but received no reply. 18.     On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained about the events of 25   July 2005 to the Valmiera District Court and asked to open criminal proceedings; his complaint was forwarded to the Specialised Prosecutor's Office. 19.     On 4 September 2005 a prosecutor decided to refuse opening of the criminal proceedings about the use of force and special measures on the applicant and his lost effects. The following sequence of events was established. The director of the Prison Administration approved the planned search to take place on 25 July 2005. The aim of the search was to find and confiscate prohibited items (narcotics, mobile phones, sharp objects etc.). Most of the inmates in the cell block were convicted for serious and especially serious crimes; they were considered to be aggressive. Taking into account a real risk of resistance, the special unit of 20 men had been called upon to ensure safety of prison personnel and security. The search begun at 3.30 p.m. and was finished by 8 p.m. Many prohibited items were found and confiscated, including 19 litres of alcohol surrogate, 3.5   litres of its yeast, 5 mobile phones, 2 SIM cards, 29 various sharp items, 5 syringes, 4 needles, 35 pills and other items. In cell no. 201, where the applicant was placed, six unspecified prohibited items were confiscated. The prosecutor noted that it could not be established if the applicant's effects were confiscated since there was no mention of those effects in the applicant's personal file. As regards the use of force, the applicant did not approach the medical personnel in that prison with any complaints either on the day of the search or on the following day. The prosecutor evaluated the applicant's allegations of blows with truncheons on his body “with criticism”. A reference was made to the results of the Prison Administration's internal investigation, which had established that the inmates had not shown any resistance and that the special unit had not used any physical force or special measures (e.g. truncheons) on them. In view of the above, a conclusion was drawn that there was no evidence of the use of force on the applicant or of the abuse of official position on the part of the prison personnel regarding the confiscation. Thus the prosecutor decided against opening of the criminal proceedings. 20.     On 13 September 2005 the Human Rights Bureau replied to the applicant's complaint about the events of 25 July 2005. They informed him that they had made an inquiry into those events themselves and had approached the Prison Administration and the Specialised Prosecutor's Office with a view to requesting that an investigation into possible human rights violations be made and the responsible persons be held accountable. 3.     The applicant's placement in Jelgava prison 21.     On 16 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to Jelgava prison. There he was kept in a cell together with three inmates who were infected with HIV. The applicant submitted that due to his tuberculosis infection, infection with HIV would be lethal. Allegedly, on two occasions he approached the Jelgava prison authority to be moved to a different cell, but in vain. The applicant did not specify for how long he was kept together with these inmates. 4.     Violence against the applicant in Pārlielupe prison 22.     On 3 January 2008, at 1.40 a.m., men in masks entered the living space where the applicant was sleeping and produced numerous blows on his body with steel bars. According to the applicant he suffered the following bodily injuries: broken right ankle, bruises on left ankle, bruises on both thighs and knees, bruises on toes of left foot, bruises on left elbow, wrist and fingers, broken jaw and blue marks on right hand. According to the applicant, he received first aid in Pārlielupe prison at about 10 a.m.; his requests for help at about 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. were ignored. On the same day he was taken to a public hospital in Jelgava where his right leg was put in plaster. 5.       Medical assistance in Pārlielupe prison and the applicant's complaints in that regard 23.     On 3 January 2008 the applicant was transferred back from hospital to Pārlielupe prison and placed in the medical care unit, where he stayed until 16 January 2008. 24.     On 3 January 2008 he received one analgesic injection. 25.     On 4 January 2008 the applicant received one unknown injection and one analgesic pill (a painkiller). According to him, he lost his conciseness on several occasions due to pain that evening but no further treatment was provided. 26.     He received four more analgesic pills with which he could survive pain on 5 and 6 January 2008. 27.     On 7 January 2008 he received one unknown injection, two pills of antibiotics and another pill before going to bed. 28.     On 8 January 2008 the applicant received one unknown injection, one pill of antibiotics and another pill for sleeping. 29.     According to the applicant, while staying in the medical care unit he had to visit the toilet on crutches. When the pain was too big, he could only crawl to the toilet and nobody helped him. The toilet itself was merely a   hole in the ground and there were no supportive elements mounted on the walls. Nurses had negative attitude towards him. Finally, the premises were very cold and he allegedly fell ill with pneumonia. 30.     On 8 or 18 January 2008 the applicant complained to the Inspectorate for Quality Control of Medical Care and Working Capability (MADEKKI) about his medical care in Pārlielupe prison and that he fell ill with pneumonia there. 31.     On 12 February 2008, following the applicant's complaint, the Prison Administration replied that medical care in Pārlielupe prison had been provided to him in accordance with the applicable domestic regulations. 32.     On 26 February 2008, following the applicant's complaint, the Jelgava Court refused opening of criminal proceedings against doctors of Pārlielupe prison because of lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that the applicant should approach the Prison Administration with complaints about the Pārlielupe prison authority or the prosecutor's office if a crime had been committed. 33.     On 26 March 2008 the Prison Administration replied to the applicant's request to be transferred to another prison (Valmiera or Brasa prison) so as to be closer to his family. It was noted that the applicant was transferred to Liepāja prison for security considerations due to the events of 3 January 2008. The applicant was informed that he would continue to serve his sentence in Liepāja prison. 6.     Criminal investigation into the events of 3 January 2008 34.     On 8 January 2008 a senior investigator in Pārlielupe prison initiated criminal proceedings into the events of 3 January 2008 and the applicant was declared a victim in those criminal proceedings. 35.     On 30 March 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Specialised Prosecutor's Office concerning the criminal proceedings into the events of 3   January 2008. He asked the prosecutor's office to take charge of those criminal proceedings since the investigators in Pārlielupe prison did not proceeded with the investigation; the deputy prison governor had allegedly informed those responsible for the attack that they would remain unpunished. The applicant alleged that he had been kept in the medical unit from 3 to 16 January 2008 on purpose and was not transferred to prison hospital in Olaine in due time with a view to hiding his injuries. He also alleged that his application to MADEKKI had not been sent. 36.     On 7 April 2008 a prosecutor forwarded his complaint to the Prison Administration. On 7 May 2008 the latter replied among other things that the criminal investigation was still ongoing, that the applicant had been declared a victim and that a forensic examination had been ordered. The Prison Administration undertook to inform the applicant about the results of the investigation. 37.     On 17 July 2008 the Prison Administration replied again that the criminal investigation was still pending and that the applicant would be informed of its results. The applicant was also informed that he could submit a civil claim in those criminal proceedings. COMPLAINTS 38.     In his first letter to the Court, posted on 5 April 2004, the applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention about the unlawful deprivation of his liberty. In essence, he complained about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him and the evaluation of evidence. The applicant submitted the completed application form on 18 June 2004 and maintained these complaints. 39.     On 2 August 2005 the applicant introduced a new complaint about the search of 25   July 2005. He considered that it had been disproportionate, as there had been no resistance on his behalf. In his further correspondence the applicant claimed that the investigation into his complaints was faulty. The medical personnel had not been available after the search. 40.     On 24 January 2008 the applicant complained under Article 3 about the events of 3 January 2008 and their investigation, the medical treatment and the conditions of detention in Pārlielupe prison following these events. He alleged that he was not transferred to the prisons' hospital in Olaine in due time. He also alleged that his complaint to MADEKKI had not been forwarded. 41.     The applicant introduced further complaints about various State authorities, including all prison authorities, the prosecutor's office and the domestic courts. In particular, he was dissatisfied with the prison regime and alleged oppressions against him in all prisons, where he had been held. THE LAW A.     Complaints concerning the alleged ill-treatments on 25 July 2005 and 3 January 2008 and their investigation; the medical treatment afforded to the applicant and the conditions of detention in the Pārlielupe prison's medical unit 42.     The applicant complained that excessive force was used during the search of 25 July 2005 in Valmiera prison and that he had been ill-treated on 3   January 2008 in Pārlielupe prison. He further complained about the investigation carried out into these events. He also complained about the medical treatment and the conditions of detention in the medical unit of Pārlielupe prison from 3   January 2008 to 16 January 2008, when he was transferred to the prison hospital in Olaine. 43.     The Court will examine these complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 44.     The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the applicant's complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. B.     Other complaints 45.     The applicant further complained under different Articles of the Convention about numerous violations of his rights. 46.     However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged ill-treatments on 25   July 2005 and 3 January 2008 and their investigation, the medical treatment and the conditions of detention in the Pārlielupe prison's medical unit; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Josep Casadevall Deputy Registrar President